My Beauty Best Teacher

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (Republican) has proposed a budget which would shift revenue from the Michigan School Aid Fund away from K-12 schools to Higher Education and Community colleges, and this is wrong. Currently the Michigan School Aid fund is fully funded and able to pay for K-12 education in Michigan, as it was intended to and designed to do so by voters, but Snyder wants to raid $895.6 million from it and divert that money to higher education and community colleges, the first time in the history of our state that the School Aid Fund is to be used in this manner.

Not everyone has an equal opportunity or desire or obligation to go to college in America. Attending college, is not part of creating a basis of education necessary for us all to be educated voters; it is not about giving everyone in America the same basic broad basis of knowledge to enable us to compete for jobs; it is not a requirement for being successful or making a decent living like passing high school is; it is not a task that everyone is up to mentally or emotionally; and it is not something that everyone can afford to do. Going to college is something that those who want to do can; those who feel that a higher education will benefit them; and is for those who can afford to, either on their own or by winning scholarships or grants or taking out loans or having the military pay for it. So the question I have to ask is why then do taxpayers assume they have an obligation to fund higher education and community colleges in a given state?

Oh, I am sure there are arguments in favor of the desire to fund higher education and community colleges- as a way for a state to stay competitive for jobs, as a community outreach program, as a way to make our state more prestigious or something, etc. Those are all good arguments for the desire to use taxpayer money to support the few with the means and inclination to go to college- but they are not convincing arguments to me of the necessity of diverting money from the K-12 School Aid Fund.

In Michigan, our K-12 school system, which does provide all children of our state with a quality education so that they all will have the same basic chances to compete for jobs and be solid citizens, is funded by state revenues including sales taxes, lottery taxes, property taxes, and other taxes which are all deposited into a fund called 'The School Aid Fund.'

Article IX, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 establishes the State School Aid Fund, which shall be used exclusively for aid to school districts, higher education, and school employee's retirement systems. This fund was considerably adjusted by Proposal A in 1994, which was a very important constitutional amendment in Michigan that considerably changed around the way that school districts are funded.

Although the MI Constitution does include the words 'higher education,' historically the School Aid Fund was used exclusively for K-12 funding, and a search of the records and conversation of the last time that voters addressed this issue revealed to me that there was no conversation in any way of using the school aid fund for anything other that K-12 funding. In fact, the publication Michigan in Brief's seventh edition, which was sponsored by the Michigan Nonprofit Association and the Council of Michigan Foundations and was prepared and published by Public Sector Consultants, Inc., describes the school aid fund this way- "School Aid Fund: A fund into which certain state revenues are deposited and from which funds may be spent only on K–12 education."- note that there is no mention of the school aid fund being used for higher or community college education, as it has never been used for this purpose in the past.

As a conservative, I have always favored this idea that voters would make their wishes known to the government, and the government would implement these wishes to the best of their abilities. Liberals and Democrats are the ones who want to rule over us and make decisions for us, not conservatives, and in this case, based on the long history of our state and the conversation regarding the last time voters looked at the issue of the School Aid Fund, it is clear to me that voters never intended the fund to be used to divert money away from K-12 schools to pay for college for rich smart kids. I am surprised that many Republicans support this idea.

As a conservative, I also believe in paying for services and using dedicated funds to pay for services. For example, I pay into social security, I pull out of the social security fund; or I pay into a gas tax, and then that gas tax is used to maintain roads; or I pay my property taxes, which are used to pay for local police, fire, and library services; etc. I'm not an anarchist or a libertarian- I do believe that government plays an important role in our society, providing order and safe-guarding rights so that we may be free and prosperous, and so I like the idea that voters decide to set aside certain amounts of money to pay for certain budget items, and if they don't like the amount of money or where the money is being spent, they can raise or lower those revenues or spending. Raiding dedicated school aid funds intended for K-12 education to pay for other services that have historically been paid for through the General Fund such as higher education and community education is therefore wrong to me and sounds to me more like a liberal idea of viewing all government money as some sort of slush fund to which to distribute gifts and buy off voters.

As a conservative teacher, I am surprised to find that I support the Michigan Education Association and the Democrats here in Michigan on this issue, and oppose Snyder's plan to divert funding from the one part of our budget that is balanced and working, the School Aid Fund. As a result of Snyder's plan, students in Michigan will face a per pupil cut of $470, which is unnecessary because the School Aid Fund is fully funded and if it is not raided to help pay for rich smart kids who want to go to college, students in Michigan would lose no funding at all. Listen to the voters and vote in favor of conservative values, Republicans, and don't raid the school aid fund.

Today as I was waiting to catch a plan to DC to talk to some people about education policy I ran into Karl Rove waiting to catch a flight. He was in town recently for the Livingston County Republican Party' Lincoln Day Dinner, which also attracted such notables as Attorney General Bill Schuette, State Senator Joe Hune, State Representative Bill Rogers, State Representative Cindy Denby, blogger Wendy Day, and many others.

