As one educator said "Children begin learning at birth and then at age six we send them to public school". The government mandated education system has probably ruined more lives then anything else the government has possibly done except war. Education is of more importance than what the government realizes and expecting the government to be concerned with the quality is foolish. The quality has seriously declined and the drop out rate is increasing and with an aging population base the support for it will trend downward for years to come. It realize that this may be a foolish suggestion, but may I suggest that some need to read Theodore Sizer's book "Horace's Compromise". Michael

may I suggest that some need to read Theodore Sizer's book "Horace's Compromise". Michael

1) The book is about American high schools, but the comment begins by talking about children learning before they start school. 2) Sizer is an advocate of small schools, with mentor schools all over the country. How does that relate to the question of whether Oregon should follow Colorado's model and ditch spending limits to make needed investments? 3)Does anyone really believe that McIntire, Norquist, et. al care about anything but limiting spending to enable tax cuts?

Sheketoff Wrote: Just review who are among the business groups supporting the recent move to suspend the tax refunds in Colorado against the wished of the anti-government zealots: the Colorado Springs Economic Development Corporation; the Downtown Denver Partnership representing more than 500 businesses; the Denver Metro Building Owners and Managers Association representing about 400 owners and managers of mostly commercial office space; the Colorado Forum representing about 60 businesses statewide; the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce; and, the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, the statewide chamber of commerce headed by former Republican Speaker of the House Chuck Berry

JK: I don’t know Colorado, but a lot of those groups sound like a number of Portland’s groups representing people benefitting from downtown Portland’s several urban renewal districts that force the rest of the city to support them while they get to keep their property tax money in their very own districts. Do you suppose those groups you listed are in danger of being cut off of corporate welfare in Colorado? If so how do you feel about that, or corporate welfare in general?

I hope you know that Portland has 11 urban renewal districts, with most of the value in downtown, that diverted $57 million last year into their own little fiefdoms, while the rest of us get to help pay for their basic services.

When you add in other breaks that are encouraging high density development, you can almost double that number. (You can find actual numbers at www.saveportland.com))

Now Portland is promoting the N.Macadam UR district which has the potential to almost double the above amount of money diverted away from pubic services.

Portland is even starting to subsidize AVERAGE income people to get them to live where the planners think they should live (for instance see the “headwaters project” and “workforce housing”)

Don’t you think we should shut down this crap, before asking people to take money away from their families and children to pay for grand government schemes.

A final thought: Recessions provide an essential service in that they FORCE businesses and governments to go through periodic hard times which forces them to cut the junk out of their budgets. A rainy day fund would allow the government to ignore wasteful spending, even more than they do now.

JK

Chuck, You are frozen in the ice of your disdain for the voters. The groups you listed are of course very resembling of those you aligned with in support of M30.

You never take any measurement of the public's growing condemnation of wasteful programs such as CIM/CAM or other monumental failures. Then you cast everyone who doesn't vote your way as victims of simple-minded anti-tax zealots.

Having read many proposals for improvement coming from the anti-tax zealots I would say you, who calls for one an only one cure for everything, (more money), are the simpleton.

I have yet to read you acknowledging a single failed program. You have nothing to say about any of the dysfunction and waste brought about by our Democrat run State, Metro, Port, major cities and counties. And every fee, tax, Urban Renewal skimming and expenditure is OK.
Just more money that's all they all need.

To all of those parents and graduating students every year who discover what a fraud and education rip off Vera's CIM/CAM has been you have nothing to say? There's more of them every year who discover the CIM in their hand is worthless.

Remarkably the Governor and Education gurus are now clamoring for a new high school model for rigor, accountability, standards and relevancy. The exact things our 14 year school reform was supposed to provide. So what do we do? Let the same people do the same things but just give them more money?
You're agenda seems to be to prop them up and get more cash.

Look at the Oregon Business Council. Lackeys for the Department of Education, promoters of CIM/CAM and big supporters of M30 and your minority of voters. They're a "Business group" like the ones in Colorado you mentioned? What a joke.

Good thing the voters know best. You don't.

Bravo Chuck. I cheered as I watched the City Club debate with you and Don M. Saturday early morning. Don made it very clear what his motivation is: GREED!

JK makes a valid point, though I don't know if it's the one he wants to make. Those with lots of political clout [roughly proportional to their ability to make political contributions] tend to wheedle out of paying their fair share of taxes. I don't agree that this a good reason to shut down government, but it is a good reason for campaign finance reform. Of course, the shift of tax/fee burden to moderate and low income people benefits the anti-government folks, as voters see that they are paying more in return for less in public services. Throw in a healthy dose of "self-reliance" rhetoric and we have the recipe for quick and easy third world status.

LT ask: How does that relate to the question of whether Oregon should follow Colorado's model and ditch spending limits to make needed investments?

I didn't think keeping up with the Joneses was what it was all about. Education is the biggest consumer of tax money in the state and little is done to determine if it is being well spent. A couple of years ago Oregon received a "D" rating for improving teacher quality. The middle schools in the inner city have some of the least qualified teachers and the students sit bored and disengaged because of it. The Schools of Education at the universities are doing a poor job of preparing teachers and no one is questioning their work. Regardless of how Colorado spends its money Oregon leaders should be examining what is happening here.

