Errors of Enchantment

We at the Rio Grande Foundation have believed it for a long time, and it only makes sense: giving parents and students greater control over education decisions improves results. Of course, if you've been following the debate, you may also be aware that the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats are dismantling choice programs. The problem being that regardless of results, teachers unions, a powerful voting and fundraising ally, can't stand school choice.

We need educational choice in New Mexico and nationwide. Regardless of political party affiliation, improving educational outcomes and creating more diverse opportunities for students should lead to choice-based reforms.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 08:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It seems that Governor Richardson and the City of Santa Fe are dead set on saving the bankrupt College of Santa Fe. Richardson has pledged $11 million for the school -- don't you love how politicians, particularly the executive branch, can arbitrarily throw massive amounts of money around regardless of what the Legislature does or what might be best for the average citizen? The Governor is not alone. The City of Santa Fe is moving forward with a plan to purchase the College through a massive (and I might add, risky) issuance of bonds.

Of course, it would seem that perhaps the College's failure might be due to inadequate demand for its services or a lack of perceived value for the price from potential customers (see the Big 3 for further details), but unlike the private sector which self-regulates by squeezing out inferior and unnecessary products, government has every incentive in the world to provide a taxpayer-funded bailout.

While the current economic situation would be painful enough by itself, it is government policies that are extending the pain to taxpayers and others who were largely blameless. Hopefully Governor Richardson and the City of Santa Fe allow the College of Santa Fe to play its part in the cycle of "creative destruction," but if history is any guide, New Mexico taxpayers will soon be paying once again for someone else's mistakes.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 02:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Paul Gessing at 06:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There's no other way to say it. She wrote an opinion piece in the Albuquerque Journal on Wednesday and I just find it amazing that she continues to push a half-billion-dollar annual tax hike on struggling New Mexicans.

Her first specific point is about the study the Legislature commissioned by American Institutes for Research which found that funding should be 14.5 percent higher than it is now. Even after that increase, she argues that we would only be funding a "sufficient" education for New Mexico's children. Of course, Utah spends the least per pupil on K-12 education but has some of the highest graduation rates in the nation. Regardless of Stewart's assertions, spending alone does not make for an "adequate" or even "excellent" education. Notice that she makes no guarantees as to what, if anything, taxpayers will get in terms of improved results for pouring billions of dollars into this broken system in the next few years.

True, New Mexico's education funding formula is broken, but New Mexico's K-12 educational system is broken as is apparent due to our near 50% dropout rate. Rather than killing New Mexico's economy with higher taxes (thus making jobs harder to come by regardless of graduation), perhaps Stewart and the education establishment should re-evaluate "adequacy" and come back with some ideas (like choice). As an aside, it is worth noting that Congressional Democrats are trying to kill Washington, DC's school choice system.

Stewart and her friends in the teachers' unions have worked hard to keep New Mexico students from having access to similar programs and thus finding out what an "adequate" education is all about.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 06:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you read this blog regularly, the postings on the topic of education will begin to sound like a broken record. Unfortunately, the key word is "broken" as our educational system is. More evidence was provided recently b the findings of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the limited government-oriented national legislative umbrella organization based in Washington, DC.

That organization's recent study, the 15th edition of their "Report Card on American Education," shows that New Mexico's K-12 government-run education system is not only behind other states, but is falling further behind as time passes. According to the New Mexico-specific pages of the study which can be found here, The Land of Enchantment has fallen from 43rd to 48th since 1998 in ALEC's overall ranking. This, despite a more rapid increase in per-pupil spending than was found in other states (42% to 36.6%). Of course, this has not deterred New Mexico's educational establishment from demanding still more money to pour down this rat hole.

One would think that beating out only Hawaii and Mississippi among the 50 states would be enough to encourage New Mexico's political establishment and citizens to demand immediate change, but so far this session, SB 355 which would establish a system of education tax credits, has languished without so much as a committee hearing. Hopefully this changes quickly before another lost generation of New Mexico children is failed by the government school monopoly.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently, I blogged about the arrogant and ignorant comments made by Ellen Bernstein, the head of the Albuquerque Teachers Federation. Basically, Bernstein told the business community to "sit down and shut up" if they don't support higher taxes for education.

While New Mexico's beleaguered and small business community, particularly the Albuquerque Chamber, has repeatedly sold out over the years, perhaps they are turning over a new leaf under the leadership of car dealer Don Chalmers.

The most important example of this turnaround is the fact that the Albuquerque Chamber was among the groups criticized by Bernstein and the fact that, at least to date, the Chamber has remained firm in its opposition. A recent op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal by Chalmers and Cole laid out the Chambers' very good reasons why the business community should have a tremendous say in our educational system and how it is funded.

Here's hoping the business community remains engaged and opposed to these unnecessary and economically-harmful tax hikes.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 01:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New Mexico legislature has announced that it will be decreasing government funding across the state, which will effect spending on public schools. This has created an uproar among many people who believe that the solution to our education problem here in New Mexico is to give more money to schools. Toward the end of last year members of the New Mexico education board proposed a so-called solution, a one percent gross receipts tax increase to help aid public school funding.

Unfortunately, the only thing that the tax increase will do is create more of a tax burden on New Mexicans and New Mexico-based businesses during difficult economic times. Despite the money which the state plans to spend on government schools, study after study has found little to no correlation between better education and more government funding.

It’s easy to understand why it would be popular to increase education funds; more money should mean more books, better teacher pay, better facilities, and an overall better education. The problem within New Mexico’s education system cannot be solved by an increase in taxes. Certainly a cracked desk or a leaky roof has never caused a child to under-perform. Change must come from somewhere other than an increased supply of government money. It must come from a school’s drive to improve its quality and the realization on the part of parents and students that the educational product being provided is extremely valuable. This is not currently the case.

One option for improving this situation is to offer tax credits to students in low-income families. Parents can utilize tax credits when they decide to place their child in a school that is either private or outside of their district. Although this means that a child may have to travel longer distances to get to school, the benefits outweigh the losses. In the end the child gets a better education. After all, parents would not make the extra effort to get their kids out of the government-run school (and pay a portion of the new school’s tuition) if they were not receiving a superior education.

This tax credit proposal, which has been introduced in the Legislature as SB 355 by Sen. Pete Campos (D), is a more optimal solution than the proposed increase in sales tax. Tax credits affect only those parents who are paying the school fees. Furthermore, it creates competition without privatization. Schools will have incentive to improve, because parents have more options. Although tax credits will not solve all of our public school’s problems, they are a step in the right direction without wasting still more tax dollars.

New Mexicans must shift away from the belief that more money necessarily means better education, toward the idea that a smart use of resources and planning can guarantee better results.

Posted by Hillary Gorman at 06:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I just love New Mexico's education bureaucracy and the people who defend it. Now, as I've discussed previously, the education establishment is pushing for a massive tax hike to fund even more wasteful spending -- this despite the fact that the educational system is set to receive a massive cash infusion from the federal stimulus package.

Anyway, as the tax hike bill (in its current form it would increase both the gross receipts and personal income taxes), HB 346, began moving through the Legislature, New Mexico's usually acquiescent business community showed signs of life and opposed the tax hikes. That is when things started to get interesting.

According to this article from the ABQ Journal, the head of the Albuquerque Teachers Federation said of the business community "They have no business in the education business...they either need to support the kind of funding education needs or they need to be quiet." There are so many things I could say about this extremely arrogant statement:

1) Given New Mexico's near 50% dropout rate (second worst in the nation), it would seem that the teachers' unions and education experts aren't exactly doing the job;

2) New Mexico has dramatically increased per-pupil education spending over the years, so money may not be the answer (check out page 6 of this study);

3) Since businesses and their consumers will foot the bill for higher taxes, shouldn't they have a say in whether they are raised?;

4) When did we decide that teachers' unions were the final authority on education anyway? After all, unions don't run United Parcel Service and it certainly seems that the unions have not done much for GM, Ford, and Chrysler. When did we abdicate the education of our children to a union that is primarily concerned with increasing teacher salaries, increasing their own membership, and preventing non-union competition?

5) If there are lawsuits over the supposed "adequacy" or lack thereof of New Mexico's educational offerings, shouldn't we at least objectively define "adequacy" first? Perhaps choice would make New Mexico's schools more adequate? Why is more money the only answer (see question 4 for the real reason).

Hopefully the business community stands its ground. We'll be there providing intellectual ammunition to opponents of this incredible boondoggle.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Now that the education establishment is lobbying for higher taxes, the pleas for "adequate" education funding are pouring forth. Recently, Sharon Morgan of the National Education Association New Mexico argued that point on the pages of the Albuquerque Journal.

The problem is that among the platitudes and discussion of schools as "community hubs," Morgan makes absolutely no arguments to support more education spending. After all, what exactly is "adequate?" How much spending do proponents believe will ensure that our children receive an excellent education? The fact is that our current education is a bottomless pit in need of unlimited taxpayer money because there few incentives for schools to improve and compete to serve children.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 04:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Rarely do we at the Rio Grande Foundation see eye to eye with left-wing Sen. Jerry Ortiz y Pino, but he actually talked some sense in a recent column in the Alibi. His conclusion and ours: higher taxes are not the solution to improving education in New Mexico.

In a letter to the editor I expressed support for this realization and the Senator's call for smaller schools, and suggested a system of education tax credits as a means of spurring reliance on smaller schools in the short term. Find out more about tax credits here.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 02:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There is a lot of talk at UNM about making the school more environmentally responsible. A new degree is even being offered in sustainability studies. In keeping with this trend, the University and the state government should also consider making UNM more fiscally responsible.

With President David Schmidly implementing a freeze on hiring and faculty raises, University students are becoming increasingly critical of fiscal policy on campus. They have reason to be concerned. After all, major facility renovations and upgrades, including a $60 million renovation of The Pit, are moving forward despite the freeze on faculty spending. Some students have suggested Schmidly take cuts out of his own salary - which is $387,000, according to UNM's public records - and administerial operations to ensure that the educational function of the University isn't jeopardized.

