Thanks for the great plug, Brian! I wasn't expecting that. Add our own ML Peterson to my list of wonderful speakers. We're expecting even more...

Here's an excerpt from a great editorial in the San Jose Mercury News on Schwarzenegger's Committee on Education Excellence. It recently released a 300-page report on how to improve the state's education system.

" ... The committee was led by Ted Mitchell, a State Board of Education member and former University of California-Los Angeles education dean, and former Democratic state Sen. Dede Alpert. It worked two years, backed by foundation-funded research, to come up with some bold ideas to turn the schools around.

The degree of consensus was surprising, even though members ranged from conservative Hoover Institution economist Eric Hanushek to ACLU legal director Mark Rosenbaum. All agreed that more money was needed but must be tied to reforms, including new ways to train, evaluate and pay teachers and administrators; a new
evaluation system that rewards as well as sanctions schools; more extensive data on student performance, and more district control over school management and spending.

Schwarzenegger's dilemma is obvious. He's demanding $4.8 billion in budget cuts when the committee is estimating it would cost $10.5 billion more - a 20 percent increase in education spending - to enact reforms statewide. That would include $5 billion for poor and English learning children, $3 billion for additional training and performance-based pay for teachers, and $800 million to expand preschool. ..."

Education is truly our greatest resource. The availability of public education is a right.

It is troublesome that those in charge of the budget are off by $15 billion. They must have very differing approaches to safely and effectively educating the States children.

One must take into consideration the long term consequences of these budget cuts. How will it affect other State programs? How will it affect our judicial system, our ability to staff our military, our ability to collect taxes?

The budget cuts the governor is suggesting is an attack on our State's infrastructure and it puts children's lives in danger. It must be stopped at all costs.

New poll today shows a majority of voters in California want revenue increases and cuts to balance the state budget and that number has grown over the past few weeks.

Marie,

Are there any Republican leaders that you agree with on educational funding or reforms?

Marie,

Do you think the budget should be fixed by raising taxes alone?

Hi Brian,

I've blogged about this pretty exhaustively on another thread, the 130-plus comment Strickland entry. But I'll repeat myself here, since you asked. I find a lot of wisdom in independent analyst Elizabeth Hill's alternative proposal. It calls for compromise -- both cuts and rolling back tax credits.

A survey from the Public Policy Institute, released today, shows that the majority of Californians favor a mix of both tax increases and cuts.

That's my head talking. I'm a reasonable human and am fully cognizant of the politics at play and the terrible budget mess we're in.

But my heart would like to give the schools every bit of the $10.5 billion that the Committee on Education Excellence calls for.

Marie:

On your blog on education you state that personal incomes have gone up, so you're implying the capacity is there for higher taxes.

If incomes drop, as it most likely will do this year, does that mean we should get tax cuts?

Also PPIC said a large majority of Californians opposed solving the problem through mostly tax increases. Do you really think Democrats will move forward with tax increases as the solution to what is largely a spending problem? State tax revenue has gone up every year.

Scott, I have the Public Policy Institute poll numbers right here:

Survey question to likely voters:
"How would you prefer to deal with the state's budget gap?�
Mostly through spending cuts 32%
Mostly through tax increases 9%
Through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases 47%
Okay for the state to borrow money and run a budget deficit 5%
Other 3%
Don’t know 4%

So 56% of the likely voters surveyed either wanted to just raise taxes or wanted a combination of cuts and tax increases, compared to 32% who just wanted cuts. Clearly the public is warming to the idea that in order to preserve education funding, taxes could be raised.

The combination approach seems the fairest to me and that is what Elizabeth Hill is advocating. Her approach selects tax credits or exemptions for reduction or elimination because they are not achieving their stated purposes or are of lower priority. Her plan makes no broad-based tax rate increases.

I realize it would be political suicide for those Republicans who signed Grover Norquist's "No Tax Pledge" to go back on it and vote to eliminate a few tax credits. But you have to wonder why they have more allegiances to Norquist and other special interests than they do to our children.

I don't recall having anything written by me on my site about personal incomes having gone up. Not sure what you're referring to there.

I read the poll, which is interesting because 91% oppose solving the problem through mostly tax increases. There is a lot of gray area in the poll question, but the most certain answer is 91% oppose solving the problem through mostly tax increases.

When you were pushing the less certain answers why didn't you bring up that strong opposition to tax increases?

From your site, you said under "Rally for Our Children" regarding per pupil funding, "This is all despite the fact that California has a relatively high capacity to fund its schools, as measured by per capita personal income."

Doesn't this mean you would support larger increases in taxes on personal income?

Did you write this or do you have multiple writers on your site writing for you? I left a link to your site for your review.

Since you support Elizabeth Hill's plan, she argues to remove the R & D credit. Do you think Northern-based Democrats will support removing those credits from Silicon Valley?

Marie:

Do you support elimination of the state's home mortgage interest deduction?

How many have polled in favor of doing NOTHING to fix the State's budget problems?

So I guess the answer would be to do SOMETHING and the only options right now are to make cuts, raise revenues or apply a combination of both. My guess is its the latter option that's most palatable to the most voters so we're really just talking what sort of formula we need to use. I'm also guessing the most popular solution would include a review of all tax credits and modifying them one by one. I'd be in favor of reinstating the auto registration fees, that populist red herring that Schwarzenoggin used to become governator and which caused an immediate $4B deficit (And since it WASNT state revenues being collected but was owed directly the counties, with the state acting as collector, every county suffered a revenue loss overnite. Now Schwarzenoggin is holding out those same $4B as enticements, to those same counties he stole it from, to do his political bidding.) Reinstitute the auto registration fees and the budget problems are solved in 3 years.

