Beware the Snake Oil Salesmen
Chuck Sheketoff
Watch out Oregon, the snake oil salesmen are rolling into town, with old medicine in a new bottle: “The Price of Government: Getting the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis,” by David Osborne and Peter Hutchinson. Hutchinson is talking to the City Club of Portland tomorrow.
Don’t be fooled by the slick pitch of “budgeting for outcomes,” seeking “bids,” and applying “competitive pressure” for delivery of public services. There’s little sound evidence to support Osborne and Hutchinson’s claims that libertarian, market-based approaches can deliver better government outcomes for less money.
Osborne and Hutchinson cite charter schools as proof that privatization and competition breed better results for delivery of government services. Unfortunately, two recent studies, one by the American Federation of Teachers and and the other by the Bush Administration’s Department of Education, each concluded that in general children in regular schools performed better than those in charter schools, and that the longer a charter school operated, the greater kids’ performance declined. That is, the longer kids drank Osborne and Hutchinson’s elixir, the worse their educational health.
Osborne and Hutchinson’s core fallacy is that current tax revenues reflect what government should cost. They make the unsubstantiated claim that current state fiscal problems are due to “overindulgence,” while also disregarding the fact that corporations are paying a shrinking share of the price of government. You’d think folks who want government to run more like a business would pay attention to accounts receivables.
Oregonians don’t get adequate services for their taxes because profitable Oregon corporations are stiffing them. In the 2005-07 budget cycle, corporations will pay just 5 percent of all Oregon income taxes, leaving 95 percent to households. In 1973-75, corporations paid 18 percent of income taxes. If Oregon’s profitable corporations were still paying taxes at that level, Oregon would have $1.8 billion more for state services. Oregon’s households would receive increased public services without paying more in taxes.
Besides illegal tax dodging, Oregon also loses revenue to legal loopholes that work against public priorities. Oregon taxpayers subsidize mortgages for mansions and medical expenses for millionaires while homelessness persists and emergency room visits by the uninsured soar. “The Price of Government” does urge policymakers to conduct a strategic review of tax loopholes. Other than those 9 sentences out of 336 pages, “The Price of Government” ignores changes that could bring in more tax dollars, more fairly.
Osborne and Hutchinson argue that buying and selling government services should work like sales of breakfast cereal in a market environment. In other words, you get what you pay for.
Under their scheme, government sets priorities, decides how much money to devote to that priority, and then determines “how best to deliver” services with that funding. Horrified by two foster children’s deaths late last year, Oregonians are not demanding that the job be done “as best as can be with the money available.” Oregonians want the protection of and assistance to abused and neglected children done right, 100 percent of the time. We want the state to put the “foster” back in foster care.
As The New Yorker columnist James Surowiecki clearly explained a couple of years ago, certain work in the economy is not subject to improvements in productivity, and thus over time the costs for that activity go up. Surowiecki noted that the phenomenon is called “Baumol’s cost disease,” after the professor who first diagnosed the condition. It “isn't anyone's fault. (That's why it's called a disease.),” noted Surowiecki.
It takes 5 people approximately the same amount of time to perform a Mozart string quintet today as it did in 1787; a professor can’t give lectures any faster today than 10 years ago; a firefighter takes just as long to put out a fire; and, an hour of counseling for an abused child or of job training for an unemployed worker still takes 60 minutes.
If “The Price of Government” folks had read Surowiecki, or were honest about the differences between buying government services and buying cereal, they would recognize that government has to get more expensive. Government is not seriously inefficient. It's just that Baumol’s cost disease, which isn’t fatal, can’t be cured.
The elixir being sold under “The Price of Government” label will do nothing to solve Baumol’s cost disease. The only thing the book might accomplish is making those governments who spent tax dollars buying the magical potion (such as Multnomah County) feel good. And, of course, the book boosts the snake oil salesmen’s bottom line with taxpayer-paid contracts from future suckers.
Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
8:03 a.m.
Jan 14, '05
Chuck: You really don't know what you are talking about regarding achievement in charter schools, and I am disappointed that you would simply regurgitate the erroneous claims made by teacher unions.
An honest discussion of student achievement in charters, comparing them with how students fare in the traditional public schools, would require data that measured annual academic growth for each student.
