The Evergreen Freedom Foundation has released their report card on Washington state's public elementary schools. I may make comments on the report card in a later post, but for today I thought I would just put up the link.
Note that you can download the whole report, or just look at the results for individual schools.
Posted by Jim Miller at May 08, 2009 01:49 PM | Email ThisA good observation, which means we should CONTINUE the taxation policies of George W. Bush since they proved to move income from the highest bracket to the lower brackets. In 2006, the top 20% earned less income - as a percentage of total income - than they did in 2000. And the lowest 80% - all four quintiles - earned more income as a percentage of total income in 2006 than they did in 2000.
So, since you see that correlation, I assume you'll support taxation policies that increase the income of those considered by the Left "disadvantaged"? I mean, it's for the children!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 8, 2009 05:23 PMGuess I just don't follow your logic. I don't think tax policy is somehow going to make better students out of the kids in the underperforming schools here. Just like I don't think throwing more money at a school will equalize the test scores either.
About 15 years ago Stuart Sloan sponsored a project to properly fund TT Minor elementary in Seattle. And you can see by their current scores, it has not meant better overall test performance.
Sure, adequate funding is important, and critical if we're going to give all our kids an equal shot in elementary school. But the bottom line is not the quality of the school, it's the quality of the student. If the student is smart, motivated, well nourished, and socially adept, they will do well no matter what school they attend. If they are none of the above, they're going to have a tough time regardless.
So let's talk about giving everyone an even playing field and leave the tax policy issues to other posts.
You're the one that said there was a correlation between income and performance. There is a VERY strong correlation between taxation policy and income! Thus one way to influence performance in school would be to use tax policy to increase the income of everyone.
Or is that too hard of a logical chain to follow?
You made the correlation, I was just pointing out how to use your correlation. Increase income! And that was well-accomplished by the Bush tax cuts.
And when it comes to funding, how much is enough? Can you give us a number that - if we spent that much per child - would guarantee success?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 8, 2009 06:04 PMI think you are jumping to conclusions here. Correlation is not necessarily causation. My comment was intended to provoke thought on why the children of higher income districts would be better performing students.
Ignoring the fact that the Bush years and his tax policy did very little to increase incomes for the lower quintiles, your position that we can increase test performance tax policy is patently absurd.
Students, and their parents, are going to have to take a large part of the responsibility on themselves for their performance. Government's role, i.e.: the school district, to provide a level playing field. Schools in low income neighborhoods should be adequately funded just like the ones in my neighborhood.
No?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 8, 2009 06:26 PMI'm not sure what district you live in or what schools you looked at, but in my relatively prosperous district (Northshore), we are not adequately funded. You are perfectly welcome to blame the teachers, school boards, & political correctness for underperformance, but that isn't the case in my district.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 8, 2009 08:48 PMHow could you possibly dislike the way public school is being taught - in general ? They are indoctrinating children with revisionist history, painting those of conservative views as lesser noble than those of liberal persuasion to distort and also being negligent in teaching math and science, among other things such as; propping up the gay lifestyle agenda for 5 year olds on up. That is all a part of the WEA/NEA game it plays as an appendage of the Democratic Party, trying to nurture its students into Democrats of the future with their propaganda that will be tested big time by the global economy. No wonder our country's academic standards are worse than ever before, but hey - you must be proud because the end justifies the means in your book(s).
Maybe I was a little harsh, but there's other trolls on this blog who might see a different viewpoint that they have difficulty refuting or like so many others - those of you who just don't care - so pat yourselves on the back, while the future of this country goes down the toilet.
Posted by: KDS on May 8, 2009 11:07 PMI think you are jumping to conclusions here. Correlation is not necessarily causation. My comment was intended to provoke thought on why the children of higher income districts would be better performing students.
OK, so correlation in the case of income and performance is basis for causation, but not correlation for tax policy and income?
The ONLY correlation made in this thread was by you regarding income and performance. If it's not causation, then why even talk about income and expenditures? It kind of defeats your entire argument.
If you posit that there is a correlation and causation between income and scholastic performance, then it makes complete sense to address income any way we can. Which includes tax policy to increase income significantly.
Unless you choose to state there is not causation between income and scholastic performance in which case I must ask "why the heck did you even bring it up?"
Students, and their parents, are going to have to take a large part of the responsibility on themselves for their performance. Government's role, i.e.: the school district, to provide a level playing field. Schools in low income neighborhoods should be adequately funded just like the ones in my neighborhood.
Define "adequately funded" since you're now suggesting that income is NOT causation for better scholastic performance. So how about a number? How much is enough?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 9, 2009 03:20 AMYou say "If you posit that there is a correlation and causation between income and scholastic performance, then it makes complete sense to address income any way we can."
The only sense that I can make of it is that you want to talk about tax policy rather than school performance. It strikes me a unusual that you would be espousing what sounds like wealth transfer from upper to lower income brackets. Am I misreading that?
