Category: State

State

Educational Spectrum

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I like the idea behind SB36 which proposes allowing home school and charter school students to participate in extracurricular activities at public schools with what appear to be some reasonable restrictions. (hat tip – Daily Herald) This bills seems to illustrate one common problem that seems to plague any education debate. We treat education as an either/or proposition. Either we support/participate in public school or private school, or charter school, or homeschool. Instead we should be looking at an educational spectrum where parents have the option to make use of a reasonable cross-section of the various approaches to education based on the needs of their child. I does not have to be a free-for-all, but why should we not allow for home schooled students to integrate to a degree with their public school counterparts in extracurricular activities, drama classes, or auto shop?

Why should public education be a black box where you put your student in and let the teachers, district officials, and legislature define the objectives and methods or else keep your children out of public school and not be allowed to use any of the services that your tax dollars are still paying for. Public education should be a service where parents are allowed to make use of as much or as little of the service as they deem necessary so long as their choices are granular enough to not interfere with the service being provided.

Tags Education

State

One Party State

Most people are probably not yet aware that the state legislature is in session yet and already our unbalanced government is drawing flack from both sides of the political spectrum. From the left we get complaints about a task force to study merit pay for teachers. I like the idea of merit pay, but the task force being proposed is highly questionable as it is overwhelmingly composed of legislators rather than educators and citizens. It goes so far as to pay the legislators on the task force, but not the other members of the task force. It is so loaded with legislators that if they were to split the legislators proportional to the makeup of the legislature they would have 9 Republican legislators and one (likely Republican) governor’s designee who can simply dictate the outcome of the study against the other 3 Democratic legislators and 6 professional educators – this assumes that they put 3 Democrats on the task force – which is not guaranteed.

From the right we have complaints that our state laws governing the use of campaign funds are too lax. It seems like the simplest of common sense that campaign donations should not be used on other campaigns or for personal use unrelated to active campaigning. It’s nice that we have laws to require full disclosure of any gift over $50, but that’s no excuse to allow campaigning to be used as a source of personal income.

You really should visit the original articles to get the full extent of both issues. Nice start to the political year.

Tags campaigns, money, Utah

State

Comments Window Closing

For those affected by the MountainView Corridor, I am reminded that the window of opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is closing next week. Comments must be received no later than January 24th. Now is the time to make your voices heard if you have any interest in this project.

Instructions on submitting comments can be found by clicking the link above.

Tags Mountain View Corridor, transportation

State

Excessively Complex

Witness the Achilles Heel of bureaucracy as demonstrated by my local elementary school (and probably many others in the state as well). Members of the legislature are working (in vain) to ensure that our children get an excellent education. Leaders of the NEA/UEA are working (probably in vain as well) to ensure that teachers do not get overworked in the process. The result is that legislators make laws governing those things that they are able to measure such as the amount of time that students spend in schools. Naturally, more time in school means a better education so they set minimum standards for how long children must be in class each year. In the other corner, the teachers unions are pressing to minimize the amount of time that is required for teachers to be in the classroom – more specifically they are working to make sure that the teachers have adequate time for lesson preparation without having to work 90 hour weeks (seems like a fair request to me). These two competing demand collide each Monday at our local school where, in order to allow the teachers more time to prepare – and in order to not go under the minimum classroom hours for the yea – the students start school 7 minutes early for the students and ends an hour early.

That is the complexity that I can make sense of. Then there is the complexity that seems entirely unnecessary – our school is also burdened by having an early track and a late track. The best I can figure out is that they are trying to stagger students arrivals, recess, and lunch times. Combined with early-out Monday it makes for a schedule that the parents are lucky to grasp let alone the students. Why do we have students starting at 8 minutes after the hour, because starting on the hour would mean that they get 4 hours less instruction over the course of a year, which would obviously not look good when the numbers were reported to the legislature. Someone up there came up with a nice round number and called it the minimum acceptable standard for hours of instruction. Starting at the quarter hour would mean that the teachers get 4 hours less preparation time over the course of a year (which is probably more detrimental than the previous option). I wonder why I get the feeling that we are a bit over-regulated in our public education.

Tags Education, government

State

Bloggers – Turn Out Utah

Earlier today, before significant numbers of ballots had been counted, the news coming out of New Hampshire was that turnout was way up and some precincts were requesting more ballots. In response to that, JM Bell and Misty Fowler each suggested that we’d love to have that problem in Utah. The more I think about that the more I am convinced that not only would we love to have that “problem” but have four weeks to actively work to achieve that in our state.