I wrote that California has a relatively high capacity to fund its schools, as
measured by per capita personal income. We are the eighth largest economy in the world. This is a fact. We have the capacity to do better by our kids. But I didn't take the argument any further than that.

Another fact: 56 percent of those polled favor a tax increase of some kind. Of those, 47 percent want tax increases and cuts. I fall into that latter category. Polling I have seen for other tax measures always comes up this way. One-third of the folks will not stand for tax increases. In a 2/3 passage situation, these voices generally win, even though they are in the minority.

I am sure the Democrats have some sacred cows among the tax credit rollbacks, too. One would be the tax-free status on leases of master recording tapes by musicians or others who control recording rights. This costs the state $65 million a year.

I do believe I'm in the majority on one other issue: I would like to see this partisan bickering end. Both sides need to compromise and they need to do it quickly. I don't want this budget battle drawn out so far that state business grinds to a halt in late summer.

And I will continue to be a strong voice for our children's interests.

One other thing of note, especially for you, Brian. Save Our Schools is partnering with YouthNoise on the rally. They are sponsoring a Right to Learn campaign and are calling for rallies across the state on high school campuses on the very same day we scheduled ours.

http://www.youthnoise.com/rtl2/

YN is a social networking site for people under the age of 27 who like to connect based on deeper interests than Paris Hilton's wardrobe and want to get engaged within a cause. It's a way to get young people involved and I support them.

We've added some other speakers to our lineup and are still waiting to hear from a biggie. Stay tuned.

If there is a majority who support tax increases, as you claim, why aren't people like you who care about kids pushing an initiative?

In 2006, people like you pushed a parcel tax to fund education and it got 23% of the vote.

If you believe voters are ready for tax increases why not push initiatives such as this one?

GS:

I think the car tax repercussions speak for themselves. I remember my brother-in-law having to choose which car to renew first because of Gray Davis's car tax. I don't think your recommendation of making the car registration between a 300-600 expense on working families trying to get to work is realistic.

"People like you" ??

Are you referring to parents? There are a lot of us. I can't think of one right now who wants to see K-3 class-size reduction dismantled, yet that is what will be happening under the governor's proposed budget. How do you feel about that Scott? How do you feel about teachers losing their jobs? How do you feel about no equipment purchases, reduced bus services, preschool programs cut, counseling programs cut, athletic programs cut ... I could go on and on.

Is that what you want? Tell me, how will that benefit our economy, our future?

You keep trying to assign positions to me that I am not prepared to take. I'm not asking for a parcel tax, nor a broad-based tax increase of any kind.

I think the non-partisan independent analyst's alternative budget is a good one and that's what I would advocate for. She is merely limiting certain tax credits or exemptions because they are not achieving their stated purposes or are of lower priority. That's it!

She is even giving a better deal to property insurance policyholders than the one Schwarzenegger proposed!

Is it possible we could all do our part to balance the budget and not balance it entirely on the backs of our children, the elderly and the poor?

How much money is enough for you Scott? When you die you will have no need for it, and those who we deprived of a good education will be in charge of the world.

Marie:

How much money is enough for me? I think we should ask the same question of our state government. Revenues continue to go up, yet we still find ourselves in a deficit. Why?

What about the taxpayers kids? Do they count? I'm currently trying to save for two college educations and the government is balancing the budget on my family's back while asking for more because they never set aside a reserve for a rainy day.

Why should we reward spending irresponsibility with more of our money?

I say enough is enough.

Marie:

Why doesn't your rally for the kids group put forth a property tax increase to fund the shortages you are speaking of at the local level?

Couldn't you get per pupil funding for Ventura to Washington DC per pupil levels faster with little reliance on the state?

Sorry, Scott, but I'm betting the special interest tax credits or exemptions Hill is asking to limit -- not cut off -- will not affect your own family's budget too dramatically. The only thing that will affect our own family is a reduction in the dependent tax credit. It is not going to break any family's budget.

Here are the highlights of the LAO's alternative budget:

A Balanced Budget Through 2012‑13

· Provides reserve of $1.3 billion at the end of 2008‑09, about $150 million more than our forecast of the Governor’s budget reserve.

· Keeps budget balanced—though precariously—through our five-year forecast period. Small operating shortfalls in some years are covered by carry-in reserves.

Targeted Program Reductions

· In contrast to an across-the-board approach, makes targeted program reductions. To the extent possible, maintains core services at their current spending levels.

· Eliminates or modifies ineffective or nonessential programs.

· Considers availability of other fund sources in order to maintain service levels.

Rethink Which Programs Are Operated or Funded by the State

· Shifts programs to the local level when it makes programmatic sense.

· Reduces or eliminates program funding for programs that are primarily local government responsibilities.

A Better Proposition 98 Approach

· Reduces current-year funding to the minimum guarantee to maximize budget-year flexibility but not impact school operations in 2007‑08.

· Suspends the guarantee by $800 million, compared to a $4 billion
suspension by the Governor. The suspension is only required because of added revenues as part of our overall solution.

Add Revenues in a Reasonable Manner

· Selects tax credits or exemptions for reduction or elimination because they are not achieving their stated purposes or are of lower priority.