Although the state has allocated less money to the University this year, UNM's operating budget has increased by 10.4 percent. State allocations to the school are likely to continue their decline due to tax revenues taking a hit from dropping oil prices. If the school's budget keeps increasing and state allocations continue to dwindle, the University will find itself having to compromise the quality of education just to keep itself afloat.

Unfortunately, the University's incentives aren't necessarily aligned with its purported educational goals. That's because a relatively minor percentage of the school's operating budget is collected from tuition - only 6.4 percent. Far more, 38.6 percent, comes from local, state and federal taxpayers.

New Mexico policymakers should consider realigning those incentives by routing a greater percentage of government money through students in the form of a voucher rather than directing it to the bureaucracy. Colorado is one state that has enacted this reform to positive effect. If New Mexico's universities are forced to compete for students, and therefore money, student needs will begin taking precedence over basketball and administration. A voucher program will give students the ability to allocate government funds to whichever school they choose. In a free-market system like this, schools will naturally focus more on the quality of their product - education - rather than sports facilities or outrageous administrator salaries.
(The above letter was published in UNM's student newspaper, The Daily Lobo.)

UNM's President David Schmidly is also worried about the likely cuts in government allocations to the school. Hopefully this recession can give the university an opportunity to learn to operate more efficiently.

Posted by Corey Davis at 03:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Everyone wants a bailout these days. Once Congress and the Bush Administration made the misguided decision of bailout out AIG and the banking industry, every other industry -- not to mention governments and individuals -- decided that they deserved some money from the federal government.

In yesterday's Albuquerque Journal, Christine Trujillo
President, American Federation of Teachers-N.M, made the case for a government "bailout" of education. While I couldn't disagree more with her overall point, the truth is that she makes no factual argument for the "bailout." Rather, she makes some pointless statements about societal changes that she argues make educating children next to impossible.

The biggest red-herring is that education suffers from inadequate spending. This is the argument some are making for a major gross receipts tax hike for additional education spending, even in these tough economic times. As Dr. Harry Messenheimer has pointed out, education spending per-capita has increased dramatically in recent years. Check page 6 of this study.

There is no need to bail out education with a tax hike of any kind. Instead, like the Big 3 automakers, education will be forced to improve and become more efficient with competition and by giving consumers greater freedom of choice.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 08:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Now that he's moving to Washington, DC, Barack Obama and his wife must choose where to send their girls to school. One might think based on his strong advocacy for government-run public schools and opposition to choice, Obama would put his children where his ideology is by sending his kids to DC public schools. Not surprisingly, that is not the case.

Rather, Obama is thought to be leaning towards sending his girls to a tony private school, perhaps the same one that the Clintons sent Chelsea to. It would be nice if all Americans had the same (or at least some) choice over educational opportunities.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 03:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Another New Mexico-based think tank -- usually considered to be moderate or slightly left-of-center -- called Think New Mexico recently released a study calling for smaller schools. While the Rio Grande Foundation has focused on tax credits for education and, more broadly speaking "choice" and market-based reforms as the best means of improving educational results, we fully support Think New Mexico's call for smaller schools.

According to research from Think New Mexico:

New Mexico's graduation rate ranks second from the bottom of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Only 54.1% of New Mexico's children graduate from high school, compared with a national average of 70.6%. An average of 77 students drop out each school day across New Mexico - nearly 14,000 per year.

Decades of research have shown that smaller schools have higher graduation rates, higher student achievement, lower levels of student alienation and violence, and higher levels of satisfaction among students, parents, principals, and teachers. Small schools also dramatically improve the performance of low-income children, which helps to narrow the persistent achievement gap.

The most effective high school size, according to the research, is 600-900 students. Yet, in 2007, more than two-thirds of New Mexico ninth graders entered high schools with populations larger than 1,000 students, and nearly a third entered high schools with more than 2,000 students.

Small schools are not only better for students, they also cost less to build and operate. Researchers have found that the most efficient schools are those serving 300-900 students. Schools larger than this experience "diseconomies of scale": inefficiencies and increased costs that result from increases in bureaucracy, security, and transportation. In addition, if the operational cost of a school is calculated "per graduate" rather than "per student," small schools are substantially more efficient than large schools because their dropout rates are much lower.

The capital costs of small schools can also be far less per student than those of large schools if the small schools are designed to take advantage of community educational resources like gymnasiums, pools, libraries, and sports fields, rather than duplicating these facilities. Several New Mexico charter schools have successfully applied this community-based model, at a savings of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Think New Mexico recommends that the legislature and Governor Richardson enact legislation requiring that: 1) any school receiving state capital outlay funding for construction must have a capacity of no more than 225 students per high school grade level, 120 students per middle school grade level, or 60 students per elementary school grade level; and 2) schools receiving additional state funds to serve at-risk students must establish smaller learning communities if they exceed these size limits and if they have not already done so.

While not explicitly "market" or "choice"-based, the call for smaller schools will certainly make New Mexico schools more manageable. Broad-based choice should still be the ultimate goal of education reform (and it will continue to be the centerpiece of our reform efforts), but forcing schools to downsize should result in improved results.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 03:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When promoting market-based education reforms like tax credits, we at the Rio Grande Foundation are often confronted by those who believe -- even if they don't clearly explain their position -- that New Mexico students can never achieve educational success, in part, because the population is too poor or too Hispanic. It is true that minorities have historically not performed as well as other students, particularly in public schools, but there is no reason this must be the case.

A new study from the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute, "Demography Defeated: Florida's K-12 Reforms and Their Lessons for the Nation," debunks the myth that Hispanics can't perform in the right educational environment. This study which can be found here shows how Florida, a state that has embraced far-reaching school choice reforms, has enabled minority students to excel. As the study points out:

In 1999, when these reforms were enacted, nearly half of Florida fourth-graders scored “below basic” on the NAEP reading test, meaning that they could not read at a basic level. But by 2007, less than a decade after the education reforms took effect, 70 percent of Florida’s fourth-graders scored basic or above. Florida’s Hispanic students now have the second-highest statewide reading scores in the nation, and African-Americans score fourth-highest when compared with their peers.

In fact, the average Florida Hispanic student’s score is higher than the overall average score for all students in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The fact that Florida Hispanics out perform New Mexico's entire student population should indicate that vouchers and tax credits (both of which Florida has adopted) can improve results. Hopefully, New Mexico policymakers will take notice.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 03:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A few months ago, the Rio Grande Foundation sponsored a showing of the film "Flunked" and a conversation with education reformer Ben Chavis. Video of the post-film discussion is available here.

Several people enjoyed the film and asked if copies were available for sale. This was not the case when we showed the film, but DVD's recently went on sale. Order your copy here.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 08:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A few weeks ago, the Rio Grande Foundation hosted educator Ben Chavis from the American Indian Public Charter School in Oakland, CA. Chavis shared his "radical" ideas on education which included holding all minority children and children of all income levels to a high standard. You can listen to the interview we did with Bob Clark of KKOB 770 here when Mr. Chavis when he was in town for our education event in Albuquerque on July 31st.

In addition to this informative radio interview, syndicated columnist George Will had an article that appeared in today's Albuquerque Journal and in newspapers all over the country.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 02:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Many readers of this blog undoubtedly attended the Rio Grande Foundation/Educate New Mexico screening of "Flunked, the Movie" on July 31. If you missed the event, you may want to check out the video below of the discussion with educator Ben Chavis, a star of the film, Steve Maggi, the film's director, and President of the Rio Grande Foundation Paul Gessing.

The video is in two parts and represents our first foray into the medium. Please let us know what you think: info@riograndefoundation.org

Continue reading "Flunked, The Movie Discussion" »

Posted by Paul Gessing at 02:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As previously mentioned on this blog, the Rio Grande Foundation and Educate New Mexico are hosting a free showing of the new film "Flunked" on July 31 in Albuquerque. Following the showing, Ben Chavis, the former administrator of the American Indian Charter School in Oakland, CA, will be presenting his ideas on education reform. Chavis is a star of the film.

The NPR show "Day to Day" did an excellent story on Chavis's success a few years back. Check out the 5-minute audio clip here.

I hope you'll consider attending this exciting event.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 09:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Rio Grande Foundation and Educate New Mexico are sponsoring a film event on July 31, what would have been Dr. Milton Friedman's 96th birthday. We will be showing Flunked, the Movie, a film with an important message for New Mexico’s parents, teachers, and students.

Flunked is a 45-minute documentary that discusses America’s failing educational system, analyzes the reasons for that failure, and profiles some leaders who are making a difference. Ben Chavis, principal of the American Indian Public Charter High School in Oakland, California, (and a star of the film) will discuss the film and what can be done to improve our lagging educational system. Executive Producer Steven Maggi will be on hand to answer questions about the making of Flunked.

• Results of national and international tests show that our students are falling further and further behind. The average American student is no longer able to compete with foreign students, and in many cases, they’re failing to meet even basic academic standards;

• Complaining about the problem is easy, but it produces few productive results — especially when many schools nationwide are truly “getting it right;”

• Flunked is the story of these schools—their founders, leaders, and students—who are breaking the mediocre mold and attaining great results with their students...without government programs or mandates!

• By focusing on schools that are successfully applying these principles, Flunked sends a message loud and clear: Parents, students, principals, and teachers—in New Mexico and across the nation—do not have to settle for mediocrity in their own schools!

When: July 31, 2008 - 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM
Where: New Mexico Bar Association
5121 Masthead NE,
Albuquerque, NM 87109

The Bar Association is off Jefferson, south of Paseo in Albuquerque. Drinks and hors d’oeuvres will be provided. Happy hour begins at 5:00 and the film will start promptly at 5:30.

This event is free and open to the public.
Please RSVP to info@riograndefoundation.org or call 505-264-6090.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Truancy has been a topic of discussion of late here in New Mexico. Unfortunately, most energy and political effort has been expended on the enforcement end.