That is the only way we could answer the question honestly, because charters attract students who are behind academically. So OF COURSE if you simply take a snapshot of academic achievement, charters will be behind.
That is what both studies you cite did. For each of these studies I can cite others - also based on snapshot data -- that show charters doing better than the traditional schools. These studies suffer the same flaw.
If we are really interested in honestly asking and answering the question "how do students in charters fare compared to those in traditional schools," we need what is known as "value added assessment."
I've been trying for three years to reform Oregon's student assessment system so it gives us value added data (and I have a bill in the leg to try again this yer.) I've been blocked by the education establishment at every turn.
Why are they not interested in having good clean value added data that can be used for comparative purposes? Hmmmm...
I know you have an agenda, which is fine. So do I. I'm trying to establish structural reforms to Oregon's public school system that will allow it to prosper in the 21st century envirnoment, which is quite different than the 20th century.
You no doubt oppose what I am trying to accomplish, which is fine, because it entails things such as allowing private non-profits to operate public schools.
But why you would oppose this if it is a more effective way to deliver the service is beyond me. You dispute whether it is a more effective method? Great, let's get good comparative value added data.
But don't toss about propoganda to buttress your agenda, because it makes you look like a hack. More interested in preserving the status quo (which I would think makes you a conservative in the truest sense of the word) than in honestly looking for truth in public policy, and trying to make good public policy based on that truth that will improve the lives of our school kids.
10:45 a.m.
Jan 14, '05
Chuck, rockin' post. That Baumol's Cost Disease article from the New Yorker revolutionized the way I understood basic economics, and I've been citing it constantly since reading it.
You've combined a couple of issues, and I'm ignorant about school funding. I've read that charter schools study, but I'm at a loss to refute Rob's (unnecessarily caustic) rebuttal.
But Baumol's Cost Disease does disprove a central tenet of the conservative theology: privatization is always better, and always more efficient. This reality was one of the reasons we began creating public agencies to handle certain functions. We recognized that educating children didn't cost equal amounts. By creating an entire system to pay for public education, we pooled the costs and ensured that all children got an education--something that wouldn't happen if we were fully privatized.
And there's the obvious rub: privateers don't really want the responsibility of educating all the kids--they just want the financial cream of the crop. But parsing out the cream to private educators and keeping the cost with the rest means that the state can no longer spread its costs as easily, and per-pupil spending rises, and privateers (or their hacks) cackle that public institutions suck.
As state citizens we need to ask TWO questions, not one. We're really good at asking: "how will the state ensure that MY kid is well educated? But far less adept at answering the question: "what level of education do we wish to supply to Oregon's schoolchildren, and how will we fund it?" Because the evidence that a well-educated population benefits the state financially is not in dispute.
11:51 a.m.
Jan 14, '05
Jeff writes:
"And there's the obvious rub: privateers don't really want the responsibility of educating all the kids--they just want the financial cream of the crop. But parsing out the cream to private educators and keeping the cost with the rest means that the state can no longer spread its costs as easily, and per-pupil spending rises, and privateers (or their hacks) cackle that public institutions suck."
Jeff: Are you referring to charter schools here? If so, you are revealing ignorance of the fact that charters serve a disproportionate percentage of at risk students, which are actually the harder and more expensive to educate, rather than less. And charters do it with roughly half the per student dollars on an all funds basis.
Also - I do not make the argument that public institutions such as public education "sucks." I make the argument that the institution, for a variety of reasons, is not equipped to thrive and serve the public's needs in a 21st century society, and needs to be structurally changed.
And honestly, all I see from the left, is old-fashioned conservatism - protecting the statut quo at all costs.
There is one left leaning organization that actually IS on the cutting edge of this movement - the Democratic Leadership Council, which has over the years developed a large body of research and intellectual/theoretical framework for the things that I am trying to accomplish.
It would not be a stretch to say that I, when it comes to education policy, am a DLC Democrat.
So, you smear the "privateers," by basically stating outright that their motives are dishonest. Well, you are smearing the DLC right as well as me.
Funny, too - you characterized my first post as "unneccesarily caustic" then proceed with your smear! Classic!
Jan 14, '05
Chuck,
Try and take a read from your snow-job central perspective at a dose of the reality you most love to distance yourself from.
http://oregonmag.com/CorporateWelfare.htm Corporate Welfare: or Who Pays Taxes?