· Makes no broad-based tax rate increases.

· Does not include the administration’s problematic $2 billion revenue accrual.

No Additional Borrowing or Debt

· Does not add any new borrowing or debt to the state’s credit card.
However, we do restructure some repayments of existing debt.

Marie:

I guess my question with this plan is why are we funding things that are classified as "ineffective" in the first place? Why does it take a budget crisis to eliminate funding for programs that don't work or does not meet their original goal?

If it doesn't work, we should get rid of it right away.

What does the continual funding of ineffective programs really say about the Legislature's priorities toward education?

I also think we should look a lot closer at implementing the recommendations from the California Performance Review.

In volume 4, it says if implemented, it could save the state over $32 billion over the next 5 years.

We don't have to be in a budget crisis every 3-5 years. We could be saving billions yearly, but no one seems to want to do the heavy lifting necessary to give us an efficient California government we deserve.

The Legislature is content on pushing a higher tax agenda, instead of looking at the money they are receiving and maximizing it.

I just spent some time looking through the Review as it applied to K-12 education. Interesting. You and I may not agree on tax policy, but we are both hopeless wonks.

I like some of those recommendations very much, especially the one for changing the kindergarten enrollment date. It also recommended abolishing the County Supt. of Schools offices and the County School Boards. Also interesting.

The only one that seemed sort of silly was the electronic textbook recommendation. That would require such an outlay of capital to upgrade and add technology to the schools that it would negate any savings in textbooks.

I've argued with others on this blog about why we have and why we need a county board of education. The level of duplication of 58 county boards with what is going on at the local districts should be evaluated and reformed. Conservatively speaking, Eliminating half the administrative costs alone from these boards would mean more money in the classroom and teachers.

The electronic textbook question may or may not be a good one. I'd have to do more evaluation. I think the major point from the report is to do a one year capital outlay and realize the savings over a five year period.

The challenge with going electronic or IT (public or private), is the expenses often balloon in the IT maintenance, so it's more a cost shift not a net savings.

There needs to be serious reform brought to the credentialing system only touched on a little bit in the recommendations.

Students should also be able to test out of their grade early and take it to the next level or beyond if they are qualified. This would efficiently move students through the system based on their skills and competencies by eliminating the artificial barrier of a grade by grade system.

I also would not oppose using funds differently to start addressing the stagnant graduation rate. Find the at-risk students and begin paying them directly for school performance. This is somewhat like what is being hatched by Bloomberg.

These are just some of the education reforms. The area that needs a lot of work appears to be the state's general services.

Yes, I do not agree with any tax increase proposal. I would even support tax cuts because it would spur the government to fix what it is doing and realize the costs savings necessary.

I think we have one of the highest tax burdens in the country right now and the overall performance is a lot less than other states.

So the question is, would you pay for a Filet Mignon prices for restructured steak?

Another interesting series of proposals. Teachers tell me that they wish they had more local control and that the only good reform that has come out of Sacramento is class-size reduction.

The testing ahead idea is good in theory. Some of the GATE parents might really welcome this. But it would not be practical in K-3 where they have mandated 20-student caps on classrooms. If a child tested out mid-year in second grade, they might not be able to put him in a third-grade class if all were maxed out at 20. They could rearrange and do combo classes, but this is really traumatic to the kids. It's been my experience that kids often want to stay in their own grade for social-emotional reasons.

Several Republicans have floated proposals to free up categorical spending and relieve school districts from state mandates when the state doesn't cover the costs. These are good but won't get us to the $4.8 billion.

Right now, all I'm asking is that we don't go backwards. I won't insist that all the reforms suggested by the Governor's Committee on Education Excellence be instituted. (These would cost an additional $10 billion.) This bipartisan group worked for two years on education reforms and yes, Scott, some of it involved more money.

Marie:

To my knowledge, I haven't seen any definitive study that has stated lower class sizes has improved student performance, but it's been a couple years since I've looked. Generally, the powers that be like smaller classes because it forces districts to hire more teachers(union dues), which will then balloon the budget at a very fast rate.

Smaller class sizes may enhance a teacher's classroom control, but the longitudinal studies show no real increase in student capability.

This statewide proposal also damages inner city schools the most because they do not have the tax base other communities have
to hire the teachers necessary to meet the mandate.

What is fascinating is the overall acceptance of the myth that more spending equals performance improvement. Other countries spend quite a bit less and outperform our students.

Our current system tells the 3rd grader who would be more challenged in 5th grade to sit and do work that is easy. This is a tragedy in my mind and both a waste of resources and a mis-allocation of taxpayer money. This does not drive value because it is forcing students to short themselves based on age-standards not on mental ability and talent. It is a wasted opportunity.

Most likely the parents you speak of who would be fearful of merit-based education are the same parents who outlawed keeping score in little league because they were afraid it might harm their child's self-esteem. I say, let parents deal with the cream rising to the top in the schools. Being created equal and mandating students stay equal are two different things. This may actually force parents to invest their time and energy in increasing their child's educational ability.

If we never demand the best and move our institutions to be at their best through merit-based systems, I'm afraid you can talk about billions or trillions of dollars, but it isn't going to make much of a difference.

I don't believe dismantling our K-3 class size reduction is worth it to accommodate skipping ahead those few students who reach grade level proficiency mid year. I also think the trauma to the child of putting them into another class mid year is not worth it.