As for adequate funding, I'd define it funding to hire enough teachers to maintain class size at 25 students or less. Funding to provide the teacher salary increases as mandated by a recently passed initiative. Funding to allow the continuation of after school activities such a sports, band, etc.
How about you, how would you define it?
You say "They are indoctrinating children with revisionist history, painting those of conservative views as lesser noble than those of liberal persuasion to distort and also being negligent in teaching math and science, among other things such as; propping up the gay lifestyle agenda for 5 year olds on up."
I'm not aware of any of those things happening in my district. Perhaps if you could cite some examples of when and where those occurred at Northshore, we could discuss it.
Two conclusions come to mind:
1) It's obvious that some people will not be motivated no matter what we do. Why continue to dump millions of taxpayer dollars in to failed schools and constructivist curricula that empower unions and school board bureaucracies, when in their isolated state, these schools will continue to fail? Far better to just shut down the crappy schools, especially the ones where the state spent hundreds of millions to renovate buildings and build state of the art facilities that still don't get used to their full potential by culturally deficient populations that simply don't value education. A better idea is to spend the money on the schools that do work, and allow those who have a modicum of responsibility and motivation left, to come to the schools where parents are highly motivated, stay on top of administrators and curricula, and for the most part assure that students are not allowed to fail or to go down the wrong path. Similarly, why not go in to the successful schools and figure out what they are doing right? DUH. It's not just because they have money that they succeed, it's because of the habits, curricula, teachers and the consistent application of successful principals. History is replete with people who had money, but who didn't not keep it because they did not continue successful principals. So why do we foster those failed principals and pretend that the failing schools will ever succeed? I don't know, go ask a Seattle Public School board member? Even a Progressive like Goldy tried reasoning with the SPS board regarding the Graham Hill School, and eventually gave up. Some people are so indoctrinated with this crap, that they won't change, no matter how much you show them that their methods don't work.
So,
2) Get Progressive victim ideology out of our schools and out of our lives. It doesn't do a bit of good for well intentioned SPS board members and other inner city administrators to coddle students with fancy buildings, lots of reassurances, doublespeak on diversity and affirmation, nods to affirmative action and constructivist curricula. All of these processes are upside down, and that's the problem with collectivist philosophy in general.
The well intentioned top down mindset of the unions and administrators are not really even well intentioned. The whole philosophy is to save the group at the expense of the individual. We see this in Obama's recent acquiescence to boards in DC that want to kill the voucher program there. They'd rather have their top down bureaucratic and union control along with the big taxpayer dollars to enforce a "desirable" outcome on the collective. They should realize that by offering an inspirational program of vouchers and possible success, some motivated students with focused, driven families will take advantage of the best route for them out of poverty and the ghetto mindset which is the same mindset that keeps the low schools in the EFF study down. The reality and the Achilles Heel of collectivism, is that humans are not motivated as groups, we are motivated as individuals. That's why incentive continually motivates humans the best, because incentive appeals to the individual psyche and will. If you try to motivate the group, it usually ends up punishing the whole group, or some of the group, which leads to frustration and apathy. This is a fundamental fact of human nature. Fight it like gravity, but that doesn't mean that it's going to stop pulling down.
The system should be flipped over so that the individual students are the highest value, where teachers are given the leeway, and stripped of union seniority and collective control and instead encouraged to compete for the best results. It already works that way in all of the districts that Witz notes are successful. People who are successful demand, like I do, that the district stay out of our schools as much as possible and let our good teachers teach, and teach what they know works. And the district complies, because were it not for the good schools that pull their results up, they'd really be screwed when it came to assessments of their methods. It would be far more useful if teachers got a much bigger slice of the pie by cutting out all of the union and government administrators with their high salaries and instead simply applying the money where the rubber meets the road.
This is how it works in the private sector at say Microsoft. There is vigorous competition for jobs, and those who get in are well paid. Companies pay executives well, but most companies manage those expenses appropriately and realize that they can't get to bloated with overhead, because then they won't make their bottom line balance. At SPS, administrators get high pay, even as the schools continue to decline, and their only recourse is higher and higher taxation. And even Progressives like Goldy flee with their kids to the better performing districts like those on Mercer Island.
As much as you lefties hope that it isn't so, the world is still ruled by results. Smart people go where the results are best, and dumb people don't. You're not going to make dumb people improve their lot by simply handing them cash and indoctrinating curricula. All you're going to do is assure a steady stream of future voters to retain your control? Is that you goal? Or do you want to see more kids succeed for the betterment of the country? If so, join us in getting rid of bureaucracy, unions, and demanding personal responsibility, community involvement and accountability in order for any given school to remain open.
Or at the very least, allow auditors to go in to successful schools and figure out what works, and force currently failing groups like the SPS board to implement those successes.
People like Witz love to complain that the rich are rich and that they ought to share their monetary wealth and be happy to pay 95% of the taxes. But we seldom hear calls for the rich to share the motivational habits and hard work that allowed them to become rich in the first place. It's easy for Democrats to sell instant gratification in our Hollywood TV culture. But in the real world, it's still hard work and consistent application of effective principals over a long period of time, that get results.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 9, 2009 10:55 AMNicely said!