And why are you seemingly NEVER concerned about the other vast snow jobs in this state.
Here's a few just from today's papers to go along with the rest of the MOUNTAIN of waste and dysfunction you love to ignore.
The PDC is about to throw $51 Million at the Burnside Bridgehead private development.
The Governor lied in his SOS speech and now has a $22 million dollar hole too fill.
Kulongoski has been and is signing letters of support written by Goldschmidt swindlers.
Oregon is the "worst in the country" with EPA compliance.
Potter, Leonard, and Gordly reveal an idea of suing the legislature to fund at the Quality Education Model. Which is pure propaganda with no basis in any data, research or study. I welcome that suit.
Regarding subsidized development out Gateway area, light rail is called high capacity, (That's a lie) the area is reported as the only major highway intersection without supplies of Class A office. (that's a lie) None exists at I-5 and I-205
2:11 p.m.
Jan 14, '05
Rob,
For those of us with an interest, but no expertise in these matters, seeing two studies commissioned by entities with oppsing goals, arriving at the conclusions outlined by Chuck, looks like very strong evidence. We're all aware that statistics are fungible. I'm also aware that the Department of Education, under the Bush Adminsistration would favor a poor outcome for public institutions, as privatization of everything has been Bush's record both as governor and President.
So I'm disinclined to accept your reference to other studies that bolster your argument. There are always "other studies" but when your allies agree with your opponents on the relative merits of charter vs. public schools, I'm inclined to accept.
That said, I'd never be opposed to gathering better and more relevant information if your methodology is sound, and I hope that is true for all on this list.
2:35 p.m.
Jan 14, '05
Jeff, Are you referring to charter schools here?
No.
So, you smear the "privateers," by basically stating outright that their motives are dishonest. Well, you are smearing the DLC right as well as me.
First of all, arguing against you does not constitute a smear. Second, I wasn't arguing against you, I was talking about the constant effort on the right to privatize everything, and the theology that has grown up around privatization. And third, don't get me started on the DLC, or you will see some smears. You can have 'em.
Funny, too - you characterized my first post as "unneccesarily caustic" then proceed with your smear! Classic!
Except that I wasn't even responding to you, admitting as I had that I know bupkis about schools.
Classic!
(Okay, that was a shot.)
Jan 14, '05
well, i think i know where Rob got his info...here's the beef (though it's been repeated wholesale):
"Over half of charters serve populations where over 40 percent of their students are considered at-risk or previously dropped out. For example, the majority of Texas charter schools serve a significantly greater percentage of minority and low-income students – and many of these students have dropped out of traditional public schools." [http://www.indianacharters.org/news_1.asp?news_id=175]
of course, they use Texas as an example...and we know Texas is notorious for forcing low-performing students out of the public school system, ie "The 'Texas Miracle": http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/60II/main591676.shtml
then your option is charter, GED or no diploma at all.
Jan 14, '05
Who-o-ah, Chuck. "Snake oil?" Did you and I read the same book?
"Osborne and Hutchinson’s core fallacy is that current tax revenues reflect what government should cost."
From where I sat, their view is that current tax revenues reflect what the people are willing to pay. It ain't a question of "should," it's "here's what's available."
Chuck sez: "Oregonians don’t get adequate services for their taxes because profitable Oregon corporations are stiffing them. In the 2005-07 budget cycle, corporations will pay just 5 percent of all Oregon income taxes, leaving 95 percent to households. In 1973-75, corporations paid 18 percent of income taxes."
I don't see Osb. & Hutch making any claims about how we're supposed to collect taxes or what level of taxes are desirable. IIRC, their book was all about how to best spend the money you got, if the people or the legislature don't want to give you any more.
Chuck: "Under their scheme, government sets priorities, decides how much money to devote to that priority, and then determines “how best to deliver” services with that funding."
Yeah. That's a problem why? If the voters won't cough up more money for schools, do we cut programs across the board? Do we cut schools and parks to punish them for not coming up with the money? Or do we fully fund education and take the money out of other stuff?
I'm not arguing with you about our screwed up tax structure. It's a freakin' outrage. Corporations ain't carrying their fair share. But however much money we have, we still need to look at how we're spending it and ask whether government's spending the money the best way we can.