Knowing that Mr. Rove is a friendly and verbose guy, I sat down with him for a minute and asked him his thoughts on the upcoming 2012 race for the President. According to Karl Rove, in order for Republicans to beat Obama and retake the White House the GOP will have to nominate a candidate who can do 3 things:

1. Write a narrative- articulate their vision of the world, their views on policy, where they have come from and where they see our nation going, and explain why voters should vote for that person over anyone else
2. Seize the moment- there will time a come in every campaign when the candidate will have to stand up and take command of the situation- Reagan did it in a debate with HW Bush, W Bush did it in a debate with McCain, Obama did it in a debate with Clinton- at some point the candidate will be challenged and will have to rise to the challenge and show voters that they can fight
3. Unite the nation- this election will not be about Republicans turning out to vote but rather about getting Democrats and independents to cross over and vote for a Republican who strongly articulates Republican views. Obama campaigned as a moderate force of change and bipartisanship and won (turns out that was a bold faced lie though) and Reagan had Reagan Democrats- our next President needs to be a uniter and not a divider.

Karl Rove is a pretty smart guy and came to these conclusions after talking with many other pollsters and consultants, so let's run with these ideas for a minute. Let's take a look at the top contenders for the GOP nomination and speculate if they meet all three criteria:

• Sarah Palin- she is writing a narrative (TLC show, book, etc) and is tough and strong, but is just too divisive (because strong women who love life and liberty represent a threat to many on the left and lingering sexism in other groups)
• Mitt Romney- he is trying to write a narrative (he has a book out- anyone read it?) but his vision is muddled by his support for Romneycare, he was unable to seize the moment last time he ran for office and looked timid and unsure at times, but he does have the potential to be a uniter (competent, moderate, measured, experienced, etc)
• Newt Gingrich- he has a narrative and a vision, he has been able to sieze moments in the past (1994), but he is not a uniter- his personal life, his writings, and his personal style divide people too much
• Rudy Giuliani- he needs to develop a narrative and a vision- yes, we all remember him from 9/11 and from his work in New York, but he needs to move beyond that and become something more, and I don't know if that is possible, he obviously can seize a moment (9/11), and he could unite America around the memory of 9/11- but can he do more than that, I wonder
• Tim Pawlenty- he needs a national narrative and vision, something that will catapult him to the Presidency, he probably could stand up and be tough and have a moment, and I get the feeling that he could unite America behind him if only he could tell a better story- he comes off as cold and distant
• Donald Trump- he doesn't have a vision, although he will have moments of toughness (you're fired!) and America could unite behind him (change and hope and stuff)
• All others- I simply don't know enough about them, which means they haven't articulated a strong vision, they haven't had a moment, and I have no idea if they can be a uniter

Let me know your thoughts- who do you think meets Rove's criteria for being the next President of the United States?

By Candi Peterson

The Balanced Budget Furlough Emergency Act of 2011 which calls for furloughs of DC government employees has caught the attention of all of us. Budget cuts have been no stranger to the District of Columbia public schools (DCPS). Teachers, school personnel and students have often had to bear the brunt of administrator over-spending. In fiscal year 2010, under the Rhee/Henderson administration, 266 educators were wrongfully terminated allegedly due to a budget deficit they didn’t help create.

Displeased with the emergency legislation that only reduces costs through emergency furloughing, WTU Executive Board passed a motion authorizing the union leadership to identify other alternatives that would avoid the need for furloughs. WTU agreed to compile your ideas on how we could achieve long-term cost savings in our public schools. Listed below are many of your recommendations from posts and emails we have received, thus far :

Alternatives to Furloughs

Allow employees to donate sick days in lieu of furlough days

Conduct a forensic audit of DCPS to identify waste/fraud

Close excess schools

Cut back on AP courses and enrollments

Cut printing costs of IMPACT evaluation booklets

Cut the following non-instructional teacher work days:

February 18 – Professional Development day

February 28- Parent Conference day –( this is less desirable than the May 16 Parent Conference day)

March 18 – Professional Development day

May 16 - Parent Conference Day

Discontinue non-essential testing of students

Don't add more International Baccalaureate Programs

Eliminate July 4 as a furlough day as teachers/school personnel are in a non-pay status

Eliminate Master Educators’ positions and relegate teacher/school personnel evaluations to principals and/or managers/supervisors

Eliminate perks for management, such as iPhone voice and data plans

Eliminate Teach For America contract and hire outright

Eliminate the partnership between Anacostia SHS and Friendship. We don’t need to pay the salaries of additional administrative staff

Eliminate the August professional development day for teachers/school personnel

End credit recovery

End school one day early when students aren’t in school

Furlough on professional development days, not holidays which will reduce savings in the form of energy costs and closed buildings

Increase computer usage versus excessive paper usage in schools, stop massive copying and worksheets

Place a moratorium on administrator bonus pay

Put an end to DCPS contracts that aren’t justified

Reduce the # of administrative positions in central office

Reduce the # of DC BAS tests given

Reduce the amount of administrative salaries in central office by setting a cap on six figure salaries

Reduce costs through energy savings (i.e. get thermostats on radiators, reduce excessive heat and AC, put hand air-dryers in bathrooms)

Reduce DCPS Executive staff salaries

Reduce Pre-K to half day

Reduce the # of Instructional Coach positions per school

Reduce the # of newly acquired Instructional Superintendent positions

Reduce the # of Special Education Program Manager positions (from 3 per discipline to 1 per discipline)

Reduce out of control spending in the special education budget

Rent out underutilized schools

Review money spent on consultants and organizations (i.e. Kaplan) and cut costs

Stop excessive meetings for DCPS staff at alternative locations by promoting video conferencing

Use vacant school buildings instead of renting space for government administrative offices

Work four- 10 hour days

The WTU will be forwarding all of your ideas to Mayor Gray for consideration. Thanks for your input.

