Local schools excel

The following guest editorial was passed on to me either in a Washington D.C. parking garage or at a rodeo in Texas; I don’t recall for sure. My correspondent, who referred to herself as “Ms. Ditto” claims to teach at a secondary school “somewhere in the Midwest” and must keep her identity confidential for professional reasons. I never got a good look at her because she had positioned herself* directly below and in front of a bright spotlight or the sun – I don’t recall which – so I can’t be certain that this document was given me by a woman nor by a teacher. Nevertheless, I believe it to be valid within the boundaries of the Dan Rather concept of journalism.

Oh. My. God.
One of the newspapers in the teachers’ lounge this morning was open to a story headlined “Davenport schools lauded for program” The headline was about 72 point type, so I knew it must be big news. As I reached for the paper, I wondered excitedly what achievement this might be. A new college prep program? More parental involvement with schools? Maybe something for sports, where the Davenport schools consistently finish at the bottom of the standings despite being much larger than their competition? Something innovative in the area of vocational training? Or, dare I hope – a new pilot program to improve students’ respect for the learning process?

Nope. Davenport schools have been recognized as having the best recycling program in Iowa. No, let me rephrase that. “Excitement shouldn’t be too hard to come by in a district known as having the “Best School Recycling Program” in Iowa.”

Okay, be still, my pounding heart. Davenport schools have a 22% dropout rate, but they have the best recycling program in the state.

At one high school, only fifteen percent of the less than half the graduating class that took the SAT test are considered proficient for college success in all academic areas, but they can sure collect cans and scrap paper. Come to think of it, that may be a necessary occupational skill.

Here are some of the highlights from the Quad City Times article:
If anyone wants some advice how to save the world — or at least Scott County — just ask the Davenport Community School District.

The district’s five-year plan includes diverting almost 3 million pounds of materials from the landfill, saving about $35,000 in the process. All it takes are some classroom recycling bins, a can baler and lots of enthusiasm from Davenport students and staff.
$35,000 in five years is about seven one thousandths of one percent of Davenport’s $100 million annual budget. But, the county landfill saved some space too.
Amber [redacted], an eighth-grader who has been on the team since sixth grade, was pleased to find out about the award.

“There are a lot of schools in Iowa, so I was excited that we got such a great honor,” Amber said. “It’s a great way to help the environment, and it doesn’t take that much time really.”

Translation: “We got a day out of school to go to this awards thing without really having to do anything. Cool!”
Although the trophy is in place, the district has high expectations for the schools next year. The Williams [middle school] Recycling Team just completed a PowerPoint program presentation on recycling to take to all the elementary schools to encourage recycling at a younger age.
Hopefully, the presentation goes easy on printed words and numbers, since the elementary students’ reading skills seem to be on the decline and we want them to grasp the full importance of recycling.

Don’t get me wrong, I think recycling is a good thing, and I’m a big believer in helping the children relate their classroom lessons to the real world. I’m just darn sick and tired of getting students into my classes who can’t read, can’t write – and don’t get me started on fractions – and can’t stay in their seats and pay attention for ten minutes. Shouldn’t academic skills and learning how to learn come ahead of special projects? Before they can save the world, they need to learn a few all-purpose skills.

I asked Ms. Ditto if she might have more information for me in the future. She said to watch the balcony of her apartment, and if the flower pot is on the right side, instead of the left, I should meet her in the parking garage, or at the rodeo.

* To be properly gender-non specific, in accordance with modern practice, I guess that line should be written as ‘I never got a good look at them because they had positioned themselves directly below and in front of a bright spotlight or the sun…

Mourning Period Over

Well, the depressing, discouraging and, in terms of national security, disastrous national election is now history and it is time to get back to work. The Left feels newly empowered and has more plans, programs and schemes than you can imagine. They are free to engage in the age-old political winners’ tradition of punishing enemies and rewarding friends. The number of proposals to do so is like a clogged sewer line ready to discharge its smelly contents in a raging torrent when the last obstacle is cleared. We losers must become vigilant again and try to minimize the damage that they will do.

In Iowa, the governorship and both houses of the legislature are now in Democrat hands. One of their top priorities will be to reward the loyalty of the public service unions, in particular the National Education Association. This will be sold as “education reform” but make no mistake, the goal of any such reform will be to increase the number of dues-paying members of the NEA/ISEA. This is the driving force behind the universal pre-school proposal – to hire more public school pre-kindergarten teachers. Never mind whether it helps children learn. If it costs additional money that proves we’re doing something, right?

Now comes an outfit calling itself the Iowa Fiscal Partnership, a left-wing think tank affiliated with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, among others. They issued a report yesterday purporting to establish a causal connection between the rate of increase in education expenditures and the rate of increase in students’ test scores. Specifically, Iowa is increasing spending at a slower rate than the rest of the country, and showing less improvement in test scores. Therefore, they say, Iowa needs to spend more money.

It doesn’t sound unreasonable that there may be a relationship between monetary inputs and quality product outputs, but I’m a little skeptical of claims that increasing inputs will automatically improve output. Looking at the IFP report and the numbers they provided doesn’t satisfy my qualms.