I’ve suggested before that any election with high turnout is a good election. Let’s make this into such an election. Starting now, let’s light up the Utah Political Blogosphere with ideas and thoughts to inspire people to turn out and vote in the primary election. Misty has set a good example by posting reminders about registration deadlines and information about how to register. What else can we do to encourage people to participate?

People all around the country have wondered why Iowa and New Hampshire should have so much influence on our elections – let’s show that Utahns can be as politically involved as Iowans.

If you are interested in pushing for this let me know – share your ideas of how we can encourage people online and offline to get to the polls. If you don’t think that higher turnout is valuable, convince me that low turnout has any benefit to our state or our nation.

Tags 2008, civic participation, liberty, primaries

State

Health Care Assistance

When I wrote about declining enrollment for CHIP in Utah I did some research on the requirements for CHIP. I learned that even though I am fully employed – meaning I make a comfortable living – my kids would be eligible for CHIP if I did not have the option of insurance through my job. More interestingly I learned that there is another program, Utah’s Premium Partnership for Health Insurance (UPP), which my family would qualify for if I chose a traditional insurance plan. (Actually, my company just switched insurance and I could have enrolled in a traditional plan that would have allowed me to have my full premiums paid – partially by my company and the remainder by the state.) This program helps pay the costs of health insurance premiums for working families.

As I looked at the requirements for UPP it shows some interesting biases that are not good for our health care system. The one that makes the least sense is that they explicitly will not cover High Deductible (HD) plans that qualify for Health Savings Accounts. This essentially discourages people from using the best vehicle we currently have for becoming cost conscious and driving down the real costs of health care. If they wanted to encourage people to get the kind of insurance that is better for the whole system they would give the same amount of money – deposited directly into an HSA – for those who have an HD insurance plan as they give for comparable coverage under a traditional insurance policy. Of course the rules would be the same for qualifying plans whether they were HD or traditional.

Tags government, health care, HSA, Utah

National State

Why We Need A Tax Debate

If anyone wonders why I think we need a tax debate here’s a good example. Congress passed their omnibus spending bill and today Senator Bennett announces that he got $290 Million for Utah in the bill. The assumption underlying his announcement is that any money he brings to the state from the federal government is a good thing.

Obviously if I leave near the Moab Atlas Mill Tailing site I’m happy for the $24 Million dollars. If I work at the Space Dynamics Lab in Logan (which I used to) then I’m pleased as punch that we got nearly $400,000. On the other hand I’m not excited about the golf course in Pennsylvania that the government paid for and the people of Pennsylvania are probably not too thrilled that they have to clean up the tailings mess in Moab so we can all complain that the government is wasting money. Besides that, when the $24 Million is gone will I be satisfied with the tailings cleanup myself?

We need to make federal spending more transparent and start to talk about what we believe is the proper place for government intervention – in other words, what things are appropriate to receive government funding Is government in charge of health care? defense? border security? my retirement? education? my transportation options? the cost of my groceries? what religion I practice (or get exposed to)? the speed of my internet access?

I think that anyone who says’s yes to all of the above, or no to all of the above is extreme.

Tags discourse, taxes

State

Merit Pay and Other Ideas

With Governor Huntsman seeking more money to raise pay levels for public school teachers the Daily Herald calls for something better than a pay-raise across the board. They suggest using the money for merit-based pay increases. I agree completely as I had already suggested that merit-pay might be a good first step to build momentum and consensus in improving our public schools.

Devising an effective merit pay system for a job as subjective as teaching is a challenge, but not impossible. Business managers evaluate subjective factors all the time when reviewing employee performance. What is needed in the public schools is performance evaluation based on some combination of elements, with an accounting for differences in groups of students. The teacher’s job is to drive progress, regardless of the starting point of students. . .

Principals, the front-line managers, should have greater latitude to evaluate performance. They know who their best people are. An evaluation of a teacher might include such things as creating a positive environment for children (perhaps including feedback from parents), innovation, creativity, knowledge of subject matter and communication. If a principal is also subject to merit pay based on overall performance of the school, fears of favoritism should be minimized.

The only group that would oppose merit pay would be the NEA because merit pay could have a negative effect on below average teachers (which would likely be a positive effect on our public schools).