In a recent address Thabo Mbeki stated:

As with material goods, Africa is a primary producer of intellectual resources, and also a consumer of finished intellectual products, but makes little contribution to the value that is added in between. Much (perhaps most) African intellectual production occurs under northern (American and European) contracts. Consequently, Africa’s intellectual agenda is set outside the continent, with African scholars are co-opted as consultants and primary researchers, while the ablest of them are provided with careers in western universities, research institutes and policy institutions. The final product is then re-exported, its value having been multiplied many times over, to Africa for consumption by African people, governments and institutions.

More here

Nicky Oppenheimer outlines his TEN RULES for accelerating development in Africa,They include:

• First, beware of those bearing gifts: The business of aid has become just that, a business. From NGO's professing to speak for Africans to consultants bearing high-altitude plans which seldom survive contact with the ground, their interests are as much in themselves as their professed target, their constituents more often the fee-paying donors than the African recipients.
• Instead of seeing aid as a form of assistance, Africa needs to view and use it as an investment catalyst, steering much of it towards infrastructure. New ways should be sought and developed to use aid in partnership with the private sector, leveraging it to attract greater funds and in practical ways through reducing risk in infrastructure ventures.
• The need to ensure market access...This is not just about removing tariffs but non-tariff barriers too, including agriculture subsidies. Openness to the international economy is a sine qua non for growth.
• Outsiders must, fourth, develop a differentiated view of Africa. Today’s Africa should increasingly be viewed by those who want to do business there as a differentiated continent.It consists of 54 countries
  

George Ayittey writes in the WSJ about waste and lack of accountability at the World Bank:

In its 40-year involvement in Africa, the Bank scandalously wasted tens of billions in failed programs to spur economic growth, promote democracy and good governance. In the 1960s and 1970s, Bank lending was project specific: roads, dams for generating electrical power, telecommunications, and other public goods with large externalities in agriculture, health care, education and industry. By the mid-1990s, more than 2,200 projects had been undertaken but nearly all were seriously undermined by poor Bank supervision, lack of domestic maintenance or neglect. In 1989, the Bank itself admitted to numerous examples of badly chosen and poorly designed public investments it had funded. Half of its development projects in Africa failed, according to its own evaluation report.

Meanwhile

To help carry out its wasteful and ineffective programs, the Bank employs a huge staff of 7,000 bureaucrats, plus a fleet of some 7,000 more consultants.In a feeble attempt at reform the Bank quietly eliminated 600 positions at its Washington, D.C., headquarters in July 1997, to save $96 million over two years. But even this miniscule "adjustment" was fiercely resisted by Bank staff. In 1998, the staff howled when an internal investigation uncovered "alarming information" about kickbacks and embezzlement.

CK Prahalad comments that China and India "...represent 900 million people in poverty, a larger number than the entire population of Africa. There are about 600 million in Africa who live on less than $3 per day. Why, then, do China and India evoke fear and anger, while Africa elicits pity and guilt?...Despite the magnitude of their respective poverty problems, China and India may have a chance of meeting the Millennium Development Goals established by U.N. Their economies are following the lead of other countries that have raised their populations into a middle-class economic base. For example, between 1975 and 2004, GDP per capita in South Korea increased fourfold. Over the same period, Malaysian incomes rose threefold.
On the other hand, in those decades, per capita incomes in Nigeria declined by a tenth. Why? During the period 1955-2004, the West and multilateral institutions invested more than $1 trillion in aid and subsidies in emerging economies. But poverty persists. It would seem, therefore, that we need to challenge the role of aid and subsidies in promoting sustainable economic development. If poverty cannot be eradicated with humanitarian handouts alone, what is the alternative?...The G-8, led by Tony Blair and supported by Jeffery Sachs and Bono, believe that debt relief and a doubling of aid from rich countries to poor, especially in Africa, is the way to go. A less popular alternative focuses on the involvement of the private sector in poverty alleviation through the development of market-based ecosystems.
Irrespective of which route we take, we need to build an infrastructure to deal with poverty. There is an implicit aid overhead. According to Prof. Sachs, out of every dollar of aid given to Africa, an estimated 16% went to consultants from donor countries, 26% went into emergency aid and relief operations, and 14% went into debt servicing. How much of the remaining 40% escaped corrupt officials to benefit the intended recipients is not known..."
Via NextBillion