Me, I'd rather spend $12,000 per student than $6,000. But I also want to be sure that if we're spending $6,000 we're giving our kids the best possible education $6,000 can deliver, and if we're spending $12,000 we're giving them an education at least twice as good.
One of the real advantages to this kind of budgeting is you get the community involved, and you give people the sense the government's listening to them, responding to their concerns, and steering tax money to the stuff the people really want. That's grassroots-based budgeting, which I'd call a good thing from a progressive standpoint. Plus, it probably helps counter right-wing propaganda about the government wasting money and gives people more confidence in government spending, and that's a good thing for pretty much any public institution.
Per Chuck: "Horrified by two foster children’s deaths late last year, Oregonians are not demanding that the job be done “as best as can be with the money available.” Oregonians want the protection of and assistance to abused and neglected children done right, 100 percent of the time."
I think that's H&O's point, actually. If 100% protection for abused and neglected children is a top priority for Oregonians, we should spend enough to make that happen. But realistically, Oregonians aren't ready to hand anyone a blank check for anything. So we spend smart, steering money from stuff that doesn't protect kids very well to stuff that does, but fully fund the good programs until we get 100%.
What we shouldn't do is put in across-the-board pro rata cuts that gut children's services along with everything else. Instead, we hold the kids harmless and put deeper cuts in something Oregonians don't care so much about.
A plurality thinks education is the most important thing government does, with public safety a close second. If this budgeting was in place in Salem, and the people were setting priorities, Oregon's schools would be in great shape. It would work even better if tax breaks are treated as "expenditures" so the public can rank corporate tax loopholes as "spending priorities" next to public safety, health, education, and so forth. Guess who loses.
I guess I'm just not tasting any snake oil here.
10:44 p.m.
Jan 14, '05
Rob, you point out, I'm trying to establish structural reforms to Oregon's public school system that will allow it to prosper in the 21st century envirnoment, which is quite different than the 20th century.
So, here's a question right back at ya. Given that our current school system - public, private, and charter - is entirely based on a 19th century agrarian school calendar, would you argue that our schools should keep kids in class around 300 days a year; with funding to match?
Or is that a little too 21st century for ya?
11:54 p.m.
Jan 14, '05
So, here's what I'd like to learn from you defenders of the snake oil:
Hutchinson and Osborne's "price of government" that they divy up among the priorities is the current amount of total revenue. Why is that the correct price to use to divide up among all priorities? Shouldn't you first decide whether we are bringing in too much or too little income?
7:50 a.m.
Jan 15, '05
Kari:
Actually there are charters (and some districts) who use a year round calendar.
You are absolutely right that the 9 month school calendar is an artifact of our nation's agrarian past.
However, the fact that we are no longer an agrarian country is among the least significant 21st century realities as it relates to schools. Of much more import, in my view, if I were to list the realities of our current society that require changes in how the school system is structured, would be:
1) An increase in the diversity of the student population, which requires more diversity of educational offerings (one size fits all approach will work less well than it ever did.)
2) The information age is causing all sorts of redefinitions of our institutions, and schools are among them. The ready availability of info and communication brings about:
a) a democritazation, or decentralization of authority. Moving away from unresponsive, large bureaucratic structures and toward structures defined by local decision-making that can more easily adjust themselves to changing conditions or needs.
b) a demand for more and better options, since it is far easier to gather information about the various options. The more people can find out about choices avaialable, the more they question why they don't have access to them.
c) the need for more efficiency. The current structure, where decisions about what the schools do are generally made at ever-more-distant levels of gov't authority (made even worse by NCLB)creates a very inefficient institution. The 21st century model will be one in which far more actual governing authority is at the school building level, and far less is at the district, state and federal level.
d) Taking decisions out of the political arena, which will bring about a waning of the power of special interests. In the latter half of the last century, special interest groups aquired power over the education system, because most every decision was made through a local political process. Unions and others grew very adept at co-opting these processes and using them for their benefit. In this century (actually it started about 10 years ago)the trend will be to take more and more decisions now made through political mechanisms out of the political arena. Things such as curriculum adoptions, teacher hiring and firing, school and district boundaries, etc.
d) The 21st century is redefining what it means to be part of a community. Geography is now much less important in defining community than it was even 20 years ago. We will continue the current trend of creating our individual identities around non-geographical definitions, since it is so much less expensive now than it ever was to find others who share some defining attribute, and communicate with them.