Unfortunately our current system is not set up to encourage teachers to excel. Many teachers come in with high hopes of making a difference in the lives of students only to be worn down within a few years until they quit teaching in public schools. Others may soon abandon their high ideals and rely instead on the job security of a perpetual teacher shortage combined with a large union protecting them from being fired for mediocrity. Few people have the mental and emotional reserves to continue to perform at a high level for an extended number of years in a system that does not reward outstanding achievement. An across-the-board pay raise would not improve that aspect of our school system.

In addition to promoting merit-pay, the Daily Herald suggested some other changes that are worth consideration:

But merit pay is not the only innovation that ought to be evaluated. What would have happened this year, for instance, if the $349 million that went to teachers had been poured into lower-priced staff support? If teachers could be freed from the time-consuming routine of grading and other rote work, perhaps they would have more time to plan, more time to energize, more time to inspire.

Nor should teachers be drawn exclusively from education programs at universities. A great candidate for a teacher is one who is alive with the excitement of a subject and wants to transmit that to others. A wide range of graduates is needed to populate the teaching ranks in Utah’s future schools, and barriers to entry should be minimized.

Those suggestions are too broad to really support without some specifics, but we need to get creative about improving our system. The problems are not going to just go away nor is the cost going to go down over time unless we abandon our ideals or else make some significant changes.

Tags Education, issues, merit pay

culture State

More Is Not Always Better

In January I wrote my personal feelings about the value of all-day kindergarten. Today I learned a few things I didn’t know before. As a fan of irony I knew I would enjoy this when I read the opening:

All-day kindergarten sounds like a great opportunity. The teacher really gets to know your child, and how to help them learn. Your child gets enough hours in a learning environment to really absorb important skills. And, after all, kids are a lot smarter these days, so they are ready to get on with ‘real’ learning at a younger age.

Other good aspects of all-day kindergarten programs are not having to pay day-care costs for another year, and your little tired 5-year-old can just have his 1 p.m. melt-down at school, not at home. There are only 28 students in the class, so your kid will have plenty of attention. And don’t worry, the school will take care of teaching your child everything they need to know — you don’t have to worry about a thing.

The short takeaway list that should make you cautious of all-day kindergarten is this:

All-day kindergarten damages the academic performance of kids from middle- and upper-class homes
The Goldwater Institute found that there was no measurable impact on reading, math or language arts test scores by fifth grade of children who attended all-day kindergarten
All-day programs cost more

I should not take much observation to conclude that “most 5- to 6-year olds are not ready for a six to seven-and-a-half hour school day.” I think that those who push for all-day kindergarten are well-intentioned but I am confident that we would not want the social blow back that it is bound to bring. I think Ms. Herron got her conclusion just right:

In Utah, even kindergarten is optional — and with good reason. We shouldn’t push very young children to be in school all day at the expense of the family and playtime that makes childhood special.

Tags Education, kids, learning

State

This Should Tell Us Something

Post author By David
Post date December 12, 2007
3 Comments on This Should Tell Us Something

The idea that the government should be involved in my health care has always been disconcerting to me. When I read Health care: You can’t give it away I was not sure whether I should laugh or cry. Apparently the state CHIP program is losing more families than they are adding even as they expand their budget to cover more kids. So we’re paying more for a program that is covering fewer kids because people are actively opting out faster than they are opting in. I think that should be a big red flag.

That’s the part that made me want to laugh. The part that made me want to cry was:

Judi Hilman, director of the Utah Health Policy Project, said it’s going to take a “Herculean” effort to combat the stigma that has equated subsidized health care with welfare in Utah. . .

“We need a whole strategic marketing campaign to put these programs in a more positive light,” Hilman said.

If the programs are so good for people why do the people they are designed to help choose not to participate? Secondly, and more importantly, what gives anyone the right to insist that those who are leaving or choosing not to partake should be choosing differently?

Another sentence from Ms. Hilman leads to one more question:

“These programs are absolutely essential if they [low-income families] are going to become permanently self-sufficient.”

The question is – where’s your proof?

I have been uninsured with a family of 5 to take care of and I didn’t use CHIP nor would it have helped me become “permanently self-sufficient.” I don’t mean to say that the program is useless, but I do think her statement is based on a whole range of unfounded assumptions – the kind of assumptions that lead to larger and less efficient government dragging our society towards fiscal slavery.

Tags health care, issues, media, reactions