Posted by: Tom Civiletti: JK makes a valid point, though I don't know if it's the one he wants to make. Those with lots of political clout [roughly proportional to their ability to make political contributions] tend to wheedle out of paying their fair share of taxes.

JK: It wasn’t my point, but of course it is the reality. My guess is that it has always been this way and always will. Simple reason: If you are facing a multi million tax bill, it is worth millions to find a way to not pay it. Simple economics. Your side always underestimates people’s ingenuity. Same problem with forcing polluters to pay - it may be cheaper to pay lawyers than cleanup. That is why some of the new stuff, like pollution credit trading may be better. You will note that I do not necessarily think this is the solution, just that it may be better than continued pollution because the cleanup costs exceed the legal bills to fight. Simple economics.

Posted by: Tom Civiletti: I don't agree that this a good reason to shut down government, but it is a good reason for campaign finance reform.

JK: I disagree until you repeal the first amendment which makes the press (and TV) immune to reform. Here are some ponderables:

1. Your reform guy is running for office, he is opposed by the corrupt right wing (or left wing), market dominating, TV station who is running hourly editorials against him. The only way to fight back is to buy massive amounts of advertizing. But your reform prevents that.

2. Under reform, the incumbent has the same amount of money you have to oppose him, but he has good name familiarity. How do you overcome that without spending more than your opponent?

3. Eugene McCarthy caused Jonhnson, the war criminal, to not seek a second term. I heard that his campaign was financed by just one (or two?) people. That would be illegal today, and Johson probably would have had a second term. (As it turned out, we got a second war criminal, Nixon, but that’s off topic.)

I just don’t see any proposed reform as doing anything except protecting the present office holders. Why not work on term limits instead? I will.

Posted by: Tom Civiletti: Of course, the shift of tax/fee burden to moderate and low income people benefits the anti-government folks, as voters see that they are paying more in return for less in public services.

JK: Well, lousy efficiency is one of government’s habitual problems. In the private sector, lousy efficiency gets you competitors who force you to get efficient and provide what people want at the lowest cost - a foreign concept to government. By way what do you think of: 1.) everyone pays an equal dollar amount in tax or, 2.) everyone pay an equal percentage of income in tax?

Posted by: Tom Civiletti: Throw in a healthy dose of "self-reliance" rhetoric and we have the recipe for quick and easy third world status.

JK: Of course America rose from “third world status” as a colony, to great world power on individual self reliance, not on government micro management. It appears that your path would throw all that away and we would be speaking German today (or maybe Japanese) today.

Since you are denouncing self reliance, are you advocating another round of socialist experiments like those that got 100's of millions killed in worker’s paradises like Russia, China, Cambodia etc?

If you want true sustainbility, why not advocate (but not force) that people live on larger lots. A friend lived on a five acre plot: while Portland started to spend a billion or so to keep sewage, from high density living, out of the rivers, his sewage never left his land. While Portland talks of rising water expenses and scarcity, his well provided for his needs. If he wanted to, he probably could have been independent for energy and food too. Try that in Pearl. If you really want sustainability let people live on 5 acre homesteads instead of forcing them into high density tenements and having them commute in cattle cars.

JK

Richard:

That was hilarious. You sounded just like a real anti-government loony. If I may make a few minor suggestions for next time:

1.) Reeling wildly from one subject to another is great, but reeling wildly from one verb tense to another is confusing. I know that the people you're lampooning use terrible grammar; but it confuses the reader and blunts your humor.

2.) In paragraph four you start making sense for a moment (your claim that the state has been run by Democrats is false, but it's not nonsensical). It brought me down; it broke the zany, incoherent rant you had going.

I realize it's hard to spout nothing but gibberish for 7 straight paragraphs. If you're running short of material, you can just cut. I reread your post, eliminating paragraph 4, and it is even funnier.

3.) I love the sentence fragments. I’d say use more, but it would make your piece incomprehensible.

4.) Use more exclamation points and upper-case. A sentence LIKE THIS ONE(!!!) conveys nutty rage even though its subject is banal!!!

5.) I love your sign off: “Good thing the voters know best. You don't.” It’s even better like this: “Good thing the voters know best, except when they vote for state, county, city and school district candidates or revenue bonds.” Or something like that; I obviously don’t have your flair for self-contradiction.

Anyway, thank you for the excellent post. If you have the time and energy, you should do a weekly “right wing” post. If you need suggestions for material, let me know. I think an anti-gay marriage rant could be really funny if you did it right.

Bert Lowry

Chuck Sheketoff: Jim, I never cease to be amazed at how some people can twist facts to change the subject. I don't know about urban renewal issues in Colorado, but I do know the business community is so sick and tired of the disinvestment in public services and public infrastructure that they are banding together to stop further erosion by more automatic tax refunds.

JK: Are you sure that the “banding together to stop further erosion” is not, in reality, a “banding together to stop further erosion” of their corporate welfare? That, of course, was my point and one that you ignored. Please address this issue as their motive to oppose spending limits.

Chuck Sheketoff: And while business cycles happen - recessions happen - I am not sure the I would call them an essential service, especially if I considered the human toll they take on workers and their families and communities.

JK: And how does continued government waste and inefficiency affect the human toll? Wouldn’t it be better to deliver the same service at half the price, so that we could serve more people AND reduce taxes - everyone is better off, except the un productive portion of government.