Posted by: Fed Up on May 9, 2009 11:55 AMIf performance is tied to economics and funding then to discuss scholastic performance without considering taxation policy is unwise, at best.
How would I define adequately funded? I'd say eliminate all public funding of all schools, and return those funds to the parents. Then let them use private schools as needed, since they have a proven track record of providing a higher quality education at lower cost.
Let the results speak about class size, teacher pay, and the like. If a school doesn't perform, then the students will go elsewhere, as will the dollars. Which means that the free market (yes, that evil thing!) will naturally dictate better performing schools will earn more money, meaning better pay.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 9, 2009 06:09 PMIt hardly surprises me that you would advocate complete privatization of primary education. My problem with that strategy is twofold:
First, we've had mandatory public education in this country for many, many years. It's served us well and coincides with our nation becoming the most politically and technologically advanced nation in history. We've also developed and deployed the most powerful military organization in human history.
Are you sure you want to mess around with that success by implementing extreme changes in our primary and secondary education policy??
Secondly, it sounds an awful lot like you are advocating the handing tax dollars over to parents who have consistently made very bad choices in both personal lifestyle and educational opportunities for their children.
Two questions:
Will this policy promote the best outcome for those children?
Are you willing to spend the public tax dollars down the road when we are confronted with a generation of young adults who are now wildly unprepared to become a part of our economy?
Two more comments:
Thanks for returning to the topic at hand.
I hope you got outdoors to enjoy the best day of weather we've had so far this year.
What I was amazed at was that North Bellingham received a better ranking than the other 8 elem. schools...despite the fact that North Bellingham has been shut down for over a year.
Posted by: Uncle Fred on May 9, 2009 08:36 PM#14 - Even if you were aware of it, I doubt that you would ever admit it. I have heard that kind of line from leftist ideologues before. My gut feeling is that you really don't want any kind of change from what I described, in other words the truth doesn't matter. What really matters is if the progressive left can maintain their stranglehold on power for the future. If you are looking for examples, there are plenty on other sources for you to Google and ready. I believe that Northshore is in the top 25% of school districts in this state.
Posted by: KDS on May 9, 2009 09:47 PMAgain, if you can cite some specific examples, perhaps we can have an intelligent discussion.
Please let me know when and where these outrages occurred.
If you'd like to refute the points I have made with substantive examples, I will engage in a rebuttal If not, so be it and will let others decide for themselves. Nothing personal.
Posted by: KDS on May 9, 2009 11:04 PMThanks, I went out and enjoyed a 50 mile ride this afternoon. It was gorgeous. Hope you got out too.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 10, 2009 12:17 AMIt simply means ending tax supported public schools and the taxes collected to support them.
Parents can then simply take that portion of their annual property tax bill devoted to education (a significant proportion) for example and apply that toward private school tuition and fees.
I'd expect that, with vastly greater competition, the typical annual private school tuition cost of say $8+k each year for K-12 might drop significantly, right? Or not.
Let's say it doesn't. Run the math yourself if you're a parent - 13 years in school x $8k = $104k per child. (ignore inflation)
But, balance that against a lifetime of reduced property taxes let's say $3k a year for 50 years. (ignore inflation).
That's a for sure savings of over $40k.
Trick is to have only one child of course, or none.
Posted by: BA on May 10, 2009 09:33 PMUntil the feds and states loosen their regulations, schools will continue to have to have a gob of support staff just answereing to the feds and states.
Teachers wages are nice but not too much higher than they need to be. Of course, my bros and siss still whine about their 80-100k salaries (including bennies).
However, my point I wanted to add and a big reason I am against the 50% majority vote on mom and apple pie issues like libraries, schools, etc. is that only 1/2 the people paying taxes on those benefit directly. Therefore, the proponents (i.e. moms and pops, granddads and moms and teachers) are more motivated to vote and therefore skey the system. It is this reason I suppose the supermajority (though I'll live with a simple majority if the vote is in the general).
So, at supply and demand aside, it will be hard to make up the 50% reduction in taxes (or is it more like 80%) under your scenario.
Posted by: swatter on May 11, 2009 10:38 AMInteresting proposal.
Any thoughts on what we might do with the vast number of children whose parents simply can't pay the $8k per child per year? Particularly those who get no property tax relief because they don't own property.
I am assuming you have no children of your own, or you would realize the absurdity of your proposal.
many voters pay no direct property taxes and could care less about taxing the remainders who could LOSE their hard-earned school-supporting properties in an unlikely "tax revolt;"
sure--we all love any govt "cheese handout"--that is--until it hits our OWN wallet;
ain't about the money-it's about the system; i attended private schools (parental sacrifices) w/ 30+ kids every class, good disclipline and effective learning, all run on a shoestring w/ no excuses or govt aid;
it CAN be done; we now simply accept mediocracy as the norm and ask nothing of our better selves;