Unfortunately, as I argue in the Farmington Daily-Times truancy is a clear indicator that students (and to an extent their parents) don't value education. The problem is, of course, that a government-run monopoly is not designed to serve students and even those who remain in the system are often poorly served.

As I argue in the article:

We must dispense once and for all with the notion that "schools" should be funded. Instead of funding schools themselves, we must fund students and their needs. This means that money should flow through the students instead of bureaucracies.

The idea of funding education through students as opposed to schools may sound like a radical one, but until schools are required to treat children and their parents as customers and compete for their business, children who don't feel served by the system will resort to the radical and harmful steps of truancy and dropping out.

Truancy will no longer be a problem if the schools are forced to serve their customers by providing an educational experience that is tailored to student needs and is relevant to their employment futures.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 02:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Rio Grande Foundation has long been critical of our system of government-run schools. There are many reasons for this, but one important reason is that the institutional design of the schools themselves and the government's management of them makes it very difficult to serve the diverse needs of our children. Nowhere is this dynamic so clear as with the Albuquerque Public Schools' inability to serve autistic children.

Corey Davis, a policy analyst with the Foundation responded to a recent article in the Albuquerque Journal (subscription needed) which explained that parents of autistic children have filed a lawsuit against APS. Corey's letter to the editor, which appeared in the paper on June 17, follows:

School Vouchers Give Parents Choice Instead of Frustration

THE RECENT report that 10 families of autistic students throughout the district are seeking a class-action lawsuit against the Albuquerque Public Schools for failing to meet their educational needs once again makes it clear that tax-funded, government-run schools are not necessarily the best option for all children.

The lawsuit claims that special-needs educators aren’t properly trained to educate these students. These children are frequently sent home early for behavior issues instead of receiving a full day of education because the teachers haven’t received the training necessary to understand autism and how it affects the students.

The problem is not the teachers, but the one-size-fits-all education system.

Our state spends about $7,000 on each student’s education every year. If parents of special-needs children were given a school voucher so they could choose where they wanted to send their children, many more students would have the chance to receive an education from a school that addresses their needs instead of trying to drive a square peg through a round hole.

The state of Ohio has a publicly funded scholarship program specifically for autistic students. In that state, parents are given money to help pay for tuition at the school of their choice.

Rather than failing children with unique educational needs, New Mexico should consider adopting a program like Ohio’s that puts parents in charge and relieves school districts from the burden of educating students with whom it is ill-equipped to cope. This is certainly a better option than a costly legal battle with justifiably frustrated parents.
COREY DAVIS
Policy analyst, Rio Grande Foundation, Albuquerque

Posted by Paul Gessing at 09:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have often heard that one of the keys to improving our failing education system (both here in New Mexico and nationwide) is to get business leaders and the business community more involved in education. While forcing schools to adhere to the principles that businesses must adhere to in a competitive economy is the centerpiece of the Rio Grande Foundation's education reform agenda, I've long been skeptical that businesspeople taken as a whole have any particular insight into making the fundamental reforms necessary to improve American education.

That reality was made clear to me this morning as I sat through a presentation by a manager of Intel Corporation's education experts. While he had a lot of great information on how to help bring technology to the schools, his company's solutions are designed to work exclusively within the context of the current government school monopoly. Like Bill Gates' efforts to improve K-12 education by throwing money at government-run schools, Intel's efforts are destined to fail to have any long-standing or widespread impact.

You'd think that corporate guys would figure it out. The key to their success is the fact that they have to compete to make a better product or some other company will take their market share and they'll lose money. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that many business types actually understand how the market system actually works. Thus, when it comes to reforming something like education, they don't see the big-picture problems and incentives as necessary to their success.

This is the stuff of college theses and grand intellectual inquiries, but what we ultimately need is education reform that demands schools compete as if they were the next Intel or Microsoft. After all, even a flawed Vista operating system is forced to compete with Apple. Our schools face no real competition.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday’s Albuquerque Journal featured an article titled APS Will Cover $20M Funding Hit. Apparently, the state did an audit in 2007 that found that the Albuquerque Public Schools district was over-reporting teacher experience and special education staff. The state determined that it had given APS $20 million too much because of these errors.

Part of the problem was that from at least 1991 to 2001, APS was calculating teacher training and experience against state rules. APS’ criteria for “teacher training” were more lax than the state rules allowed. Even after the state warned APS in 1991 and forgave the errors, the district continued to miscalculate for another decade.

APS also used a “computer program that accidentally doubled its number of special education staff.” Who knows how much that computer program cost the city? My little cousin could’ve designed a program that can count numbers. He probably would have done it for free too.

APS will not have $20 million of state money in ‘08-’09 that it’s used to receiving. APS says it can “cover the loss with its cash reserves next year.” But, unless APS suddenly hires teachers that actually meet its over-reported levels of training and experience, and unless it doubles the size of its special education staff, it will be $20 million ‘short’ every year.

The district’s chief business officer, Gina Hickman, said that we were giving APS $13 million too much for teacher training and experience, and $7 million too much for special education staff. I can understand that APS may have different guidelines for calculating teacher training and experience than the state does. I would assume APS was giving this $13 million to teachers with more training and experience. But, if the faulty computer program was doubling the numbers of special education staff, what was APS spending our $7 million on?

Posted by Corey Davis at 02:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The state of Georgia is on a roll. Over the weekend I blogged about an important piece of health care legislation that was recently signed into law by Gov. Sonny Perdue and expressed my hope that New Mexico would follow suit. Now, we receive word that the Georgia Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed legislation that will allow individuals and businesses to take a dollar-for-dollar credit on state taxes for contributions to non-profit groups that fund tuition scholarships for children in K-12. More than 10,000 children will benefit from the new law.

As regular readers may know, the Rio Grande Foundation has been promoting tax credits for education in a loose coalition with Educate New Mexico and other proponents of educational choice in New Mexico. Georgia has set the standard in health care and education. Hopefully New Mexico follows their lead.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to Zsombor Peter of the Albuquerque Journal ($1M Spent on Truancy, With Little To Show for It, Apr. 22, 2008), the state government has recently released a report documenting that 67% of APS high school students are classified as habitually truant from class. The state high school average is 33%.

In his 2003 “state of the state” address, Governor Richardson “propos[ed] a $1 million appropriation for truancy prevention.” Through the Governor's Statewide Truancy Prevention Program, the APS district was awarded the most out of any district in 2005, $40,000. It now appears that almost 7 out of 10 high school students miss more than 10 days of instruction out of the school year.

The state’s truancy prevention money is not being invested wisely in the Albuquerque Public Schools. There are obviously circumstances that contribute to a student’s absenteeism that the district is either overlooking or not effectively addressing.

We were all 16 at one time or another and most of us have skipped a class or two at some point in our lives, but the fact is that our public schools are not producing a product -- even when it is offered for free and officers of the law attempt to force attendance -- that most "consumers" deem worthy of their time. This truancy problem persists despite the abundant documentation of the importance of a high school diploma.

There may not be a silver bullet solution to the truancy problem, but we could start by tailoring our educational system to the needs of students rather than attempting to force students into a regimented and very institutional public school setting. Charter schools are a step forward, but this is yet another sign pointing to the need for school choice.

Posted by Corey Davis at 03:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Rio Grande Foundation and Moises Venegas have worked together on education choice issues in the past. Most recently, we were part of a loose coalition on behalf of education tax credits. While we consistently approach the education issue from a pro-freedom perspective, Venegas, particularly in an article "Poorer Students Lost in Rush to Create Mesa del Sol Charter," that appeared on the opinion pages of the Albuquerque Journal on Sunday, April 6, approaches the issue from a very different perspective and comes to some conclusions contrary to the promotion of choice.

First and foremost, Mesa del Sol is a taxpayer-subsidized development now taking shape south of Albuquerque's Sunport. Recently, the developers behind the project requested to build a charter school as part of the development.

Venegas's argument is a bit bizarre in that he claims that wealthy people "already have school choice if they are willing to spend $10,000 to $16,000" to send their kid to an expensive private school or they can move to an area with better schools. While this is technically a choice, these are not good choices especially when one considers that these people are already paying thousands of dollars annually in taxes for the failing government schools.

Venegas furthers the class/wealth issue by arguing that Mesa del Sol's application for a charter is another means of the wealthy segregating themselves at the expense of poorer students. This argument boggles the mind. Sure, wealthy people (like their poorer counterparts) want what is best for their children, particularly when it comes to education. While Mesa del Sol may indeed be targeted at high-end residents, even relatively wealthy people will struggle mightily to pay $10-$15k annually per child in private school tuition. It would seem that building a charter school for the community is eminently sensible.

The fact is that true school choice will benefit all New Mexicans whether they are wealthy, poor, or in between. After all, competition drives improvement and cost reductions in all products whether they be cars, televisions, or education. Charter schools (and tax credits or even vouchers) are not the be-all, end-all when it comes to improving educational quality through choice, but they would be a big help. Rather than tearing down certain attempts to build alternatives to the failed government schools, Venegas and others should let 1,000 flowers bloom and bring choice to all children.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 02:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While New Mexico's Legislature failed to pass legislation that would allow individuals and businesses to take a credit against their state taxes for donations to organizations that offer scholarships to children in K-12 schools, another state, Georgia, is on the verge of adopting such a law. All that is necessary at this point is a signature from the conservative, Republican Governor who is expected to sign it.

As was repeatedly pointed out (here and here) in the debate over tax credits in Georgia, tax credits for education will improve education by offering choices to children in those who might not otherwise have a choice over their educations. New Mexico should follow Georgia and other states that include Arizona, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania in adopting education tax credits.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 08:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Readers of this blog and followers of our work are probably aware of the failures of New Mexico's education system. One study even found that New Mexico ranked dead last (51st in the nation in a study that included Washington, DC) in measuring what the study called "a child's chance at success" as it pertains to education.