Indeed, geography as a definition of community will increasingly be viewed as a mechanism that creates and preserves inequities. What could be less equitable than having your address determine which school your child attends? As long as neighborhoods are segregated by income (and I don't see how that is going to change) then the practice of assigning students to schools based on where they live will continue to be a force to segregate the low income in specific schools. Since in our society race is still (sadly) a rough proxy for income, this structure also segregates our schools by race.
Kari, these "21st Century realities" are far, far more important than the school calendar. Even though we are not now an agrarian society and kids aren't needed on the farm during the summers, there are still lots of very good reasons why families like the 9 month school year and would continue to choose schools that use it even if given the option.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing against it - it should be in the mix as an option if people want it. But I would never mandate such a thing - because mandates such as that go against all the above.
My guess is, if offered as an option, some parents would choose it, but the vast majority would not.
So, I know this was long-winded, but no, I would not change the school calendar to a year round calendar as a matter of one size fits all policy.
10:01 a.m.
Jan 15, '05
Rob:
A diversity of educational offerings can be provided with magnet schools through the public school system. We don't need charter schools to fill that need.
The creation of site-based decision-making in Oregon was designed to bring more local control; that structure already exists.
More options? How about more magnet schools?
More efficiency? Maybe in some districts but not all.I support Bill Bradbury's proposal to audit districts. Yes, the money could be used elsewhere, but we need to convince voters that their money is being spent wisely. And in the places where it is not, let's make a change.
Take decisions out of the political arena? Not until we find a way to fund schools that is done outside of Salem.
10:31 a.m.
Jan 15, '05
Rob, in various education discussions here on Blue Oregon, you've generally taken a strafe-the-liberals approach to arguing for private schools. I want to thank you for laying your cards on the table here. Now it's possible to consider your vision.
Which I'll do--
Jan 15, '05
Regarding the factors that result in a quality education, studies show that fully half of the equation is the amount of parental involvement. Most of the rest is the quality of the teacher. I have paid close attention to my kids' teachers in public school, and most of them are well-qualified and do a good job. So the problem with our education system, in my opinion, really is that parents aren't doing their job (perhaps that's why home-schooled, private-schooled, or charter-schooled kids do so well - their parents are obviously engaged in their education).
I think there are a number of reasons for this - both parents working, single-parent households where the parent is overworked, drug and alcohol abuse, language barriers, etc. So I also think it is fair to say that addressing these issues is pro-education. In other words, the money we spend on anti-drug education or on drug rehab is good for education. The money we spend fighting child abuse/neglect and helping parents learn how to care for their children is good for education. The money the schools spend communicating in two (or three, as in Woodburn) languages with parents is good for education. And the more fiscally responsible we can get, lessening the financial burden on working families, the better it is for education.
More than any of this, however, and based on my own experience, teacher-to-parent communication about schoolwork, curriculum and student performance is the most helpful thing that can be done to improve education. This is probably the least costly of all options, and an example of how creative thinking in government can help us find ways to move closer to our goals without spending a lot more money.
Finally, I have to wonder whether the "poor" financial decisions made by our representatives really are that poor, or if we're falling prey to partisan politics of personal destruction, in which our representatives' decisions and motives are intentionally mischaracterized or cast in the worst possible light so as to cause voters to distrust members of the opposite party and thus retain party loyalty. I've seen this go both ways.
10:16 p.m.
Jan 15, '05
Jeff:
What do you mean? I don't recall making a single post "arguing for private schools."
Please tell me what on earth you are talking about.
Jan 16, '05
Jeff, You'll want to make sure you craft Rob's "vision" as you find it most easy to oppose Vs the real case he makes. A case which you apparently have no response for.
That's unfortunate, however. Because if you would actually respond to his central points you would be building on the conversation vs. the juvenile punting you chose.
Too often, in various discussions here on Blue Oregon, the choice is your punt-the-discussion approach in arguing for the status quo, resulting in a halt to the otherwise progressive discussion.