I remember the welfare queens that Regan “discovered”. At the time, somewhere around 50% of the welfare budget was “administrative’, code for government waste. I was, and am still, amazed that no one mentioned this little problem. If they cut the waste from 50% to a still whopping 25%, they could have increased benefits by 50%!

Chuck Sheketoff: "Cut the junk out of their budgets" and "ignore wasteful spending" are nice bumperstickers, but have little utility, especially when used by you to argue against saving in a rainy day fund.

JK: "Cut the junk out of their budgets" is a useful concept on its own. Don’t you agree? Or do you favor waste? JK

Bert,

I'm glad you enjoyed laughing at my post. It underscores the hypocrisy in folks like you.

Perpetually casting critics as anti-school or anti-government while you do more harm than good yourself.

Your use of "anti-government loony" to avoid all discussion of failures such as our CIM/CAM is routine for your camp. You've done it for the 14 years of our reform. Delivered with lies and cover it has indeed been primarily Democrats perpetrating the wasteful reform.

Along with your favorite journalists and editors the parade of CIM/CAM falsehoods coming from the ODE and OBC has been unrelenting. Now at the eleventh hour of failure the silence is deafening as your friends seek to avoid accountability for the tremendous failure.

I use education and CIM/CAM reform as the poster child of bad programs Oregon Democrats brought about and continue to support. If you are unaware of the legislative alignment in regard to CIMCAM then you have been asleep.

Perhaps you should go bone up on CIM/CAM and those such as the OBC and Oregonina who have perpetrated it. It should stop your laughing.

Then again you may again choose to avoid and obscure the truth.

On education, one only need look at SAT score reporting by your friends who claim Oregon is tops. Actually being 25th on the college board list (they do NOT rank) it's the most clear cut, repeated lie in Oregon education and the easiest to check. Yet the ODE, OSBA, COSA, OBC, OBA and newspapers all trumpet the lie every year.

Not only is the "tops" ranking dishonest the college board stresses that using SAT's scores for ranking purposes is not valid.

The time, money and classroom efforts wasted on our reform because of the entrenched dishonest people running our K-12 system may cause you to spout off defenses in the form of "anti-government" labels and laughter, but you are only ignoring the dysfunction and dishonesty.

Yes or no question for Michael: The Salem Statesman-Journal has an editorial today in support of HJR 14. Do you support HJR 14?

And with regard to "Regardless of how Colorado spends its money Oregon leaders should be examining what is happening here." what examination do you believe should be taking place that isn't taking place? I like what Russell Sadler said in his BlueOregon column "rearranging the deck chairs".

Do you support, for instance, Sen. Walker's investigations of school administrators? How would you restructure the training of teachers?

Do you have specific proposals, or just general concern?

Bert:

The more difficult question is, do you get more laughs getting Richard to spout more ridiculous things -- egging him on -- or is it just better to watch him sit and spin on his own? It's not yet clear to me. It's the email that makes me laugh the most ... "oregonvoterunion." Who would have thought a kneejerk conservative would want the word "union" associated with him. Who needs to label a person, when they do it for themself?

Jonathan asks,

"do you get more laughs getting Richard to spout more ridiculous things"

Which thing was ridiculous? The truth about Oregon SAT scores or our school reform? You can go to collegeboard.com yourself and find where Oregon SAT scores are. The CIM (Certificate of Initial Mastery) is a completley useless piece of paper. Contrary to the lies about worth for high school graduation, college entrance and job placement.

I'm not sure either you or Bert have been living in Oregon long if you think our school reform is anything but a huge failure. People of every political pursuasion have witnessed the farce.

Laugh all you want but you are also laughing at democrat parents of public school children.

Richard:

If school reform has failed, or more particularly, if the laudable goals that gave rise to CIM/CAM have not come to fruition, it's not because of any problem with the goals. It's from the jerks (as nice a word as I can find) who have done everything in their power to starve publicly financed education.

As for me, I was born in Oregon and raised in Oregon. I led my high school in a three high-school march in my school district back in 1983-84, to help get a local levy passed -- back when local finance could still be used to fund schools. The people of this state (with the exception of those Multnomah County voters living west of 82nd) have bucked the otherwise universal trend of descimating school funding. Anyone who is not willing to admit that the lack of money is at the root of our most pressing education problems needs to pull his head out of his ... err, the sand.

Whoops ... Oregon voters have generally worked to destroy school funding, with the exception of Multnomah County voters.

jim,

On campaign finance reform, you hide behind one possible problem to oppose needed change. There will always be media bias. It usually favors the same interests that contribute huge amounts to candidates. I don't see that as a reason to nix CFR. Also, incumbents not only have a name familiarity advantage, they almost always have more money than their opponents, so CFR reduces, not increases the problem in the real world. If CFR favored incumbents, we would have a lot more of it.

Government inefficiency is another conservative red herring. Government is often more efficient than the private sector. Social security and medicare are two sizable examples. Do we want government doing everything? I think not, but we want it doing what it does better than the private sector.

Is there something in the conservative makeup that inhibits nuance? I do not denounce self reliance, I denounce the craven use of the term to oppose social services and collective action. Self reliance can be a virtue. I like to think of myself as a self reliant person. I cut my own hair. I repair my own vehicles. I remodel my house. I grow much of my family's food. Does it sound like I am anti-self reliance? Complete self reliance at all times, however, is neither possible nor advisable. Everyone needs some societal and familial support. Some folks need a lot. It doesn't matter if they are German, French, or American. A civilized democracy needs social services, public education, public works, universal healthcare, social security. If you don't like these things maybe Anarctica is for you. There is little government infrastructure there.