As bad as that statistic is, the really sad thing is that American education really isn't that good to begin with. An article in the USA Today highlights this point discussing a survey of American high schoolers which asked them to name the most famous Americans in history. Shockingly, Founding Fathers like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson didn't make the list, but Susan B. Anthony, Oprah, and Marilyn Monroe did make it.

Not to belittle the accomplishments of Martin Luther King and some of the others on the list, but there is no doubt that our politically-correct "education system" is failing to educate American students on the figures in American history that have contributed the most in favor of those that fit certain ethnic and gender groups. Of course, given the politically-correct nature of our teacher's unions and their dominance of our education system, it would seem that the situation is not going to change anytime soon.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 02:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The March issue of the Heartland Institute's excellent publication which follows education and education-related reforms, covered a recent study by Dr. Harry Messenheimer on the failure of New Mexico's ever-increasing spending on K-12 education. Messenheimer's study, "The Way to Education Success in New Mexico: Breaking Free from Failed 'Reforms" find several important facts, including:

"Over the past two decades, New Mexico has dramatically increased resources devoted to education."

"When adjusted for inflation and population growth, general fund spending has increased by 34 percent over the past 19 years," the study notes. The average New Mexican is now paying an extra $319 each year for no improvement in the education of our children."

The entire study is available here.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 02:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We have previously noted on this blog that pre-k programs in other states have failed in their supposed goal of improving lasting educational attainment for children. Yesterday, Richard P. Boyle, Ph.D. of UNM's Institute for Social Research, confirmed this in an opinion piece which appeared in the Albuquerque Journal.

The conclusion reached by Dr. Boyle (study available here), an independent researcher who is not affiliated with the Rio Grande Foundation in any way, is that "While both preschool and full-day kindergarten programs were successful during the time they operated, most advances in achievement appear to have washed away by grade four." This closely mirrors the findings in Arizona which is even further along with its "early education" initiatives than New Mexico.

Ultimately, pre-k and all day kindergarten are simply tools to give the public education system even greater control over our children while employing more teachers and draining taxpayers' pockets. If New Mexicans are serious about education, they need to consider choice options that restore parental control and force schools to compete to best serve parents and students. Monopolies don't work!

Posted by Paul Gessing at 01:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While education is not at the top of the legislative agenda this year, it is never far from the minds of politicians and those of us who are concerned about out-of-control budgets. That is why the Rio Grande Foundation is supporting the idea of education tax credits. Recently an opinion piece I wrote appeared in the Los Alamos Monitor making the case for the adoption of such a credit in New Mexico during the current legislative session. In building the case for these reforms, I cite Dr. Messenheimer's recent policy paper published by the Rio Grande Foundation which showed that education results in New Mexico are stagnant despite ever-increasing resources dedicated to education.

My article drew a rather misinformed response from a reader to which I responded with the following:

As the author of a recent (January 3) article on the need for tax credits for education choice here in New Mexico, I feel the need to clear up some misconceptions contained in a recent letter written by John Lilley, dated January 17.

Mr. Lilley states that private schools already have the capacity to accept donations and that such a system is already in place. This is true, but that does not mitigate the need for New Mexico to adopt its own tax credit program for the benefit of needy children in failing K-12 schools.

The idea we are promoting and which is being carried forward by Sen. James Taylor (D- South Valley) this year is for individuals and businesses to take a credit against their New Mexico tax burden. Unlike the federal deduction which Lilley references, tax credits would allow individuals to take a credit against a very high percentage (up to 90 percent) of their New Mexico tax burden and allocate that money to eligible scholarship programs.

The current tax deduction is taken against a taxpayer’s federal tax burden. This provides a significantly lower rate of return and is available only to those who itemize their federal taxes (typically higher income taxpayers).

Two other misconceptions are that we want people to be able to donate directly to their own children’s education. This is simply not the case as donations would be made to a non-profit, scholarship organization to offer scholarships for low-income children.

Lastly, Lilley calls into question our status as a “charity.” While we are designated as a 501c3 non-profit, we are not a grant-making organization. Not all non-profits make grants.

Lilley has every right to criticize both the editor of this paper and the Rio Grande Foundation if he wishes, but his assertion that my writing is nothing more than factually incorrect “ramblings” is incorrect and out of order. If Lilley or any reader of this paper has questions about our work or education tax credits, I encourage them to check out our website: www.riograndefoundation.org.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 02:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today's Albuquerque Journal included a column from Kathy Chavez, President of an organization called Albuquerque the Educational Assistants Association. The organization even has a website here.

Essentially, Chavez argues that while teachers and principals have received salary increases of 20 percent to 40 percent over the last three year, "classified employees," that is, those who handle non-classroom related functions, have seen stagnant salaries. Chavez wants a raise for those people and takes Sen. John Arthur Smith to task for proposing a 2 percent increase next year.

Who's right? It is hard to say because there is no such thing as a free market in education. Public education is a government monopoly with almost no competition in the system. Therefore, it is hard to tell what pay structure is "fair" and schools and districts have no need to compete for staff. If Chavez and her ilk are serious about increasing pay, they must seriously consider educational choice as a means of increasing salaries. Given the AFT's statement on both vouchers and privatization, the AFT seems unlikely to embrace any market-based education reforms in the near future.

Lastly, while I'm not saying Chavez doesn't have some point, New Mexico spends more on administration and other outside-the-classroom costs than any other state in the nation...that is, less of each education dollar in New Mexico goes to the classroom than any other state. Go here and click on NM on the map of the USA. Clearly, we are spending large sums on administration, where it is going is anyone's guess.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 05:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Rio Grande Foundation recently hosted Trish Wilger, Executive Director of the school choice organization Iowa ACE. Iowa's education tax credit program was signed in 2006 by then-Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack.

During her time in New Mexico, Wilger and I met with legislators in an effort to educate them on the issue of education tax credits and how they might help students in our state. Listen to the interview by KUNM's Steve Shadley here.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 05:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Cato Institute has published an outstanding new paper (link is to executive summary) on the potential for education tax credits to provide greater choice in public education. Among other points, the paper argues that tax credits enjoy practical, legal, and political advantages over school vouchers. Tax credits, not vouchers, are a viable option here in New Mexico for many of the reasons outlined above and for that reason they are a top priority of the Rio Grande Foundation and other advocates of increased educational opportunity.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 08:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Leonard Pitts is a relatively left-of-center columnist who is often picked up in various geographically-specific editions of the Albuquerque Journal. While I don't agree with him often, a recent story he wrote on what works in education caught my eye. In his story, Pitts praises charter schools and specifically the additional discipline and time in the classroom provided by the KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) style of teaching.

Charter schools are certainly a good option for many kids both in New Mexico and around the nation and Mr. Pitts' praise for this form of school choice is welcome. I wonder, however, whether he also favors broader school choice measures such as tax credit scholarship programs. As recent studies from the Rio Grande Foundation and other organizations have shown, New Mexico is in dire need of improvement in K-12 education. Hopefully lefties like Pitts and others are willing to consider all options, public and private, in order to improve the schools.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 02:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While the case can easily be made that the Albuquerque Public Schools are broken beyond repair and that we should simply start over with heavy doses of school choice, that is a tough, long-term struggle. In the more immediate future, the system is faced with a decision to make over who should lead the school system.

In a recent letter to the editor of The Alibi, I make the case that APS more closely resembles a large business than anything else and that executive experience is more important than teaching experience. Unfortunately, it would seem that the majority of the public wants an educator to fill the role. Of course, it would seem that the majority of the public might not necessarily know exactly what it takes to run a public school system.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 09:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Utah voters on Tuesday face the most important choice on the ballot anywhere in the nation this year. The issue is whether parents and children should receive any of their tax money back when they opt out of government-run schools or whether their choices are limited to just those schools that are indeed run by the government. The law was signed back in February, but the teachers' unions, true conservatives in the sense that they have no forward-looking agenda only opposition to change as George Will describes, have done everything in their power to strangle the program in the crib.

While it is true that Utah's voucher program is a more difficult sell than the tax credit program we're working on here in New Mexico, the Utah vote will be an important measuring stick to see where voters are on school choice.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 09:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to a new study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University studies high school dropout rates and terms schools that graduate no more than 6 in 10 of incoming freshman a "dropout factory" that is failing far too many students.

According to an article about the study in the Albuquerque Journal, the New Mexico Public Education Department says that in New Mexico, 66 percent of incoming freshman make it to their senior years. That's bad enough, but in Albuquerque's Public Schools, only 61 percent of incoming freshmen make it to their senior years. This almost qualifies all of APS as a "dropout factory" according to the Johns Hopkins study.

Of course, APS has its own data which show that not nearly that not nearly so many of its students are dropping out, but New Mexico has already been shown to have fudged graduation data in the past. Who are you going to believe, objective researchers at Johns Hopkins or bureaucrats with a decided self interest who have misled in the past?

Posted by Paul Gessing at 07:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Increasing federal control over education policy as occurred under No Child Left Behind was never a good idea. For one thing, it gives lobbyists a central location enabling them to force states to purchase their products. In this instance, our own Sen. Jeff Bingaman is taking a lead role. Tim Carney writes about it in a recent Washington Examiner article:

In August, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., together with Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., introduced the Achievement Through Technology and Innovation Act, or ATTAIN for short. The bill’s various provisions all aim to direct federal funding to local schools under NCLB. A House version of ATTAIN was introduced in May.

One significant aspect of NCLB for struggling schools has been $100,000 federal grants that they could more or less spend as they please. Many schools spent the money on computers or software licenses, but many others invested in a couple more teachers. ATTAIN would remove some of that leeway and require schools to spend certain portions of their federal money on computers, software and training teachers to use the technology.

It would be great if Bingaman and others would exert some self-control and not micromanage the states' efforts to allocate resources under NCLB, but money comes with strings. This is just the latest justification for ending the law later this year.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Rio Grande Foundation policy analyst Stephen Ford discusses the results (or lack thereof) of Arizona's Pre-K program and how they may be relevant for New Mexico policymakers in the Rio Rancho Observer. Unfortunately, albeit not surprisingly, Governor Richardson is not concerned with results and is moving ahead with even greater funding for pre K, having sent out a press release to that effect earlier this month.