Jan 17, '05
Bravo, Chuck. Not only does there seem to be little compelling evidence that charter schools excel, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that suggests their existence is "dividing & conquering" support for public schools, at a time when changing demographix (general aging of the populous) make that already difficult. Mr. Schopp's assertion that we blugonians are content with the status quo is inaccurate tho...how about someone taking on Suzanne's astute observation on magnet schools? Shouldn't we be reinvesting as many ideas and money into the existing public school system first, rather than endorsing a major opt-out with charters and vouchers, etc.??? As a senior executive with major corporations for many years, I am weary of the myth of efficiency in the private sector...they are super-efficient at outsourcing and increasing the income disparity in our nation but "productivity" isn't so easy to quantify (esp. measured against our nation peers). Please keep exposing the myths & the lies, Chuck. As Dr. King (paraphrasing Jesus) would say: "it's the truth that shall set us free..."
Jan 18, '05
Andrew says, ""Shouldn't we be reinvesting as many ideas and money into the existing public school system first"""
That's exactly what has been done for decades. Have you been living in a cave? Where have you been? Perhaps we should "reinvest" in more CIM/CAM, Portland Strategic Plan, bilingual ed, whole language, Charter schools are public schools. Run with less public money, with fresh ideas from dedicated folks who for the most part experienced many years of "reinvesting" in the status quo prior to their departure. Suppose your plan of additional "reinvesting" were adopted. Exactly who would determine if the reinvesting was working? The same people claiming CIM/CAM works but more money is needed? When would we know the reinvesting was enough? Woiuld it ever be enough? Would there be a point in time when public schools run by private non-government organizations would be the right time?
Jan 18, '05
Suzanne:
Why not magnet schools instead of charters?
Interesting question.
I've got nothing against districts starting magnet schools as a way to provide options, but as a reform, there are good reasons why charters are preferable.
First - were you aware that magnet schools originated primarily as a way for urban school districts to stem the flood of middle class families out of their districts in the 1970's when most urban districts were under one or another desegregation order?
The magnet schools were a way around the deseg orders - they could set academic entrance criteria (in other words- discriminate), and weren't under the same busing requirements as the other district schools.
That is no longer such an issue today, but the fact is that magnet schools are still allowed to discriminate in who they allow to attend. Charters can't do that, which is why I think charters are a far better true reform of the public schools, since they are truly public in that they are open for everybody, not some kind of elitist thing.
Kind of interesting on a "blue" web site to find the argument opposing truly public charters in favor of magnet schools that can discriminate!
If a charter had an academic entrance criteria, it would be immediately shut down.
Just another piece of evidence on this web site that I am the true progressive around here and many of you all are the true conservatives!
Jan 18, '05
Suzanne:
Why not magnet schools instead of charters?
Interesting question.
I've got nothing against districts starting magnet schools as a way to provide options, but as a reform, there are good reasons why charters are preferable.
First - were you aware that magnet schools originated primarily as a way for urban school districts to stem the flood of middle class families out of their districts in the 1970's when most urban districts were under one or another desegregation order?
The magnet schools were a way around the deseg orders - they could set academic entrance criteria (in other words- discriminate), and weren't under the same busing requirements as the other district schools.
That is no longer such an issue today, but the fact is that magnet schools are still allowed to discriminate in who they allow to attend. Charters can't do that, which is why I think charters are a far better true reform of the public schools, since they are truly public in that they are open for everybody, not some kind of elitist thing.
Kind of interesting on a "blue" web site to find the argument opposing truly public charter schools in favor of magnet schools that can discriminate!
If a charter school had an academic entrance criteria, it would be immediately shut down.
Just another piece of evidence on this web site that I am the true progressive around here and many of you all are the true conservatives!
Jan 19, '05
hey Steve: Where have YOU been? In my "cave" (let's call it the Oregon Caves, for fun!), Oregon schools have been doing with less for decades...or at least a decade and a half, since the onslaught of M5 in 1990. Have you got any kidz? I do...and four of them have gone through public schools in that time, with scarily decreasing set of resources. My father was a music teacher from the '50s until the early '80s...today I doubt he could get a job! Steve, please don't suggest that we have been re-investing in our schools, because we simply haven't...and you haven't responded to my main point which is that charter schools and vouchers are a further fragmentation of resources and focus. But I'm sure you don't care - those who favor "privatization at any cost" aren't interested in quality, but only having lowest-cost providers! I get Rob's angle...what's yours??