Every part of the planet was once "third world" as far as economy and political structure. How is that a reason that the US should not develop beyond frontier structures? It sounds like you suffer from terminal romanticism. Do you wear a raccoon skin hat?

By the way, socialism does not require totalitarianism or mass murder. Does capitalism require imperialism and huge polarization of income? I'm not sure.

There may a place for 5 acre lots, but not in the suburbs of a large city. We would not have sanitary sewers if chemical and biological pollution was not a problem. Once the system is necessary, 5 acre lots makes that infrastructure very expensive. The same goes for roads and many other services. That is one of the reasons for urban zoning in urban areas. I grew up on 100 acres, and keeping bacteria and agricultural runoff out of the drinking water was no simple task. Areas of 5 acre ranchettes often have serious problems with runoff and groundwater contamination.

Jonathan, Goals? Who said anything about goals? So what if the goals were laudable. Everyone wants better education.

What about the sweeping reform which when piloted failed, only to have it implemented Statewide. At a time when funding was not available for it, the legislation required additional funding first, and the State had to lie about it's merits and requirements.

They still lie today about the CIM/CAM and every step of the way they play the same dumb ass game you do. That it is a good idea which was never adequately funded. The problem is that claim is baseless. As is the Quality Education Model which claims the majority of our students would meet state benchmarks if we threw another 1 or 2 billion at the system. There is not a shred of study or data to back that up. In fact it was just made up. The problem with funding education is the people running it who have so little credibility. The school reform implementation has been witnessed by thousands of parents and student for years. They know too well how useless it is and more money won't change that. CIM/CAM was hopelessly doomed from the outset as it sought to apply one remedy to every student. So flawed is it's approach that we could throw many billions at it and never realize the benefit. It's a pack of lies and a mountain of nonsense which will never help in the classroom. Go to the ODE website and read about the CAM. It's a monumental extension of our reform meant to use up all that excess time and money our schools have.

Tell me did you check the mother of all lies? Oregon SAT scores? This is another reason why the ODE and their politicians can't get more support. They are chronic liars and excuse makers. Telling students they would not get into college without a CIM when no college wants the CIM has angered many a parent. Threatening students with lies about withholding their HS diploma angered more. Compiling portfolios only to throw them away angered many more. Preparing and administering thousands of tests only to have the results thrown out angered thousands more. And your pathetic weasel excuse is the "goals were laudable" and funding too low?

The funding is wasted as CIM CAM has proven. Careless, reckless waste without so much as a back up independent assessment to occasionally check on our state crafted tests. And now as I said before the same clowns who recklessly wasted 14 years and billions on our reform are talking about accountability, high standards, rigor and relevancy all over again.

Here we are 14 years into high standards reform and we currently have one of the lowest graduation course requirements in the country. So 14 years and we couldn't even elevate basic course requirements. Heck we should have passed on CIM CAM and simply required more math and reading.

Washington has funded K-12 lower than Oregon and gotten virtually the same results. I notice there is no discussion thread on our reform or funding comparisons between Oregon and Washington.

Chuck, Have anything to say about either?

I went to http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/school/03f33pub.pdf to see why the Oregon School Boards Association, Oregon Department of Education and our newspapers exclude from public consideration an Oregon/Washington comparison. There is rarely any mention of our neighbors to the north.

Could it be because WA spends $359 less per student?

Or that they have more revenue per student but spend less? Or that they also are spending 6 times the amount on land, existing structures and educational equipment at the same time they spend less, while having less than twice the students? Every graph I looked at shows Washington to be run more efficiently.

Oregon spends $262/student more on salaries and benefits $137/student more on education salaries and benefits $319/student more on support services

Oregon leadership is far more short on credibility than they are on money. Too many people know how they spend it.

With credibility they are bankrupt.

Richard:

First, I'm sorry if I offended you. I believed you were joking. If you reread your original post, you may see why. Clearly I was mistaken.

I think you err in using CIM/CAM as a poster child for bad Democartic programs. You err not because it is a wonderful piece of legislation and administrative rule. I don't know enough to hold a strong opinion. You err because it was largely done by Republicans.

CIM/CAM was established in 1991 by HB 3565. Republicans controlled the House and Democrats controlled the Senate. It passed with a large majority. In the House, 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted against it. In the Senate, the only "no" votes were from Democrats.

It then entered the province of the ODE. Norma Paulus was the State Superintendant. I'm pretty sure she's Republican because, well, she ran for governor as a Republican. She was succeeded in 1999 by Stan Bunn. He, too, is a Republican. He served until 2003.

In 1994, the Republicans gained control of the Senate in addition to the House. All further education legislation came through their committees.

In 1995, the Repblican controlled House and Senate brought us HB 2991 which, among other things, established the CAM assessment system. They touted it as establishing "performance standards and assessment." I'm not sure how the votes fell on this. I could find out.

The legislation that has most affected schools, I would argue, is Measure 5. It transferred funding and oversite from the counties to the state. It was sponsored by Bill Sizemore. I think he's a Republican because, well, he ran for governor as a Republican. That was before his fraud conviction.

So, my larger point is this: Clearly you are upset about the state of Oregon's educational system. You may have some valid points; I can't tell. But I really think you're upset at the wrong party.