Among other things, the Governor allocated "an additional $14 million toward the expansion of PreK programs in New Mexico, boosting the number of students served by 63 percent." According to the release, "the $14 million will pay for nineteen new programs. The pre K program expansion makes 58 programs available in 43 communities across the state and will increase access to early childhood education for approximately 3,568 four-year olds."

With less-than-promising results in Arizona, it is unlikely that New Mexico's abysmal education system will be improved by giving them another year to do a bad job of teaching our children. Only time will tell.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As a product of Albuquerque Public Schools, I feel strongly attached to its fortunes and misfortunes. As of Monday, superintendent Elizabeth Everitt announced her refusal to renew her contract next year. She leaves her office as a controversial figure.

Whatever achievements Everitt did or did not accomplish, her tenure is tainted by the effects of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. We can criticize her all we want, but she could accomplish little in the face of such overwhelming and stifling regulation. The system created by this act "impedes learning, encourages dropouts, narrows the curriculum, increases anxiety, fosters academic dishonesty, and does nothing to improve schools," and Everitt could do nothing to change this.

We all know that APS has plenty of problems. Yet we must also realize that we can never address those problems until we can define our own educational system, free from No Child Left Behind and other strangling federal regulations.

Posted by Stephen Ford at 04:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A few weeks ago I blogged about a David Brooks column in which he claimed that the "free market" is failing to produce enough educated workers for the American economy.

It was good to see John Stossel express many of the same thoughts I did in a recent column. We have enough problems with the teachers' unions and those who have a direct interest in misleading Americans about the socialist nature of government-run schools, we don't need so-called "conservatives" doing it as well.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 03:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

David Brooks of the New York Times has never been my favorite columnist. I've never really thought that he "gets it" when it comes to limited government and personal freedom. He also made several factual mistakes (the RailRunner is not "light rail" for example and New Mexico is not a "Red State") in a recent article on Bill Richardson's run for the White House.

But I'm not going to dwell on those past errors. I'm writing about a current issue. Brooks wrote a column recently in which he called himself a "Hamiltonian." While I don't dispute his claim -- he's certainly no 'limited government conservative' -- another statement has me shaking my head:

If you are reading this column, you’re keeping company with somebody in group No. 2. We Hamiltonians disagree with the limited government conservatives because, on its own, the market (emphasis added) is failing to supply enough human capital. Despite all the incentives, 30 percent of kids drop out of high school and the college graduation rate has been flat for a generation.

Just when it needs a more skilled work force, the U.S. is getting a less skilled one. This is already taking a bite out of productivity growth, and the problem will get worse.

How exactly is the educational system in this country a "market?" The answer is it is not a market in any way, but a government monopoly with only a few inroads having been made by charter schools, private schools, voucher programs, tax credit programs, and home-schoolers. While these groups all are attempting to break out of the top-down, government education model, they are a distinct minority.

In other words, Brooks doesn't seem to know what the word "market" really means. If Brooks and other "Hamiltonians" want to create a better-educated work force, perhaps we should create a genuine "market" in education. Until then, calling it a market is absurd.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Before I even get into this topic, it is important to clarify that there is no real evidence that spending more money improves educational performance. That said, I noticed a recent story noting that New Mexico now ranks 35th in education spending among the 50 states.

It may seem that we are not spending enough to educate our children although $7,580 per student is a healthy sum, even higher than rates charged by private schools, but like so many numbers, per-student spending is misleading. I submit to you the following ranking of teacher pay. While New Mexico's teacher pay is 37th highest in the country in nominal terms, when those numbers are adjusted for cost of living, pensions, and experience, New Mexico's teacher pay ranking actually rises to 20th.

Despite this focus on money and teacher pay, the fact is that results are the most imporant part of the equation. Choice, not money, is the key to improving results. That is why the adoption of a program of educational tax credits is one of the Foundation's top priorities for 2008.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The New Mexico Department of Taxation and Revenue opens it's webpage with a question; who benefits when taxes are collected? It then goes on to proudly proclaim that 47% of your tax dollars go to public schools!

If someone's benefitting from this program, I'm not seeing who it is. It's certainly not benefitting the taxpayer. It's not benefitting students either. As Justin pointed out, we already pay over $7000 per student, a huge increase over the past 30 years. Despite this, the education system still fails to deliver better results. The excess money has only succeeded in maintaining a system that lags behind the the demands for today's world.

One way to finally begin putting a dent in the massive amount of money we funnel into our moribund education system is through education tax credits. Tax credits have saved other states such as Arizona and Pennsylvania millions of dollars. The Heartland Institute estimated in 2005 that tax credits could save our state $42 million over ten years.

New Mexicans should not be proud that we half our tax money for education. We need to see some change in the amount we fork over for mediocrity. Tax credits can begin this process.

Posted by Stephen Ford at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday, the US Census Bureau released its latest report on the public financing of elementary-secondary education. The data itself is also available.

On average, $8,701 of taxpayer money was spent on each student nationwide in 2005. New Mexico ranks at #35 in spending, $7,580 per K-12 student. Compared to its neighbors, New Mexico collects more revenue per student, but only Colorado spends more ($7,730 per student). Interestingly, Arizona and Utah are at the bottom of the list, spending just $6,261 and $5,257 per student. The problems with New Mexico's public schools are not due to a lack of funding.

Where New Mexico really stands out is in the large imbalance in revenue for its public school system. Only two states (Arkansas and North Dakota) and the District of Columbia receive more federal funding per student, and we rank #10 in state funding. When it comes to local funding, however, New Mexico ranks #48, one of only 4 states where local sources provide less than $2,000 per student. Only 13.4% of public school funding in New Mexico comes from local sources, versus 43.9% average nation-wide.

What is the result of this displacement of local education funding by state and federal money? New Mexico ranks #42 in spending on classroom instruction, including teacher salaries and benefits, while landing much higher at #25 and #26 for spending on school and general administration respectively. Only 56.5% of public education spending in New Mexico goes to actual instruction, compared to 61% in the country as a whole.

When local communities, parents and property-owners, are directly funding their schools, they have a much stronger incentive to see their money spent where it counts. Clearly, this is a weakness in the financing of New Mexico's public schools.

Posted by Justin Smith at 11:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Mark Perry blogs about out-of-control retiree costs in Michigan public schools. My guess is that New Mexico faces a similar situation. Can anyone enlighten us on public school retirement formulae in NM?

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 02:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A new national study analyzes the economic loss high school dropouts place on the economies of the 50 states. Not surprisingly, given its size, New Mexico suffers from a relatively heavy burden. In fact, the class of 2006 dropouts are expected to cost taxpayers $3.3 billion.

For some reason, although the study was released in January, the Santa Fe New Mexican failed to report the results until May and when they did, they gave $111 million as the economic loss of graduation. Strange...

More troubling is the fact that many of our elected officials actually believe that simply raising the dropout age will stop high school students from dropping out.

If New Mexico is serious about improving education results and cutting the dropout rate, perhaps we need to offer students and parents more choices when it comes to education? After all, only by forcing schools to teach and even compete to attract students can we break out of the current socialist education model.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While we at the Rio Grande Foundation focus a vast majority of our time and attention on public policy and how it impacts average New Mexicans, personal finance and money management are important as well. This is an excellent blog on personal finance with a New Mexico-specific focus. There is also an excellent book called "Common Sense Economics" that was written by James Gwartney, Richard Stroup, and Dwight Lee that connects the worlds of personal finance and economics.

The fact is that too many Americans don't understand economics at any level -- as it impacts them directly or in the broader policy context -- that's why Americans are paying an average of 18.9 percent interest on credit card debt of $60 billion.

With the average American mired in debt, it is no coincidence that the federal government, which is run by people who get to spend money that belongs to others and largely free of personal repurcussions, is in debt to the tune of more than $8 trillion.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 01:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday, the state Senate passed a bill that would force the split up of Albuquerque Public Schools into smaller districts. Remarkably, only two Senators opposed the bill, which would work by prohibiting school districts larger than 35,000 students. Currently, APS has more than 90,000 students in captivity, so simple division implies a partitioning into at least three independent districts.

Yet APS Superintendent Elizabeth Everitt, as quoted by the Albuquerque Journal and in her Call to Action posted on the APS website, has responded as if APS would be split in two along the river, posing a false dichotomy between "a wealthy district east of the Rio Grande" and a "less affluent district" across the river.

If the state Senate's move is carried into law and Dr. Everitt 's fiefdom is reduced in size, at least some Albuquerque schools might be overseen by a superintendent capable of elementary school math.

Posted by Justin Smith at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

All I can say is It's about time corporate leaders took on the nation's education problems at their source. With people like Bill Gates throwing money at the schools, Jobs commented that no amount of technology in the classroom would improve public schools until principals could fire bad teachers.

Jobs went on to say, "I believe that what is wrong with our schools in this nation is that they have become unionized in the worst possible way," and "This unionization and lifetime employment of K-12 teachers is off-the-charts crazy."

Finally, a business leader who understands that stifling work rules and an abject lack of competition within and outside of the public schools is at the root of our problems. Hopefully, more of our corporate leaders speak out. As I write this on my Dell Compute, I am disappointed by Michael Dell's lame reasoning.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 08:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While school choice seems not to be on Governor Richardson's or the Legisalture's agenda this year in New Mexico, our neigbhors in Utah are moving forward with a plan to give poor children vouchers. New Mexico's neighbors to the northwest are not the only ones that have been actively expanding educational choice -- Arizona has been a leader nationwide in the area of education reform.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 02:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Our good friend Troy Williamson over at Educate New Mexico had a nice piece in the Albuquerque Tribune yesterday. For some reason, rather than fighting education choice tooth and nail, it appears that the education establishment in Agua Fria actually supports giving students and parents educational choices. I'm not sure if the best thing to do is to not talk about this shining example lest the NEA send try to stop it, but who knows, whatever is in the water that has caused this cooperation in Agua Fria might actually spread to other parts of the state. Let's hope it does!