In Ventura we have excellent Gifted and Talented Education programs for third grade to middle school and then honors/AP in high school. Many GATE kids take classes at the colleges here. Teachers do a lot now in the area of classroom differentiation. Readers of like strength are grouped together, etc.

You can ask for more challenging math work for your child. I've done it and I was satisfied with the outcome. In Ventura we have the Open Classroom which mixes kids of all ages. It works well, but it's not for everyone.

Socio-economic factors play a huge role in all of this. I think we discussed this on another thread. I have API scores sitting here from a school district in this county that are broken down into school-wide, ELL, socio-economically disadvantaged and white. The difference between the white kids and the ELL and socio- are quite dramatic. How would you address this achievement gap, Scott? With less money? Do you think these other countries you speak of have such diversity?

I wouldn't classify the idea I put forth as allowing students to skip ahead. They've passed the grade and no longer need what would be considered remedial work they are trapped in under the current system.

In terms of trauma, there is no evidence that backs the fear argument.

Ask students how bored they are and it might surprise you? I have some polling, I'll have to dig up.

Per Pupil spending has continued to go up, yet no real change in the achievement gap either. It's been this way for a very, very long time despite huge national and statewide funding increases.

I think by bringing back Latin as a link in the achievement gap, it may help students achieve English proficiency quicker. I've seen some statistics that show strong English language advancement is by introducing Latin.

I'll have to find that as well, but I'll have more to say about the achievement gap.

I have to go and probably won't respond until this evening late.

Scott, I've raised two GATE kids and neither wanted to skip a grade. Sometimes they are academically ready but not socially ready. This is really true with boys. As a parent, I have really gone out of my way to make sure their needs are met academically. You need to be an advocate for your child.

But back to the achievement gap. Did you read the Committee on Education Excellence's recommendations? (Priority 2: Ensure Fair Funding that Rewards Results) Standards and Poors did research that low-income kids need 35% more funding; ELL need 20% more. For low-income students, CA provides just 5.5% more, compared to the national average of 17.2.

The committee recommends a somewhat higher per-pupil funding level for districts who serve these students. They want to use targeted funding grants.

To your first answer. Are you implying you speak for all students' parents? While it might be alright for you, it may not be for everyone else. With all do respect, you are welcome to opt out of any proposal to protect your kids. I'm by no means arguing for compulsory programs. I'm merely stating that if parents see their students are advancing, they should be able to move up the system.

Trapping success and talent is certainly not alright with me.

Fighting for my child? Isn't it sad that so many parents are forced to fight the system just for a ration of education? What does that say about customer service?

I haven't read the report primarily because there wasn't much diversity of opinion on this board from the start. Majority of the members are pro-government spending in one way or the other. Some even make a living off of it.

Did you know it was privately funded to make recommendations? Who funded it?

Take a look at this article on education, particularly the Belgians testing against American students.

There is also a highlight from a charter school principal that is pretty fascinating.

I am merely saying that I don't think your mid-year testing up idea is practical in real-world terms. It is perfectly fine to move them up a grade at the beginning of the year.

As the mother of two GATE kids, who has worked with GATE kids and done a lot of research on this issue, I do have some strong opinions. But my kids are not at all typical.

Conservative Hoover Institution economist Eric Hanushek was on the board that drafted our Republican governor's extensive report on education reform. He is quoted throughout. I am troubled that you won't take the time to read it.

You, the guardian of taxpayer dollars, are upset that it was privately funded by William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, the Stuart Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?

What do you have against multi-billionaire techie philanthropists?

OK, Scott. I just clicked over and read your silly little piece by ABC New reporter John Stossel. Oh please. John Stossel?

You just really should have done your Googling before you mentioned Belgium. Did you know that Belgium's income tax rate is one of the world's highest, and its corporate tax rate is also high? No wonder they can afford education that kicks our kid's butts.

Scott, my new friend, I expect better from you.

Like I said, you can opt out, but from what you are writing, it appears that you would deny others advancement because your personal experience. It comes off a little totalitarian.

The point is, Belgium doesn't have a monopoly, does it? Maybe, if we saw performance and had choices, spending would be different either higher or lower?

The article states that many smaller countries that spend less beat us as well. I'll have to do some research and find these countries...

In Belgium, 58% of primary and secondary education spending is spent on privately managed schools. Parents can leave and go someplace else if they don't like it. As a % of GDP Belgium educational spending is fairly low.

What did you think about the Oakland Charter school principal? Pretty interesting that he spends way less and outperforms many of his big spending neighbors.

You come off a little naive on the study. I'm not upset it was funded privately, just that you have to take into consideration those that are funding it and their interests.

As an example, Hewlett and Microsoft sell computers and software to schools all day. Of course, they'd support increases in spending. I'm not looking, but I'm willing to bet their was major emphasis on technology education. Check it and get back to me?

Eli Broad made millions on school construction contracts. Now, he has a foundation on education. Hmm...

These interests are not as benign as you assume.

So you are now saying heavier taxation would equate to better schools?

I thought all you supported was a roll back of tax credits, but now you've entered back into the higher taxes equal educational greatness argument?

Marie, my new friend, you can't have it both ways.

It's really hard to argue the merits of an exhaustively researched report on education reform with somebody who won't read it and who is suspicious of everything about it yet quotes John Stossel, who is one step up from Geraldo Rivera. I am suspicious of EVERYTHING he does.

I guess I'll take my chances with Standard and Poor's research.