Angry Republicans are in a tricky spot these days, both nationally and locally. It's hard to complain about "those clowns" at the capital when they're your clowns.

You're welcome to join us Democrats as we try to hash out workable solutions to the problems we're inheriting. If you have clear (meaning simple enough for non-experts like me), articulate criticism of the CIM/CAM reforms the Republicans have given us, and if you have good alternatives, I, for one, would be interested in hearing what you say.

I agree with Bert. I remember the debates over HB 3565, and think it may well have been an excellent idea implemented poorly. Because of term limits, retirements, etc., who is now in the legislature who voted on HB 3565? Maybe it is like No Child Left Behind--good intention, bad implementation?

Loved the statement "Angry Republicans are in a tricky spot these days, both nationally and locally. It's hard to complain about "those clowns" at the capital when they're your clowns."

There is considerable suspicion among intelligent people of both parties that politics is currently drifting with no clear long term vision. HJR 14 and a variety of other proposed legislation attempt to get something accomplished, but there is no real driving force the way there has been in previous years.

But one historical footnote--I think it was McIntire behind Measure 5 and Sizemore behind Measure 47.

In both cases--people who ran ballot measures rather than being out in the real world earning a living or doing other productive work as volunteers. Sizemore once said that the concept of "the common good" was socialistic. Funny, there are Christians who think "the common good" is part of their faith, and that is why they run soup kitchens and otherwise help the poor.

Bert,

I appreciate the rundown but I am abundantly aware of the history and players in our school reform. I do not care which party fixes the mess now.

I am not in "err in using CIM/CAM as a poster child for bad Democratic programs" although there were certainly some Republicans throughout the duration.

Where we are now and have been for at least half a dozen years is a by far a Democrat effort to sustain the reform. Some years back when the CIM was targeted for break up it was Democrats who sustained it. The two previous legislative sessions included attempts to move away from the failed experiment. Along with very few Republicans it was Democrat legislators along with their allies at the ODE, COSA, OSBA and the Governors office who sustained the farce. Susan Castillo campaigned in support of the reform and has defended it ever since.

To suggest that "it was largely done by Republicans" is the worst of the worst kind of spin.

I fully understand the original vote break down and find you posturing the tally as a Republican creation absurd.

CIM/CAM came from House Speaker Vera Katz (D) with Senate President John Kitzhaber(D) and Governor Barbara Roberts(D) right along side her.

The three most key names and you didn't even mention them.

Yes, Norma Paulus(R) bought into it but she also developed a track record of doing such things and isn't exactly a republican icon. Yes, she was succeeded in 1999 by Stan Bunn (R). However you must remember the State Board of Education has been a Democrat appointed body for some time.

It is the state board, democrat legislators, democrat governors, Democrat dominated OSBA and COSA, democrat dominated OBC and others who have propped up and defended the reform. The few remaining Republicans such as Vic Backlund (now out of office) enable your spin but are hardly the driving force behind the now 14 year disaster.

You are missing the boat entirely with CAM. CIM established performance standards and assessments. CAM built on that with career planning, work experience etc. And has yet to be fully adopted. Last year, in the face of CIM stumbling with thrown out tests and low graduation course requirements, the State board voted to mandate the CAM to every district. That has since been postponed.

So, my larger point is the state of Oregon's educational system is so politicized that tremendous failure lasts far longer than it should. The only reason is posture and power over our school system. Democrats of course have been propping up and defending the reform with willing help from the press. So extensive that effort has been that I believe they have been far more concerned about being proven wrong than doing the right thing for our schools. The Oregonian journalists and editorial writers have supported the reform to the same point of no return. Fearing a reversal will bring embarrassment and loss of credibility. It's a "work in progress" they wrote in repelling an earlier attempt to disassemble the CIM.

"Angry Republicans are in a tricky spot these days"? Democrats are running this state regardless of your spin. The Republicans are hardly in a tricky spot nationally. That's a hoot. If they are in a tricky spot what does that say for Democrats who control nothing nationally? What kind of spot are democrats in these days? Irrelevancy?

"....us Democrats as we try to hash out workable solutions to the problems we're inheriting"

Huh? Hash out solutions? Perpetually scheming for more money while recognizing no other problems is sure to fail yet again.

Republicans, who I have plenty of other criticism for, have tried to dump CIM/CAM and are trying yet again this legislative session. Check it out.

Getting rid of it and replacing it with a better assessment system without the flaws and extra waste is a workable solution you should be embracing.

The Oregon School Reform Act for the 21st Century was always doomed to fail. Not because of lack of funding or poor implementation. Those are tremendously pathetic excuses. The reason is the idea itself. Not the intentions or goals of a better education for our children but outcome based education. Renamed Standards Based reform it followed every prior attempt, going back to around 1909, which also failed.

In our latest reckless experiment, without safeguards, our high end student were needlessly distracted form their certain success. Average students were threatened, distracted, annoyed, and frustrated as they were forced through process and more process. Low end students were simply screwed as diverse needs were sacrificed in order to shove them too through the same one size fits none process.

If you truly want to build support for K-12 in this State you better dump CIM/CAM immediately and stop the meddling by the state. Every year it only gets worse with more students and parents discovering the rip off.

They certainly are not going to be reconsidering taxes with such waste and dishonesty still happening.