Posted by Paul Gessing at 03:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It is no secret that Governor Richardson plans to boost education spending dramatically in 2007. But will his big-spending ways have any positive impact on kids' educational attainment? Not according to a recent study by the American Legislative Exchange Council. As Matt Warner explains "After two decades of failure and almost twice the price, it's time to give parents the power of choice."

Hopefully, Governor Richardson will throw his support behind some educational reforms that are likely to have a positive impact, like tax credits.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Per pupil spending increased in real terms (adjusted for inflation) by over 50 percent from school year 1982-83 to school year 2003-04. Here is what the trend looks like in 2006 dollars:

More recent data are available for spending from New Mexico's general fund. The increase in spending from the state's general fund from FY89 to FY07 in real terms (adjusted for population growth and inflation) was 24 percent. Here is what the general fund trend for school spending looks like in current dollars:

That we are using more and more resources for education raises an important question: How can we be spending so much more in real terms and be doing so much worse as illustrated here and here?

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 08:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's not just science. We are near the bottom for math too.
Here is the picture for 4th grade math in 2005:

Here it is for 8th grade:

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to the National Assessment of Education Progress, New Mexico is not making progress in 4th and 8th grade science. Despite the ballyhooed "reforms" of 2003 (and all the "reforms" before that) we remain near the bottom. Here is the summary for grade 4:

Here is the summary for grade 8:

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Self esteem is a good thing, but it doesn't help American students with their math problems.

Six percent of Korean eighth-graders in a recent survey expressed confidence in their math skills, compared with 39 percent of U.S. eighth-graders. Yet an international math assessment showed Koreans scoring far ahead of their peers in the United States, "raising questions about the importance of self-esteem," notes writer Jay Mathews in "For Math Students, Self-Esteem May Not Equal High Scores."

With New Mexico students trailing behind the rest of the country and the country as a whole trailing behind much of the world, it is clear that big changes are needed here and in the American education system as a whole.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A tip of the hat to Arwynn Mattix with the Goldwater Institute for this posting.

According to the National Education Association (NEA), “A pure voucher system would only encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification in our society.” One wonders how the NEA could reach this conclusion when both the Milwaukee and Cleveland voucher experiences show otherwise.

Rather than encourage stratification, these voucher programs lead to even less segregation, according to two recent reports by the Friedman Foundation. Private schools participating in the programs were found to be 13 to 18 points less segregated than their public school counterparts.

Because students are assigned to public schools based on where they live, there is a significant risk that schools will reflect the racial and economic segregation of neighborhoods. But, “Private schools have more potential to break down geographic barriers, drawing students together across neighborhood boundaries,” explains Greg Forester, author of the reports. And, with the help of vouchers and tuition scholarships, private schools become affordable for more families, eliminating the financial obstacle to private school.

If “America’s success has been built on our ability to unify our diverse populations,” as the NEA claims, then doesn’t their anti-voucher position block the way to an even more successful America?

Posted by Paul Gessing at 05:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In citing David Henderson's fine book The Joy of Freedom: An Economist's Odyssey, George Leef explains why our national economy is doing so well despite our failed school system.

Wake up, New Mexico! You, too, can join in the prosperity.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 09:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The results are in and it appears that you can fool some of the people all of the time, or at least 58 percent of them anyway. Now, we turn our attention to the so-called quality of life tax increase that will face voters in November.

For more on the deluge of tax hikes that are falling on taxpayers in Bernalillo County and Albuquerque like the monsoon rains did earlier this year, check out this recent missive from the Rio Grande Foundation on the web-magazine The Citizen. By the way, if you are a close follower of the news, especially what happens here in New Mexico, but the Tribune and Journal leave you feeling less-than-fully-informed, I highly recommend bookmarking The Citizen.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 09:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Before heading off to the polls, it's always wise to take a look at the sample ballot, you know, so you don't end up accidentally voting for Pat Buchanan. Preparing for tomorrow's APS special election, we find, in English and Spanish:

"Shall the Albuquerque Public School District issue $351,000,000 of general obligation bonds to erect, remodel, make additions to and furnish; school buildings within the district, to purchase or improve school grounds, to purchase computer software and hardware for student use in public schools, and to provide matching funds for capital outlay projects funded pursuant to the Public School Capital Outlay Act?"

This language was erected by someone clearly interested in the bond measure's passge--plenty of detail of all the good things that will be done for the children, but nary a word on who is going to pay or how much. Who will own this 'obligation'? How will this obligation be repaid?

Expand on the benefits, obfuscate the costs, and any deal sounds sweeter. The ballot measure should state in plain terms that passage would raise property tax rates by 5.6%, forcing the owner of a $100,000 house to pay an additional $71.32 per year in taxes.

Given that APS only graduates 52.8% of the students who enter its schools, and of those who enroll at New Mexico's institutions of higher learning, 44.1% need remedial classes, it seems unlikely that APS is adequately preparing its students to face this kind of decision as educated adults.

But this is no surprise coming from a school district better known for its conflicts of interest, for paying huge settlements to administrators with substance abuse problems, and for blaming failing schools on the 'diversity' of its own students, than for any success in actually educating.

$351 million that actually improves the education received by APS students might very well be worth the increase in property taxes. But what worth is $351 million in the hands of Albuquerque Public Schools? $351 million dollars breaks out to about $3884.29 for each and every one of APS's 90,364 students, most of the average private school tuition in this country.

If you were going to spend $3884.29 on your child's education, would you make out the check to APS?

Posted by Justin Smith at 05:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

One of New Mexico's few groups of educational innovators came under attack recently when the National Center for Education Statistics released a study that argued, in part, that students in charter shools lagged behind their peers in regular public schools. Unfortunately, as is so often the case when the results of studies fail to make common sense, the analysis used government data that failed to fully account for the socio-economic differences between charter school and public school students.

The charter school concept is a compromise between those who would like to see significant educational reform that goes far beyond the limits presented by the public schoos and those who grudgingly view some forms of school choice as essential tools for improving existing public schools. It is, nonetheless, hard to believe the results of a study that finds students doing worse at schools that are targeted to their needs and interests than similar students who remain in traditional public schools where socialist-style mass production is the name of the game.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When you are running for governor against a powerful incumbent and you lack the financial resources to put your message out in a massive media blitz, the last thing you should be doing is unnecessarily attacking large voting blocks. Unfortunately, that is exactly what Republican gubernatorial nominee John Dendahl did recently in attacking teachers themselves for New Mexico's abysmal education results.

Rather than attacking teachers themselves, Dendahl should have used the lousy results as an opportunity to speak out about a failing monopolitic model of education that discourges innovation and initiative while encouraging mediocrity. After all, in a free market system, parents would have the ability to choose whether sex-ed is tought in their children's school or whether the focus is placed on the basics like reading, writing and arithmetic.

Governor Richardson does indeed deserve some blame for our failing schools, but he is only one of many governors in the nation -- Republican or Democrat -- that presides over a failing monopoly.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As if we needed any more proof that New Mexico's schools are doing a poor job, the latest statewide testing administered under No Child Left Behind shows that most of the state's schools are failing. Given Justin's post below on the relatively low number of high school graduates in New Mexico, it is hard to believe that our political leaders have not done more to provide choice and competition in public education.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 06:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

New Mexico always seems to stand out on a map. Sunday's New York Times reports on projected changes in the number of high school graduates and its consequences for future college enrollment across the country. The article features this map based on the Interstate Commission for Higher Education's projections for 2015:

That bluish hue indicates that New Mexico should expect a smaller class of graduating seniors a decade from now. The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education has further projections, up to 2017-18, that reiterate this expected trend.

Why is New Mexico's population of high school graduates expected to fall, as every one of our neighboring states will see increases? One clue lies in the breakdown WICHE provides by race/ethnicity.

Let's take a closer look...

Continue reading "Mapping the Future of Education" »

Posted by Justin Smith at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A recent Albuquerque Journal story discusses a study by the national Foundation for Child Development in which full-day pre-kindergarten is recommended for all 3 and 4 year olds. New Mexico's new and controversial half-day pre-K program was deemed "inadequate" by the Foundation.

I'm not sure if this foundation is funded by the teacher unions or not, but I can't think of a more effective way to create jobs for public school teachers than allowing the state to get its hands on your kids even earlier. Of course, other studies have found that starting kids even earlier in school to be costly and ineffective boondoggles.

Clearly, the so-called experts are moving quickly towards mandatory in-the-womb schooling at some point. This will clearly create a conundrum for the National Education Association which is adamantly pro-choice.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 07:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Unfortunately, this is one bad idea that has already oozed out of California and into NM. According to my former professor Jennifer Roback Morse:

The proponents of universal preschool consistently overstate its benefits. Their favorite study is a Rand Corporation study that extrapolates the benefits obtained by a program in Chicago in the 1980's. The results of that particular preschool study have nothing to do with the results the average family could expect, or with the results the entire state of California would be likely to achieve.

The Chicago preschool program was targeted at low-income, high-risk children, most of whom had unmarried parents. Finding that high quality preschool helped this group of people says absolutely nothing about the impact of preschool on the children of middle class, married-couple households. Most of those kids are already in preschool programs anyway;overall, 65% of California children are in some form of preschool. It is pointless to spend taxpayer dollars subsidizing kids who are already well-provided for by their own parents.

These same kinds of studies are used to browbeat stay at home mothers into placing their kids in preschools or daycare centers. "Am I harming my child by depriving him of the enriching preschool experience?" mothers ask me all the time. No, I always reply. Just pay attention to what your child needs, and trust your instincts. Ignore the studies, unless they apply to your situation very specifically. The studies touting universal preschool are based on non-universal samples and have nothing to do with the experiences of most families.