If you would actually look at it, you will find much to like. In fact, it calls for reforms similar to what I have heard you mention. But it also calls for $5 billion for poor and English-learning children, $3 billion for additional training and performance-based pay for teachers, and $800 million to expand preschool.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but not much about technology.

Just be glad you don't live in Belgium.

Strange that you go on personal attacks, yet I ask a question on what you thought of the Charter School principal saying he is outperforming big spending schools nearby with students from less affluent socio-economic backgrounds. No answer.

The facts seem to stand unchallenged. Did you see the link that showed the US education spending growth is higher than Belgium?

You said there isn't much on technology? What do you think they mean under number 4:

"Improve Data systems." It means a full technology overhaul.

The main question I still don't get is why you support high tax states as doing a better job for the students such as Belgium, but in terms of the state budget you accept the compromise of flat education spending and a rollback of some tax incentives?

Why don't you support high taxes like Belgium in California if that is how you feel? Why are you throwing out the Educational Excellence report that you quote in favor of the LAO report that does not take that into account?

What is strange is you seem to accept higher taxes mean better performing schools, yet you yourself do not support such proposals? Wouldn't that mean that according to your own position you are standing on a position that plans to short education?

I just don't understand your logic. You believe higher taxes would benefit education, but refuse to institute higher taxes to get there?

If you know and believe something will work, but refuse to support it, are you not, according to your own beliefs, acting with malice toward school spending and education?

I don't think it makes sense to compare a nation ( Belgium ) that is mostly middle class with California schools. In California we have many more economic classes. The children of newly arrived immigrants from a poorer nation of course will slow down test scores until they get better at some basic skills.

It also is pointless to compare charters that can do better with less when they can reject students. Do you really think that is a fair comparison? Is that the solution? Reject kids starting in their younger years and then cut the budget?

I have some oranges. Anyone have oranges to compare?

Why, thank you, Rasputin. You made my point very well. I didn't feel it was worth having a conversation about California schools based on a TV news report about Belgium. Scott, you were busy running down the private sponsors of the study, so I think it's fair to point out that you are using as a basis for your argument a report by John Stossel, who lives to do sensationalistic pieces and whose journalism ethics are questionable.

First of all, from what I can gather, Belgium -- which has very high taxes -- pays for universal preschool and heavily subsidizes all its free schools. The free ones which are privately run are mostly operated by the church. Then they have private schools like we do which can accept or reject students and are tuition based.

Universal preschool is one of the goals of the Committee's report and I agree with it. Of course this costs money.

There are good charter schools and there are bad charter schools. Vista Real in Oxnard has a low socio-economic profile and does VERY poorly on its API scores. Their base was in the 400s. I think maybe a local politician here did lobbying for them... hmmm who was that? Hint: The initials are TS.

Quit trying to assign positions to me, OK? Right now, in this economic climate, I would not advocate for any broad-based tax increases. In an ideal world, I would love to institute everything that the report calls for. But we don't have an ideal world, do we? I think we could institute some of the reforms the Committee calls for right away without much added expense.

I also think Elizabeth Hill's alternative budget is fair. That's as far as I'm willing to go right now.

I'm not sure a broad-based attack on charter schools really makes sense. I opposed the Vista charter and wrote a letter about it to Jack O'Connell because it lacked curriculum standards and so on. Plus, it seemed to have very little input from the local community. Last, I preferred other charters such as KIPP as I felt they had an established track record of success.

In terms of Belgium, I did some checking on tax rates from the Tax Foundation in what little time I have.

Combined state and federal top tax rates for a California business is 40.7%

Belgium is 33.99%

The combined state and federal individual top income tax is 47.76%

Belgium is 53.50%

Combining both of these rates and they appear to offset in some respects.

Total top corporate and individual tax rate for the US: 88.5

Total top corporate and individual tax rate for Belgium: 87.5

This doesn't include things like payroll taxes, property taxes and so on, but it's pretty fascinating that they are actually pretty close in rate. I'm also not sure Belgium has an AMT that may actually increase individual rates beyond Belgian levels here in the US.

Socio-economic arguments primarily operate under the assumption that barriers exist for students to learn in the aggregate. In some cases this is true, but other students have been proven to be able to overcome such barriers with persistence or on raw intelligence. Socio-economics aside, ALL students are capable of learning.

Individuals make the difference, not huge expenditures.

Marie:

In terms of universal state-mandated preschool, how would you deal with parents who don't wish to participate?

Second, if a student doesn't want to learn, how much should we up their per pupil spending?

Each of Belgium's regions and communities also have their own taxes. So you would also need to add those into the tax rates for Belgians. Did you forget about that? Plus they have a whopping value added tax.

In the most recent year, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP in Belgium was 44.9 percent.

In the most recent year, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP in the U.S. was 26.8 percent.

Why are we arguing about taxes in Belgium anyway?

My point is and continues to be that we need to do the right thing by our kids. I wish you would look at that report. It advocates for many of the reforms you want.

I think preschool should be available for those families who need it. I wouldn't make it mandatory.

Good thing we're on a thread nobody is reading now. We are really boring.

I didn't forget, I did mention my tax research was incomplete on the comparison. It doesn't include many aspects of both the Belgium and the American tax burden.

To be honest, I'm trying to keep up with our economy right now. You probably notice that I post early and late. I've been very distracted with which way things are going.

I've already looked at the executive summary of the report, but want to have more time to read it.