LT ask:Yes or no question for Michael: The Salem Statesman-Journal has an editorial today in support of HJR 14. Do you support HJR 14? I am assuming you mean the repeal of the double majority. No I do not.

what examination do you believe should be taking place that isn't taking place? I like what Russell Sadler said in his BlueOregon column "rearranging the deck chairs". I would like to know how many teachers are teaching subjects which they are not degreed in. How many fail the licensing exam the first time, the second time and the third time. What are the percentages.

Do you support, for instance, Sen. Walker's investigations of school administrators? How would you restructure the training of teachers? I am not sure what Sen. Walker's investigation is all about, are we talking about an investigation, or an audit of their work and responsibilities?

Do you have specific proposals, or just general concern? Well I am certainly concerned and opposed to groups such as the "creationist" getting their way in the classroom. I would abolish, or consolidate the ESD where possible.
I would also look at ending mandatory school for those above age twelve. If they don't want to be there then they may often be disruptive. I am amazed that so many students seem to do poorly in high school, but buckle down when getting a GED at the community colleges. M.

One point of clarification: Vera was not speaker in 1991 when the bill passed.... Larry Campbell was, and he made a deal with Vera to give her the bill, then pressured the R caucus to go along. He even threatened to remove the house ed chair when she tried to resist hearing the bill. It was a political deal, I am not sure what he traded for it, but that's how it got thru a R house.

I was quite active as a volunteer with NC12 when CIM and CAM were being developed. I also know some pretty sharp teachers. My conclusion was that CIM/CAM, like many educational reforms, is more window dressing than substance. So why all the time, money and attention?

Because public schools are always under attack, always struggling for sufficient funding. Such reforms are a way of addressing problems that don't exist with programs that don't do anything. Good education requires good teachers in a conducive environment with a reasonable number of students who are ready to learn. It's really quite simple, but it's not cheap.

Indeed, it is Republicans and other anti-public education forces that drive programs like CIM/CAM. Believe me, teachers did not view this as addressing the needs of the educational system.

Tom,

Leaping lizards!

",,,anti-public education forces drive,,,,,,, CIM/CAM."

EXACTLY

I can't believe you are admitting what the Lars Larson's and conservatives have been saying for years. Anyone who would support such wastes of "time, money and attention" is indeed anti-public education. The trouble is, you can't figure out who was and does "drive" CIM/CAM and, by your own words, is anti-public education.

Of course you try and cast Republicans as those pushing CIM/CAM and that's where you have completely broken down.

That is as factually upside down as it gets. So much so that I can only believe it was deliberate.

Republicans have been hammering CIM/CAM for years.

It has been Republicans who have tied to dump CIM/CAM over the last several legislative sessions and for 8 to 10 years with help from zero democrats. Democrats in an arm lock with the Oregonian, COSA, OSBA, and even the OEA have defended and propped it up. Every democrat committee member voted against bills to rid our school of this fraud.

The OEA, who could have gotten rid of it, sold out teachers to bolster their grip (with the ODE, OSBA and COSA) on our public education system.

Tom> "Believe me, teachers did not view this as addressing the needs of the educational system."<

Duh? And North Clackamas Superintendent Ron Naso along with the other players lied for years about that. Telling reporters and the public that they "have teacher buy in". That the "teachers they work with say it has been a tremendous improvement".

The Bend-LaPine super testified CIM/CAM saves money. The ODE tried to claim the CIM was a good predictor of college success. Trouble with that was our university study placed the usefulness BENEATH good old GPA and SAT. Then Robert Landauer wrote a piece placing the CIM ahead of both. Ya he lied to hype the CIM.

During a legislative hearing when the college predictor hype was offered by the ODE, Rep. Nolan (D) suggested the state paten the CIM and sell it to other states to raise revenue. Wow.

The ODE brought in a lobbyist from the AGC and asked him to testify that CIM/CAM was delivering better prepared workers to the building trades. It wasn't, but when on a lie roll what the heck.

You are making things up Tom. Who do you think testified in opposition to the reform at all the legislative hearings? It sure wasn't the former OEA pres. James Sager (now education advisor to Ted K.). His and the union's silence was deafening. Speaking only when superficial changes to the work sample load came into play with NO overriding condemnation of the reform itself. All carefully postured to continue the reform and maintain the status quo they enjoy.

Each and every time democrat staples ODE, OSBA and COSA sat side by side at committee hearings defending and promoting the reform with doses of ludicrous edu-babble and outright lies.

Oregonian journalists Besty Hammond, Steven Carter and editorial writer Robert Landauer did all they could to perpetuate the experiment.

Democrat activist Steve Novick appeared at hearings to weigh in saying the exact opposite of what you now claim.

He condemned right wingers for trying to get rid of it. Novick, "Kremer wants to turn over testing of our students to big fat evil corporations". I guess he thought our tests were A-OK. Presumably right up to the point of throwing thousand of them away after they were administered to thousands of our students.

Now you claim Republicans have been pushing CIM/CAM?

Give me the name of one democrat who lobbied to get rid of CIM/CAM.

For years conservatives on talk radio pointed out the many flaws and detriments to our schools resulting from CIM/CAM.

In legislative hearings parents, students and teachers all weighed in with testimonies of harm with no benefit. Did any democrats step forward to help advance a repeal? No. Not one.