Furthermore, the Chicago program was more than an academic program. It also required parental involvement, and taught parenting skills. Some of the program’s benefits are surely attributable to the improved parenting the mothers used throughout the child’s formative years. Yet the supporters of universal preschool assign all the credit to the one year the child spent in their precious preschool program. After all, we wouldn’t want to give credit to parents. Everyone knows parents are the problem. The sooner we get kids away from their parents and into government run schools, the better off everyone will be.

She also points out the state politics and mandates that will insure that it is a total waste of your money. You should read the whole thing.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 08:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today's ABQ Journal attempts to clarify (sr) how our money is distributed to schools in NM. Excerpts:

Under a formula developed in response to a lawsuit by a tiny, rural school district, the state cannot simply allocate the money to the overcrowded districts. It doesn't matter how much it's needed or how much the governor or legislators want to do it. At best, a council set up to administer the formula could "loan" the district some of the money, which would be repaid in the form of offsets from future allocations.

District Judge Joseph Rich of Gallup ruled that New Mexico's system for awarding capital outlay money to public schools was unfair and unconstitutional. He told the state to draft a more equitable system.

The state came up with a uniform system for distributing construction money. It is based on various factors, including need, how much local tax potential existed and how much of that potential was being tapped. The system was designed to equalize opportunity statewide when it came to building projects, rather than penalize or reward kids depending on where they lived.

New Mexico's natural resources provide money to build and improve public schools. The state sells supplemental severance tax bonds and the proceeds go into the Public School Capital Outlay Fund. The bonds are paid off by revenue generated from taxes imposed on the extraction of natural gas, oil and other minerals.

The state Public School Capital Outlay Council, a nine-member board, is charged with identifying critical construction and renovation needs and decides which schools will receive awards from the capital outlay fund. Awards are based on districts' applications and district visits. The council's administrative arm, the Public School Facilities Authority, runs the day-to-day operations of the capital outlay program. The authority has construction managers around the state to help keep projects on track.

Every year, staffers visit a certain percentage of the state's approximate 750 schools to assess construction and renovation needs. The facilities authority maintains a list in which every school is ranked according to construction need. Late in the school year, districts submit applications to the council, then make presentations before the council early in the summer. If a project the district is requesting money for ranks high on the priority list, then chances are fairly good it will be approved. In 2005, the council approved the top 98 projects on the list.

Once the council agrees to fund a project, a formula devised by the Public School Capital Outlay Task Force is used to determine how much money the district will receive and how much the district must pay.

State and district student population, the previous year's taxable value for the entire state and the district, and the property tax mill levy in the district are all factors considered in the formula. The formula determines how much of their own money districts must contribute for a construction project in order to receive state funding. For example, Zuni is the only school district that receives 100 percent funding from the state under this formula. There are 15 districts that must pay for 90 percent of their construction projects. APS is required to pay 53 percent of its construction.

The Legislature recently approved a new funding program called the High Priority Project Grant Assistance Program. Districts that are experiencing high levels of growth are able to receive large awards to construct new schools. But while the program's title implies a grant, districts have to pay back what is a loan.

APS officials said it hoped for the full $90 million available in the new program [for new schools on the West side]. What it got was $67 million, of which it must pay back $52 million.

That clarifies the school funding situation for you, right? Yeah, right. Here is how funding is determined according to the Department of Educations website. Enjoy.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 09:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Competition and freedom of choice are the institutions necessary to make us prosperous. They do so by compelling each of us to make decisions individually that result in coordination of our actions in a way that leads to improvements in our lives. In fact, the improvements resulting from the process of competition and choice are far superior to those resulting from the alternative institution of government control. We at RGF call it "liberty, opportunity, prosperity."

Of course, this goes for education as well. The endless "reforms" that always manage to maintain government control of education will never result in improvement. Writing in today's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Professor Boudreaux predicts that government run K-12 schools will continue to fail; and he explains why by contrast to the process of competition and choice:

Government K-12 schools, as now run everywhere in the U.S., will never excel at educating students. The reason is that each school gets its students and its budget without having to compete for them. Imagine if, say, supermarkets were run the same way we run schools. Everyone in my county would pay taxes to fund the county supermarket system; each one of us would then be assigned one specific county supermarket at which we are allowed to shop.

Of course, once in our assigned store, all the groceries that each of us gets are "free" -- meaning, we don't have to pay for them on the spot. If the products and services supplied by the supermarket are of poor quality, we're not allowed to switch to other county markets; we must, instead, complain to politicians.

The managers of the supermarkets will agree that their stores offer abysmal service and undesirable products; they will assert that this sad fact is caused by underfunding. We will be warned that only by paying higher taxes will we have any possibility of getting better supermarkets.

So our taxes will rise and funding for supermarkets will increase. But quality will remain poor -- and the excuses offered by the government-employed managers of the supermarkets will remain that they need yet more funding.

Wake up, New Mexico!

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 08:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Education reform is an integral component of the Rio Grande Foundation's mission. Of course, "reform" means different things to different people. Vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools are all possibilities and are worthy of varying levels of support. While New Mexico does not allow vouchers or tax credits, it does have a charter school law. That said, the complying with state and federal rules and regulations is no picnic for the charter school movement. This article gives you one man's experience in navigating those tricky waters.

Posted by Paul Gessing at 07:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In today's Albuquerque Journal we learn that the state is receiving more money for education from the feds (SR). Nonetheless two-thirds of our school districts will receive less money!

That's not all; APS feels it requires a tax hike to fund new school construction(SR). I wonder what they are doing with all the extra tax revenue from our recent growth?

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Recall John Dendahl's words in the Albuquerque Journal last Friday:

Sadly, most of New Mexico's children will continue to be among those who either drop out of school or arrive at high school graduation inadequately prepared. ...
How many chapters of "reform" must we endure before we adopt the one reform with real promise to restore educational opportunity for our kids? Why isn't there a Gov. Bill Richardson's School Choice Agenda?
There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Richardson doesn't know he could pitch a perfect game with choice. But teachers' union bosses are among his owners, and they say "no" to competition. Monopolies never serve their markets well, but government schools must remain a virtual monopoly anyway

Now from our friends at NCPA comes a reminder of this by Andrew Coulson:

For many years, school choice programs have been at the center of the education reform debate and many Americans are now convinced that the education of disadvantaged children would suffer if the government did not run schools and if poor parents were allowed to make choices, says Andrew Coulson of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

However, according to studies of impoverished villages and urban
slums in India, Ghana, Nigeria and Kenya, school choice programs are
actually beneficial, says Coulson.

o On average, 75 percent of the students in these areas
attend tuition-charging private schools.

o More than one out of every six private school students pay
less than full tuition and one in 14 attends private
school for free.

o These private schools spend far less per pupil (their
teachers' salaries are roughly one-third of those in the
public sector), but the schools usually enjoy lower
rates of teacher absenteeism and comparable facilities and
teacher satisfaction.

o Most importantly, the private schools significantly
outperform their government-school counterparts
academically -- even after controlling for differences in
student characteristics between the two sectors.

These results are consistent with U.S. education research that
finds that inexpensive private schools serving the poor in the United
States produce achievement and graduation rates that at least equal,
and usually surpass, those of the highest-spending neighborhood public
schools, says Coulson.

Moreover, all those concerned with improving the state of American
education should feel compelled to expand access to independent schools
by the most effective means possible, including the use of education
tax credits; if we do so, we will begin to catch up with the generosity
already on display in the Third World, says Coulson.

Source: Andrew J. Coulson, "'http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7369 Poor Choices' Yield Better Education,"
Viewpoint on Public Policy, no. 2005-29, October 3, 2005.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 11:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today's New York Times editorializes (rr) about the sorry state of math and science education in grades k-12. The editorial is motivated by this report from the National Academies. The report contains a hodgepodge of incentives for training more teachers, more government spending on sexy, high tech stuff and more corporate welfare. The Times does not think the report goes far enough:

But, commendable as this impulse is, it hardly addresses the central problem of teacher preparation. Many education colleges have become diploma mills where the curriculum has little or nothing to do with the employment needs of the public schools in the state. Thanks to poor planning - or no planning - they place no particular emphasis on training teachers who actually major in subject areas like math and science. The data suggests (sic) that more than 60 percent of the public school students in some areas of math and science learn from teachers who have not majored in the subject taught or have no certification in it.

I tend to agree that we should be providing our kids with more opportunity in math and science. But more government? Give me a break! Instead of union-driven, uniform, soviet-style compensation for all teachers why not the simple, productive solution of markets in education? Let consumers and education providers interact in education markets to determine the compensation of math and science teachers. School choice would lead to smaller government and solve the problem!

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 07:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Quebec's Pre-K initiative costs 33 times more than it was projected to cost; and it has not increased preschoolers readiness for school. I wonder when New Mexico will stop its wishful thinking and do something useful for the kids.

Hat tip: NCPA.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Unfortunately for NM taxpayers our Guv is poised for an enormous increase in spending during the 30-day session that begins next month. Among the proposals is a big expansion of the pre-kindergarten program. Our public schools don't work very well. Why do we think that pre-k will work? It hasn't worked in Georgia. It won't work in New Mexico. See Reason Foundation's commentary on a similar proposal for California here.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

New Mexico is a poor state. We need "bold" changes to improve education if we are to keep it from getting poorer. How do we implement these bold changes? Throw a lot more money at education is the answer according to the Journal. And money from windfall energy revenue is available for the throwing. That is the essence of yesterday's editorial (subscription).

This is wishful thinking in the extreme. Education "reforms" have not worked in the past. And they will not work in the future as long as K-12 education is a socialistic, one-size-fits-all, union-run monopoly. Real per capita spending on education has increased well over 20 percent in the past 15 years and what do we have to show for it? Nothing! But if we have more bold reforms and throw more money at it things will get better? Give me a break.