Does the report argue for tax increases?

I do agree educational leaders are succeeding despite the system. This is primarily why I want a complete change of it. If individuals have to succeed despite the system, think how well they'd do in a different one that worked with them?

Some of the language uses "incentives" or compensation based on student performance. This was voted down in the 05 special election, pretty resoundingly. While I agree in part with some type of plan, there is no way the current system and it's interests that create educational conventional wisdom would allow it.

How would they make the above reform consistent without reforming the Rodda Act?

Deregulate teacher credential training-- I've debated this topic on this blog as well. You have to student teach to get a credential in most programs. This also has enemies, particularly those that want a "closed shop" campus.

Fascinating line: " The state must retain an auditor and now a private sector researcher" to figure out how much each district receives.

I'll read more, but we have the exact well-reformed system the political system has created now. We've been reforming state education for a very long time to no avail.

Perhaps, more variety is in order. Not a state-run voucher system, but one where teachers may form their own practices, develop their own clientèle, and be judged by those actually seeking education.

Looks like Scott agrees with Barack Obama on some issues! They both want incentives to help.

Hey, what do you mean by "deregulating teacher credentialing" as a solution?

Well Peter, at least we know why Obama lost California. He supports pay for performance. Obama's also in line with George W Bush on that one.

Feel free to read the report on deregulating teacher credentialing.

I do have one correction. Merit pay never made it to the ballot. The Governor dropped the initiative in May prior to the November special election because it didn't get enough signatures to quality.

Quite a quality of errors. I meant qualify.

The report calls for, in some instances, the dismantling of existing programs such as PAR to help pay for the reforms.

They researched programs across the country which are working well. They like the Teacher Advancement Program, which is in 180 schools now. NCLB funds can help pay for this. But other funding sources would have to be identified, too.

One thing I really liked: the cross age tutoring idea with community college students. Cross-age tutoring programs have been shown to be among the most cost-effective educational interventions.

Preschool:

The logic appears to be if the state is able to start earlier with preschool programs, improvement will follow. This may be correct or not correct, but the studies have the same challenge critics of charter schools cite such as more active parents selecting preschool rather than other non-active parents.

How do you measure that?

The studies, at least, admitted some of the studies used a very small sample sizes, which means the study doesn't have enough evidence to conclude effectiveness of the program.

If parents care to put their child into preschool, this would in fact mean they may value education during non-preschool hours. They may give their children educational toys in off hours, read to their child, or do other things that subsidize the bump in the studies.

The Committee on Excellence technical report cites numerous studies they used to show preschool is effective versus children who do not go to preschool, but in fact it doesn't appear to take into account parental structure and involvement.

How do we know parents aren't helping these preschoolers learn outside preschool and sending them to preschool?

In addition, moves to mandate preschool also create some of the same challenges the public system has right now. The last proposal created universal preschool or in effect bureaucratizing preschool, which would have undercut the current market for preschool and mandated closed shop rules and so on of these public preschool teachers.

This doesn't mean I'm against preschool, just showing some weakness in this aspect of the report that calls for compulsory preschool. I don't agree that establishing a state monopoly in preschool is the right move.

Last, from personal experience I can say and many would hopefully agree that children start learning from day one. I was amazed with what they pick-up. With that being said, many parents would wince at the thought of turning our kids over to state education near birth for truly head start. Yet, this appears to be the growing logic in education, just at a much more moderate level.

What would be a fascinating study would be parental involvement in early education both in the home and in preschool set-ups to see which one's appear to have the highest results.

That type of study would have said a lot more in the technical report because it wouldn't have been compare none versus some, but different methods of early education albeit private, in the home, and public versions.

Strengthen Teacher Leadership:

I have to admit I haven't finished this technical report on the above topic, yet. My impression so far is an inability to define teacher quality. I agree with the study that teacher quality is a huge factor in student performance, the study goes in to detail on high attrition rates, working conditions, teacher pay, and test score changes, but doesn't necessarily define out teacher quality.

I think it's in part because teachers have to some degree discretion of method. (At least the used to). Teachers have different styles and this may or may not gel with the class.

Quality in the private sector is usually defined by consumer satisfaction. What would be interesting is a survey each year of their specific teacher's performance.

Comparing year to year test scores don't necessarily mean improvement, just means a different group got tested.

Such consumer satisfaction measurements may better bring out teacher quality definition.

We have a program here in Ventura called Neighborhood for Learning. There are many others in the county as well. They are funded through First 5, and receive money from the tobacco tax. They are also one of our partner organizations in the Ventura Education Partnership. We started doing private fund-raising activities for them last year and hope to do more. (VEP raised more than $130,000 for the schools last year, BTW)

This program has made great progress. One of the many things they run is a 5-week intensive transition-to-kindergarten program in the summer for underprivileged kids who have not gone to preschool. These children don't even know how to write their names yet. Some have never really picked up a pen.

It's such a self-esteem booster for these kids to enter kindergarten with some basic skills so they aren't so far behind their peers who have had preschool. Many parents just don't value learning and aren't engaged. This program also involves whole families and sets up an environment for success. I believe that is key to bridging the achievement gap -- getting families involved and valuing learning.

Marie,

Aren't you President of VEP? How much in government funds does VEP acquire versus volunteer donations?

What do you think the most important factor is in why parents don't participate?