Susan Castillo's campaign supported CIM/CAM while her opponent worked feverishly to raise awareness and kill the thing. Your democrats not only supported CIM/CAM but they have worked continually to spend even more time and money on it. Not only that they worked with their allies to oppose anyone who sought to repeal it.

"Public schools are always under attack"

In this state it is your party who attacks our schools while clamoring for more money to waste. At the same time they say there is NOTHING LEFT TO CUT.

Well, you just admitted they have been lying because they could have cut CIM/CAM years ago.

Tom >"Such reforms are a way of addressing problems that don't exist with programs that don't do anything.

You got it. And with CIM/CAM there have been countless warnings of it's failure.

All of which were ignored by the democrats running our school system.

If you believe what you say about CIM/CAM then I'm sure you'll want to support the current bill to get rid of it.

Better check with your peers though. Many of them would rather it all continue instead of admitting they were wrong about it. All for the children right?

Richard:

I think it's important that you separate your reasonable criticism of CIM/CAM from your unreasonable dislike of Democrats. Your insistance that it is a Democratic debacle harms you in two ways: First, it makes it less likely that Democrats will listen to your actual argument because they'll tune you out as a "partisan hack." Second, and I can't stress this enough, the further I research the actual legislation, the more convinced I become that CIM/CAM was pushed primarily by Republicans. So calling it Democratic harms your credibility.

On an earlier post I mentioned HB 2991 -- this was the follow up to HB 3565, the bill that started it all. Not only did HB 2991 pass the Republican held House and Senate, it was sponsored by Republicans exclusively. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Luke(R) with Rep. Oakley(R) and Rep. Snodgras(R).

Interestingly, Rep. Luke voted against his own bill after it was amended with Sentate committee changes. But the bill passed both chambers with broad support from both parties. That doesn't sound like a Democratic boondoggle; it sounds like a Republican sponsored, bi-partisan bill loved bu both parties.

So what has gone wrong? How can something embraced on both sides of the aisle be bad? I don't know very much about this, but I'm interested in your critique. I'm going to try to paraphrase your argument. Please let me know where I go astray.

1.) CIM/CAM takes resources that should be used for instruction and puts them elsewhere. Testing? Certificates?

2.) CIM/CAM proponents claim that CAM assessment is a valuable indicator of future success, but it's not.

3.) CIM/CAM proponents want more money to solve their problems and/or expand on their successes; more money won't help because the program is flawed.

Is that the gist of your argument? Have I missed an important point? Have I misunderstood?

In order for me to follow you, you'll have to slow down and organize. Once I understand your arguments, we can deal with evidence pro and con. Right now, I get lost in a flurry of citations, names, acronyms and quotes.

Wow! Look at this: we're actually communicating.

Bert, You are asking for a complete education on the topic. You have obviously been out of the since you are unaware the CAM has yet to be implemented.

Going back to bring you up to speed while you argue with ignorance on the topic would not be productive.

There is no dislike of democrats at work here just the reality of who pushes CIM/CAM.

The problem you have is the lack of information which many who visit this site have.

You can be sure that many, probably all of the Blue contributors know full well their democrats brethren have been pushing and defending this failed program while Lars Larson et al. have been hammering it.

Actually it is Tom Civiletty's post which made the best case. "anti-public education forces that drive programs like CIM/CAM" against Oregon democrats. He's right. Those who have pushed and defended this fraud are the ones who are anti-education.

If you want a run down go listen to the recorded testimony from the joint committee hearings on CIM/CAM from a few weeks ago.

Richard:

You're right that I'm ignorant of the CIM/CAM stuff. I know the legislative history, but not what the legislation has done or how it's been implemented. It sounds like you know a fair amount about it and that you have some legitimate gripes. I'm interested in understanding what they are.

I do not accept Lars Larson as a source of information or opinion. He has little regard for the facts. His job, and he's pretty good at it, is to push the conservative agenda. He omits facts that are inconvenient (like the fact the the CAM legislation HB 2991 was proposed and voted in by Republicans); he makes up facts that aren't true.

That doesn't mean he's always wrong. It does mean that I don't believe what he says until I do my own independant investigation.

If you'd like to continue our discussion, you can email me. Please put "Blue Oregon" or "CIM/CAM" in the subject line so I don't accidentally delete your email.

The first thing you could send me would be a link to the hearings on CIM/CAM from a few weeks ago. Once I'm up to speed, we can continue our dialog via email. Who knows? We may agree more than we disagree.

Richard,

You may have me confused with a party line Democrat. I call things as I see them. As far as educators supporting CIM/CAM, you need to realize that once the decision is made at the state level to go with some "reform", administrators have little choice but to support them. Also, now that the infrastructure for CIM is mostly in place and that for CAM has been largely developed, continuing with CIM/CAM is not necessarily a tragic course. While it does little to improve education, I don't think it does much to harm it. The waste was the high number of person-hours that went into developing and selling the system. It would have been better to spend these teaching kids.

I continue to hold that it is anti-public education funding forces that drive such "reforms." They are aided by certain educational professionals who are looking for jobs in developing the new programs. The public education system embraces these refoms so it looks like they are doing something about the mostly nonexistent problems opponents use as excuses to defund schools. What schools really need is enough money to pay enough teachers who are not burdened with tons of paperwork, along with building that work for education.