The basic argument is that during the time period from 1992/3 to 2004/5, the US as a whole increased per-pupil expenditures from $5421 to $8618, while Iowa only increased its spending from $5096 to $7477. I calculate the US spent 59 percent more in 2004/5, while Iowa increased its spending by only 46 percent. In return for this additional money, the US average forth grade reading scores went from 27 percent proficiency to 30 percent on the NAEP test. This tells me that for a 59 percent increase in input, the nation achieved a three point improvement in output. That doesn’t sound very efficient to me. Eighth grade math students did achieve a nice little eight point pickup nationally, which is close to a decent improvement for the added input. For reasons not disclosed, fourth grade math students and eighth grade readers were not discussed.

Iowa students - and this is the point of the report - showed less improvement for their 46 percent educational spending increase. The corresponding NAEP test results show a three percent pickup in eighth grade math and an actual THREE POINT DECLINE in fourth grade reading scores. The Iowa Fiscal Partnership suggests that enough additional money would turn that three percent decline into a three percent increase and things would be great.

How much money would be enough?
To have increased Iowa per pupil expenditure by 59% rather than 46 % would have required spending $8102 rather than $7477 in 2004/5, or about $300 million more statewide.

Would this have resulted in students learning any more? I don’t know, and neither does the IFP. My modest suggestion to the legislature would be that rather than just throwing money against the wall in the hope that some of it sticks, any new spending program should spell out:

1. What gains are expected
2. How those gains will be measured
3. That the program will be terminated if it fails to meet expectations

Don’t expect the legislative majority to buy into my idea, but according to my morning fishwrap, which put me on to the IFP study,

A top Republican on education issues, Sen. Paul McKinley of Chariton, said the report can be added to a shelf full of studies that place too much emphasis on the importance of school funding and not enough on the way schools are run.

“We just have to learn how to spend the money more wisely,” he said.

Amen.

Predictions

Hey, everyone else is doing it, so I'll break my lengthy blog-silence by issuing a few random predictions in tomorrow's election.

Let's start with the race for governor here in Iowa. Let me preface this by saying that eight years ago, I boldly let it be known amongst my law school pals that I didn't think there was anyway for Jim Ross Lightfoot to fail to win a trip to Terrace Hill.

Ha ha. The joke was on me. Jim Ross collapsed spectacularly in the final weeks. And the rest is, as they say, history. Tom Vilsack spent a comfy eight years rambling about the halls of the Capitol

So, this year, even though I find Chet Culver to be an empty suit, I will not bet against him. Culver wins, probably by about 5 percentage points.

Note to GOP primary voters: don't put your chips on U.S. House Reps in gubernatorial campaigns. The high name recognition amongst political insiders doesn't transfer to the general population outside of a handful of counties that the candidate has been representing in D.C. The mile long voting record kills you, paticularly with regard to the mega-sized omnibus bills that contain all sorts of nuggets to be used against you (i.e. the ads Culver is running that talk about Nussle voting against funding troops in Iraq even though Nussle is a far bigger supporter of the military, I suspect, than Culver). And, having served in D.C. seems to convey a false sense of security in your own ability to win elections.

In Iowa's Congressional Delegation, I think it looks pretty easy to call. Braley thumps Whalen. Leach clears the bar by a point or two. Boswell closes out another election by five. Latham goes back fairly easily. And King will win by twenty points, with Sioux County delivering about half the margin.


Nationally, I think that the GOP holds the U.S. Senate. I think that Virginia, Missouri, and Tennessee stay in the GOP fold. I'd love to tell you that Steele or Keane will pull it out, but I just don't see it happening. Montana breaks late for Burns. Rhode Island and Pennsylvania are gone. The loss of Lincoln Chafee doesn't affect us much than in leadership voting as he regularly votes against conservatives on everything from foreign policy to taxes to judges. I'll shed no tears. The loss of Santorum hurts. I don't agree with him all the time, and I wouldn't want 100 of him there, or even 90, but I was always darn glad that there was one. Ohio isn't even worth talking about as years of mushy center to center-left policies combined with massive corruption have so thoroughly eaten out the foundation of the state GOP as to require that the operation be torn down and rebuilt from scratch.

The U.S. House is a tougher nut to crack. I've seen a lot of smart people say that it's a wipe-out for the GOP. I've also seen a lot of smart people say that the GOP will, barely, hold on. I'd like to tell you that I see my guys hanging on, but I'm just not sure that I see it happening. The numbers are just too hard in too many places. So, I'll make the call that the GOP loses the house by with a final tally of about 215 seats for the GOP and 220 for the Democrats. A painful loss, to be sure. Yet, minority status also has the potential to sharpen the remaining wits.

Now for a parting thought.

I find it interesting that, generally speaking, the more moderate members of the GOP caucus are the ones most endangered this election. All those moderate votes were suppose to give them cover and insulate them from attack. How's that working out? Not well. I suppose that one could say the reason they vote moderate is because they're electorate is moderate, hence, the electorate in those districts is more likely to flip sides. That thought has merit, but I don't think it tells the whole tale. In a world of national media and those jumbo omnibus bills I mentioned earlier, I suspect that moderating simply alienates your base, while simultaneously failing to protect you from your opposition.