VEP is an all-volunteer non-profit 501 c3 organization which does private fund-raising for the schools. We are not funded in any manner by the government. We are a true partnership between parents, teachers, students, the business community and other interested parties.

We have another group in town which is organized for political action purposes, Save Our Schools. I am co-chair of that. That group predates my involvement with VEP.

In my experience, parents are not involved in their children's education for two main reasons: both work long hours, sometimes two jobs, and do not have time; and some have language barriers and are unable to help with schoolwork. And of course there are families which are truly dysfunctional as well.

Marie:

The VEP non-profit website has the rally announcement on it. Is this an indication that the non-profit has political views on the state budget?

As our bylaws and strategic plan are set up as an education advocacy organization, it is perfectly proper to have an announcement of the rally. We are not advocating for any particular political candidate or ballot measure. But even if we were it would be proper to do so as long as it didn't constitute more than half of our activity. My time for adding this to the website probably constitutes less than 1 percent of our activity.

Nice try. We have three lawyers on our board. I've spoken with them about this.

Nice try?

It was simply a question. The site says VEP is apolitical, yet there is a protest rally announcement on the site.

Based on your comments are you saying if it's legal it's okay?

I don't consider this a political issue. It's a budget issue. Advocating for proper funding for our children's schooling falls within our stated goal of supporting excellence. Laying off teachers, counselors, librarians, nurses, technology specialists and P.E. teachers will not get us to excellent. Increasing class sizes will not get us there, either. Nor will the inability to make any new equipment purchases next year.

And our summer school program for our elementary schools was canceled. So that means all those kids who are struggling and need remedial help over the summer will not get it.

This is just really sad, Scott. Our kids deserve better than this.

Marie:

No doubt it is sad that students need remedial help. But, what else is this saying? To me, it means students aren't learning the first time around and now are getting more funds as a result of not learning the first time.

What implications does that have for both a teaching and learning environment?

Do parents have to foot the bill for their kids not learning? Nope. No responsibility.

Why should district and the state have to pay twice and the parents get free day care for the summer?

Doesn't seem fair does it?

Proper funding? The report you sent me, said the state has to have an outside consultant to figure out how much is going to the districts.

How can we justify spending more money if we need forensic accountants to figure out where the money is going now?

With regards to laying off teachers, why wouldn't the bureaucracy just take a one year salary cut to keep the teachers? Seems to me pretty reasonable...

Oh come, on, Scott, even to your ears some of the things you are saying have to sound a little odd. No doubt the tripling of categoricals in the last three decades has created problems and I also think this needs to be reformed. I would absolutely advocate for educational reforms in a number of areas. But, sorry, these things won't happen overnight and they won't quite get us to the $4.8 billion (or more) we need to cut in the current budget.

We have some of the highest standards in the nation. Education Week gave us an A- here. But we do this with our D+ budgets. Between NCLB and the other stringent standards CA schools are held to, kids shouldn't be falling through the cracks. So yes, remedial help is needed in some instances -- Reading Safety Net and summer programs are good ways to do this.

Let me tell you a little story about a boy I spent a lot of time with last year. He came to our school last year as a 3rd grader not knowing how to read. He'd been in and out of many schools and the family lived in their car for awhile. HIghly dysfunctional situation.

But he was inherently bright and eager to learn and just needed somebody to give him a chance. I worked with him extra hours last year and so did his teacher (20-1 ratio in third grade allowed her to do that). He also spent time in Reading Safety Net and in the summer program.

He's thriving now, Scott! Would you have us throw away a kid like that because the mom isn't able to pay extra? There are thousands of kids like him in similar situations.

And on your "bureaucracy" scenario: If Ventura Unified were to lay off every single administrator they still would not get to the $4 million they are going to have to cut. These people work really hard and their hearts are absolutely in the right place. Our superintendent works herself to the bone and told me she didn't get home until 10 p.m. most days..

Tell me, Scott, are your two kids in public school or private school? I've shared a lot here. Your turn.

Odd? I just took information from the report you kept quoting all week that said the state needs special help in figuring out where the money is going. How can you justify spending increases if we don't really know what we're paying for already?

How much were you paid to help the child?

How did the child get to third grade without anyone realizing he couldn't read?

Feel free to include the state bureaucracy and county bureaucracy in your calculations. And while you're at it, feel free to check the link out. Tell me which agencies are more important than summer school and teachers and which are not?

You've said your not in favor of tax cuts, so which departments' staff need to go?

I have said repeatedly that reforms are needed and that I advocate generating extra funding by reducing or eliminating tax credits or exemptions which are not achieving their stated purposes or are of lower priority. I haven't strayed from my position.

I'm not really sure why you are talking about tax cuts right now. You aren't making sense.

You start sounding very odd to me when you want to deny funding to children who need remedial help. There are a host of reasons that children need these services -- ELL, socio-economic, learning disorders, ADD, etc. You can't automatically blame either the school system or the child.

I was not paid a cent to help the child I was referring to. I am a volunteer. He ended up in third grade because it was age appropriate for him and they hoped he could catch up quickly. And guess what? He did! I think he had attended and been pulled out of 5-6 schools previously by his mother as she moved.

He's just a great, great kid! We really believed in him and he finally has stability in his life now.

You didn't answer my question. Are your kids in private or public schools?

You do realize that most private schools spend WAY more per pupil than the public schools, right? For example, day student tuition at the Thacher School in Ojai is over $25,000 a year! In public high school it costs $7,000 a year to educate a child.