I talked with teachers throughout the CIM/CAM development process. Believe me, they were not CIM/CAM enthusiasts. They wanted to teach, not implement new systems. I got the same impression from administrators who felt, nonetheless, obliged to "get with the program."

Having listened to him on other issues, I doubt that Lars Larson is working in the best interest of public education in Oregon. He has strongly supported the largely unaccountable charter school movement and takes every chance to swipe at the OEA. His goal, in my estimation, is the destruction of public education because of its socialist nature.

You might also be surprised to learn that I support the use of phonics to teach reading. That does not mean, however, that I support Charles Starr's approach of implementing that.

Bert, There are plenty of folks on Blue Oregon that know darn well democrat legislators have unanimously supported CIM/CAM. There is no debate here just because you don't know enough.

I was not suggesting "Lars Larson as a source of information or opinion". I was attempting to dramatize the camp or source of CIM/CAM opposition. Mr. Larson is not a source but has certainly been a conduit of information which has been accurate regarding CIM/CAM. His guests, callers and ands their conversation and information on this issue have been plentiful.

There has been no omission of facts. Convenient or otherwise. Your premise regarding the CAM is grasping at straws and effectively irrelevant.

You appear to be unaware of the political dynamics in Oregon education so I won't be able to spend the time walking you through the basics.

You might consider the silence from democrat leadership on this issue. They really don't want to talk about it for a reason. It's their failure on a grand scale.

Mannix opposed CIM/CAM in his campaign against Kulongoski. Kremer the same against Castillo. A majority of republican candidates the same against every single democrat who supported it.

Again, there is no debate on who supports or opposes this fraud reform. You can dance around the edges all you want but the legislative and newspaper archives are full of the truth.

Yes you would or will agree with me on this once you bone up. However, as the reform finally dies because of republican sponsored bills the excuses for it's failure will be as phony as the reform itself.

Dislike of conservatives, republicans and Mr. Larson willonly obscure and slow reality.

Richard,

I think you are confusing then and now. Republicans supported CIM/CAM when it was considered and adopted by the legislature. Now that it has been implemented by Democratic statewide officeholders, Republicans run against it. Does this look like opportunism to you? It does to me. Anti-public education folks [Republicans with the exception of people like Vern Duncan and Dave Frohnmayer] miss no chance to attack public schools and teachers. Since CIM/CAM is part of the system now, R's will trash it. When they start combining their critique of the system with calls for sufficient funding, they will have much more credibility.

While I am no fan of CIM/CAM, I realize that we can have a good school system under the system - if we have the needed budget. CIM/CAM is neither necessary nor sufficient for good education. Neither is it a fatal flaw.

By the way, the educational changes, as opposed to the paperwork changes, called for under CIM/CAM stressed the need for creative reasoning and problem solving. This would be an improvement over the "teach to the test" approach that has become the de facto educational imperative in schools. If you want to talk about a major problem in education, start railing against the primacy of standardized tests to judge students, teachers, and schools. Tests have their place. Defining the total success of education are not that place. CIM/CAM is trivial in comparison.

Tom,

What a pathetic attempt to back track. You are spinning out of control.

You already stated that those pushing CIM/CAM were anti-public education.

I am confusing nothing.

Sure Republicans supported CIM/CAM when it was considered and adopted by the legislature 14 years ago.

"Now that it has been implemented by Democratic statewide officeholders, Republicans run against it"<.

That's because we have watched it fail miserably and waste the time effort and money you already talked about. That waste continues and has been perpetuated for years by Democrats NOT Republicans with the exception of a few Rhino Republicans.

"Does this look like opportunism to you?<"

Opportunism? It's trying to get rid of a wasteful anti-public education program according to you.

You obviously have no understanding of the CIM/CAM battle which has taken place over the last ten years. Or you are a bald faced liar. Hell bent on providing cover for you anti-public school democrats who have perpetrated a fraud of the worst kind upon our school children. Concerns were raised and there was ample opportunities over the years to back off and validate the system. It was suggested over and over again.

How the heck are we ever going to have sufficient funding when your friends keep wasting it.

Additional funding will go to the crap waiting in the wings. The Democrat State Board of Ed. voted recently to adopt Statewide the CAM. It's on hold but wating in the wings.

Have you ever read that bundle of anti-public school crap?

Tom, you really could not be more of an ass on this topic. I mean that in a civil way of course.

You are no fan of CIM/CAM, but want to spend more money on it?

How about two billion more like the QEM calls for? You want to defend that load of baseless garbage too simply because it calls for more money?

If you are promoting pouring more money into t a program you know to be the blind adherence e to a failed policy

"problem solving.<"

That's great Tom. The State through out all the 10th grade math problem solving test results this past year because they concluded the tests they created were no good.

It's pretty obvious you have visited with some ODE folks on this issue as you have all their talking points down now. "The waste is all but over now that implementation is done" Crap like that. "It's a good system in need of more funding" Good according to what or who. The fools who push it? You recklessly meddled with our children's education and want to continue doing so?

You talk about no other choice for administrators. What a cop out. Many of them fully embraced the whole thing and lied about it repeatedly.

The ODE continues to lie about our reform and our student performance. Every year about the SAT "ranking" which doesn't exist.

Go read the CAM on the ODE web page and see what is in store for our schools if they get their hands on more money.

If you provide cover for the fraud we have experienced and promote what will lead to more than you are far worse for education that the charter movement or Lars Larson.

<hr/>