Jan 19, '05
Mr. Kremer's statement that claims that "charters serve a disproportionate percentage of at risk students which are harder and more expensive to educate, rather than less." is wrong. The December 2004 report released by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) shows that a smaller percentage (42%) of children who are eligible for free and reduced lunch -- a prime indicator of a student's socio-economic status -- attend charter schools compared to other public schools (44%). Also, the NAEP report shows fewer children with disabilities attend charter schools - 8% at charter schools and 11% at regular public schools -- a statistically significant difference. Either way you define "at-risk", charter schools are not serving a disproportionately higher percentage of these types of students -- regular public schools are. Here is a link to the report, which is administered by the National Center for Education Statistics, a division of U.S. Education Department: http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/charter/. If you would like to discuss charter schools further, please feel free to contact me at the American Federation of Teachers, 202-879-4458.
Jan 19, '05
The stats in the study Leslie refers to are national. Perhaps Mr. Kremer was referring to charter school students in Bloregon. That would be more relevant here.
What are the essential differences between regular schools and charter schools in Bloregon apart from charters getting less public $$?
What exactly are the onerous regulations that charters do not have to obey? What exactly to they "opt out" of to operate at a lower expense?
Could it have something to do with PERS increases (no, we did not solve that) or health insurance premiums (runaway in PPS)?
Are these "structural" cost increases truly "uncontrollable"? Is the net result forcing cannibalization of Oregon public school budgets where classroom costs get cut in order to fund union-contract retirees and gold-plated health insurance premiums? That is wrong!
Hmmm. Perhaps Gov. Nesbitt should call a town meeting to explore alternatives to public sector collective bargaining. Oops, I forgot. Collective bargaining doesn't work when collectivists are on both sides of the table. Maybe Bloregon need more charter schools after all.
2:58 p.m.
Jan 19, '05
Thank you Lezlie, for giving the folks on Blue Oregon a stunningly clear example of how teacher unions lie.
Go take a look folks – she gave you the link. Page 4 of the report she cites has a few very easy to understand graphs on the student makeup in charters compared with the other public schools.
Now, if you were interested in actually knowing what percentage of at-risk kids were in charters, do you think you might include the percentage of minority students in that equation?
Apparently Lezlie does not think so.
Take a look, you will find:
Black students in charters: 31% Black students in other public schools: 17%
Hispanic students in charters: 20% Hispanic students in other public schools: 19%
Now, if she were really interested in truth, why would she omit these numbers? Perhaps because she knows they completely refute her claim. And she knows that very few of you will actually go check it out for yourself.
She instead points to the relatively small differences in the percentages of “free/reduced lunch” students and special education students.
Interestingly, there are widely acknowledge reasons that these numbers came out the way they did in the report. They are:
1) Many, if not most, charters don’t bother to classify students as free/reduced, because there is no incentive for them to do it. The free lunch program is more hassle than it is worth for a small school, so why bother? The classification requires asking parents to fill out confidential forms revealing their income, and so unless there is a strong incentive to do it, many charters simply don’t. If they did, the free/reduced % would almost certainly be quite a bit higher than the other public schools (unless you think that the large minority population is somehow mostly affluent.)
2) As for special ed – the three percent difference between charters and other public schools is a reason to celebrate, not fret. It means at least in part that charters are identifying kids as special education at a slower rate than the other schools. Again, they tend to simply provide the kids the services without all the paperwork hassle involved in an IEP. The national (and Oregon) % of kids in special education is a travesty. Who here actually believes that 11% of our kids are disabled?
But – back to the main point: imagine talking about at-risk kids without mentioning minorities!
Congratulations Lezlie – you have done more to impugn the integrity of the teachers union than I could ever hope to do, by putting your lies of omission on display for everyone to see.
Jan 21, '05
Gee I hoped that Lezlie would at least explain why she excluded the minority students when claiming that charters don't serve at risk kids.
Then again, its hard to concoct an explanation that sounds at all plausible. I guess she thinks she's better off hoping the exposure of her lack of integrity will go unnoticed.
Jan 21, '05
Gee I hoped that Lezlie would at least explain why she excluded the minority students when claiming that charters don't serve at risk kids.
Then again, its hard to concoct an explanation that sounds at all plausible. I guess she thinks she's better off hoping the exposure of her lack of integrity will go unnoticed.