It always amazes me how many of these people who want to dismantle the public school system and deny extra funding always have their kids in private schools.

So you did something for free that the school system couldn't do in three years at 8K per year? I think that's outstanding and proves my general point that it's not about money. It's about people stepping up and caring about the students at hand.

You stated this Thacher school has a price of $25K a year. Does price equal cost in your mind? I've always thought those to be two different concepts.

When you compare public school per pupil spending to private tuition, do you include: the teacher retirement fund, the capital budget, and federal funding in your comparison?

Those should be included as the private school is including everything from building expenditures to retirement expenditures.

I never wanted to deny funding for remedial work, just simply pointed out the flawed thinking where students float through the system in hopes they'll "catch up" with little or no intervention except from volunteers like yourself. Perhaps if someone who was paid intervened earlier in previous years the student wouldn't have needed remedial work in the first place. There would be no need for the extra spending.

Why would their be remedial spending if students were being identified early in class?

The state committee admits they need special accountants to figure out how the money is being spent. If that is the case, how could they possibly know how much is enough or not enough? How would they even evaluate what programs work and don't work?

I don't feel I need to discuss my family on this blog.

I wish I could take credit for this boy's success, but I was just one of many who have helped him at his current school. I think the Reading Safety Net program was crucial. They pulled him for intensive one-on-one work with the reading specialist. He just didn't have an opportunity to thrive at other schools before he was yanked out again by a family move.

We have amazing volunteers who do so much for our schools. The fund-raising they do alone is incredible. My VEP volunteers are among the most committed, capable people I know.

I am not sure how all private schools do it, but I do know Thacher's capital campaign for their buildings is not part of their tuition. They have separate fund-raising for that. They really do spend that much per student there. Tiny class sizes with only 6 kids in some cases. It is the best private high school on the West Coast. Enormous resources devoted to a school population of only 200. Huge SAT scores and the kids go on to the best colleges in the country.

Every single study I have seen says kids who are learning English and those who are low income need more funding. California trails significantly in this regard in comparison to other states according to many sources.

I understand if you don't want to talk about personal things here. I just asked because some of the things you've written here strike me as coming from someone who does not have kids in the public schools.

There are two reasons I don't wish to share the personal side. One, you never know who is reading this stuff and it's a safety issue. Two, I feel bringing family into the debate may turn this debate into one on emotion rather than facts and fair persuasion techniques.

If you really must know, ask Brian for my email and we can talk offline.

My arguments are not whether we need just private, just public, or whatever arrangement, just simply that the current public monopoly has two much power and is not accountable to ALL stakeholders. We need a functional, competitive market. I believe this current monopoly unfairly accentuates the divisions in our society from economic opportunity to the culture war.

Picking between private, public, home school, or Charter is a false choice. No one says we only need Ford or we only need Costco. Yet, the debate about education always turns into one being better than the other.

An interesting article from Steve Lopez today in the LA Times. He laments that it is a tragedy that parents are digging into their pockets to pay for their schools during this spending crisis.

I don't see this as a great tragedy at all. Certainly, if my local ed foundation came and said they were raising money to help this or that program that would be cut, I'd give wholeheartedly depending on what it was. This year, I've given quite a bit so far to our local ed foundation and I imagine it will go up as the year goes on. I'd even be willing to adopt-a-program or even a classroom if I was asked.

To me, I'm spending on tangible items and services I can actually see and say we helped our own community. And what is more important is I'm giving voluntarily because I believe it is important.

Now, let's contrast that:

The major challenge I have with the current debate is taxpayer earnings are taken and we have no clue where it goes as do many of the education establishment apparently. This money goes to Sacramento where they get ponied out by the most powerful groups throughout the state. When school results do come out, they usually show very little change, which then spikes more calls for more of our earnings from the "governing class" who never seem to be accountable for last year's results.

It's a pretty good racket. Whenever contrary evidence comes out, government just needs to say we need more money. Or they'll throw a reform out, which is the equivalent of changing a chalk board to a white board.

Then, we are lectured by state representatives and their interest groups that our money is not enough and we are being selfish for opposing more of our earnings being sent off to the great leviathan in Sacramento. How is it that these bureaucrats who take more of our earnings are somehow allowed by our society to call earners selfish and get away with it?

Somehow, we've gotten ourselves into the habit that government spending decisions are much more enlightened than ours. But, when you witness what is actually happening, you realize, they know no better than anyone else and have their own agenda.

As the Wizard of Oz once said, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

Schools like Thacher only exist because the monopoly in public education undermines competition keeping top education opportunities out of reach for all but the well to do.

Someone smarter than me once pointed out, "In the 18th and 19th century only the well-to do had extravagant horse and buggies to move around society. The rest of society was forced to walk. Then, came the car and everyone was able to be mobile at a cheap price." I believe the divisions you are seeing is because education is still based in the class-based horse and buggie structure that keep top educational models out of the system. No one talks about increases in educational standards of living, do they?

Ask yourself why grammar, rhetoric, and Latin are gone? This used to be the basis of an educated person, but public schools have replaced them all with fluff.

Essentially, I want everyone to have the equivalent of the educational IPOD not just the well off who can afford places like Thacher. A functional market would deliver this.

Have you ever visited the ancient Mayan city Tulum? Do you know the story?

Wanted to put a link in to a study done on student acceleration that I was writing about a few days ago and is based out of the University of Iowa.

Take a look at tell me what you think?