I wonder if anyone at the Journal has ever heard of school choice? Let's empower parents instead of the union monopoly. Parents can make better decisions for their kids than education bureaucrats in Washington and Santa Fe.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 09:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Good for Utah!

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 07:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Interesting find from Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac of Higher Education by Craig Depken at Division of Labour: the nationwide "projection of the percentage increase in the number of high school graduates between now and 2015" looks like this

With New Mexico's so-called education reform, our new secretary of higher education and heaps of corporate welfare, how can this be? I think I know.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 09:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here is some entertaining and enlightening commentary on the state of education today. Once again I thank Craig Newmark for the link. This may sound somewhat familiar to Albuquerque:

"Ordinarily competition is fierce for our final accolade, the coveted George Orwell Creative Use of Language Award. This year, however, there was no competition. The academy, unanimous in its judgment, presents its Orwell to a British educator for her call to abolish the word "fail" and replace it with "deferred success." Employing this tactic more broadly would yield immeasurable benefits, instantly rendering war "deferred peace," poverty "deferred prosperity," and winter "deferred summer.""

Deferred sucess? Even the Albuquerque education establishment wasn't imaginative enough to come up with that.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

More proof today that New Mexico�s education system is moving (running?) in the wrong direction. As many states and communities around the country are contemplating education reform which would break the public school system�s monopoly on education, we in New Mexico are talking about strengthening that monopoly.

This morning�s Albuquerque Journal reports (subscription required) that six Albuquerque schools are going to start requiring that parents produce four proof-of-residency documents in order to enroll their students. Apparently, there is a concern that these schools are overcrowded. Many suspect that there are students going to these schools who�gasp!�don�t live in the district!

James Monroe Middle School principal Vernon Martinez said that his school is even considering home check-ups to verify residency.

This is very sad.

Wouldn�t it be wonderful to see a day when providers of education are subject to the same level of competition as grocery stores? Wouldn�t it be great to see a day when schools are no longer assigned their customers but actually have to work for them like any other business? I hope that some day every public school in the state will compete with every other public AND private school for the privilege of educating our youth. Economics would predict and empirical evidence has shown that when schools do compete, education standards improve.

When I was in grade school I was lucky enough to have an industrious mother. She and an equally-industrious mother of my good friend worked diligently to navigate the red-tape and get us transferred to Jefferson Middle School. I feel that the education I got there was far superior to what I would have received in my home-district school (which shall remain anonymous). Every year our mothers hunted down the obscure forms and applied for a transfer. My friend and I came from a privileged background. We had parents who could afford to spend the time to figure out how to get around the red-tape. Unfortunately, most in New Mexico are not so lucky. Most are forced to accept the school to which they are assigned. Now it looks like even more students will have to accept mediocrity.

Posted by Matthew D. Mitchell at 05:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I wonder how much longer we can call consequences "unintended" when we can actually predict how new rules will modify behavior. This today from NCPA:

With the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), now
three years old, the amount of information about schools presented to
the general public is at an all-time high. However, the average kid in
a failing institution is no closer to escaping now than before the law
was passed, says Lisa Snell, director of the Reason Foundation's
education program.

Federal and state legislators have a newfound focus on school
accountability, but scant attention is being paid to the quality of
data they are using, whether the topic is violence, test scores or
dropout rates. Consider:

o In the 2003-04 school year, 47 states and the District of
Columbia reported they were home to not a single
unsafe school, yet, in D.C. alone, the D.C. Office of the
Inspector General reported more than 1,700 "serious
security incidents" in city schools, including 464 weapons
offenses.

o Economists from Harvard University's Kennedy School of
Government explored the prevalence of cheating in public
schools and found that on any given test, the scores
of students in 3 to 6 percent of classrooms are doctored
by teachers or administrators.

o Administrators often misrepresent the dropout rate by
counting students who leave as transfers and not
dropouts, like in the 2003 state audit of the Houston district
where more than half of the 5,500 students who left in
the 2002 school year should have been declared dropouts but
were not.

These distortions hide the extent of schools' failures, deceive
taxpayers about what our ever-increasing education budgets are buying
and keep kids locked in failing institutions, says Snell. And experts
believe the incentives for teachers and administrators to manipulate
data will only increase as schools begin to feel the consequences of
low scores.

Source: Lisa Snell, "How Schools Cheat," Reason, Volume 37, Number
2, June 2005.

For text:

http://www.reason.com/0506/fe.ls.how.shtml

By the way, if you do not subscribe to Reason Magazine you should.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 08:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Kudos to Rio Grande Foundation's Tim Walsh. Tim is running 50 miles (yes, 50 miles!) Saturday to raise money for Educate New Mexico scholarships. The Albuquerque Journal provides good coverage today (subscription). Excerpts:

"Walsh says combining his passion for running with his passion for school choice is natural for him. He says that's how he came up with the idea of a "donor challenge" to help raise money for additional scholarships for Educate New Mexico.

Donors can pledge from $1 a mile to $20 a mile through Educate New Mexico's Web site: www.educatenm.org."

As I pointed out earlier, since contributions are tax deductible, a donor who contributes $1,000 ($20 per mile for Tim's run) will be able to put $1,500 into scholarships at a cost to him or her of only $679 net-of-taxes!

Readers, please help. We really do have some school choice in New Mexico.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 07:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

So called "school reform" New Mexico style is not going to work because the incentives are all wrong. Look here for one assessment of the results so far. Last again.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 06:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Chuck Muth expresses my sentiments better than I ever could:

"For all its purported virtues, the Bush/Kennedy 'No Child Left Behind' law is perhaps the biggest threat to state sovereignty this side of the Rio Bravo today. The federal NCLB law tells states how they MUST run their re-education camps...er, public schools...or else.

Up 'til now that "or else" has been a threatened cut-off of federal funds to states who refuse to 'get with the program.' But now that Utah has gone on record as telling Uncle Sam to take his money and shove it, the feds are getting significantly more cranky. In fact, Nina Rees from the Education Department announced at a Cato Institute forum on Tuesday that, 'We're going to take a hard line against states that blatantly violate the law.'

So when the carrot doesn't work, the feds are more than happy to whip out the ol' stick to compel state compliance with the diktats of the omnipotent federal government. 10th Amendment supporters should be outraged. More states should follow Utah's lead. Congress should repeal NCLB. And the federal Department of Education ought to be eliminated, just as Republicans proposed back in 1994...BEFORE they actually became the party of power."

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 06:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Congratulations to Utah! Both houses of the legislature (by 90 percent majorities) have decided to opt out of the No Child Left Behind abomination. Thanks to Chuck Muth for the heads up.

This is a no brainer, New Mexico. Let's go for it!

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Check out this study just released by the Manhattan Institute.

According to the press release:

�A new study by Manhattan Institute scholars Jay P. Greene and Marcus A.
Winters finds that decreasing the size of a state's school districts
leads to substantial improvements in its public high school graduation
rate. Conversely, consolidating school districts into fewer, larger
units decreases a state's public high school graduation rate.

The results of the analysis indicate that decreasing the average size of
a state's school districts by 200 square miles would lead to an increase
of about 1.7 percentage points in its graduation rate. This finding is
particularly important for New Mexico, which has the nation's 6th largest
school districts. If New Mexico decreased the size of its school
districts to the national median, it would increase its graduation rate
by about 9 percentage points, improving it from 65% to about 74%.�

My take: While there are obvious difficulties in reducing district size in New Mexico's rural areas, the overall move toward more centralization (while calling it "reform")is counterproductive. Smaller districts mean that it is less costly for parents to move their child from a bad school to a better one, creating an element of choice and competition.

What we need is reform that works.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to Chuck Muth:

In Arizona, folks who donate money to a scholarship program allowing kids to attend schools other than the government mis-run re-education camps are allowed a tax credit for such donations. The ACLU, naturally, sued to kill off this school choice program, maintaining that it was a violation of the religion provision in the First Amendment.

Yesterday, Federal District Court Judge Earl Carroll tossed out the ACLU lawsuit. The program was defended in court by the libertarian Institute for Justice.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Thoughts of Micha Gisser on the pre-K debate:

When it suits the political ambitions of the voucher enemies, they will find all the reasons in the world to justify allocating state money to Pre-K as legally "kosher." They not only support private participation in the Pre-K project, they also justify participation of faith-based preschools. In fact, Dan Pearlman, legal counsel for the state Children, Youth and Families Department, said "faith-based preschools could receive state money if they agree not to use religious programming for the 2 and 1/2 hours the state was footing the bill." I oppose the Pre-K Bill, but its flip side, if it passes, is that it creates a precedent for passing a voucher bill that will include private and religious schools.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I am not making this up. Check out this anti-voucher rant by Diane Denish? And by the way, she is wrong about head start.

I don't care if she is kinda cute, she and her army of "advocates" will not end up helping the kids.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 02:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today from Chuck Muth: "Despite unanimous support in the state House for dumping President Bush�s No Child Left Behind law - and likely passage in the Senate - Utah�s Gov. Jon Huntsman bowed to pressure from the White House and delayed action on the bill for another month...during a special session to be called just to address this issue. Uncle Sam really knows how to twist arms and break legs when he wants to. And Utah taxpayers will pick up the tab for the unnecessary special session.

At the heart of the matter is the simple principle that the federal government should be strictly limited and the states should be responsible for matters such as education. What�s amazing, under the circumstances, is this comment yesterday from federal Education Czar Margaret Spellings: 'Ultimately, education decisions are made at the local level, and that�s how it should be.'"

But consider what was said 10 days ago. Are you surprised?

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 01:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Now we find out that the Pre-K initiative was designed by professional educators! And here I have been complaining about our gullibility.

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 09:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday's report is that Utah may be about to opt out of the No Child Left Behind abomination (thanks to Chuck Muth for the pointer). If they do opt out they are saying "thanks, but no thanks to $116 million in federal aid." "state policy-makers are fed up with federal control of education and dictates." The Utah legislature appears to be unanimous in wanting to opt out. According to the report, "eight other state legislatures -- in Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Vermont and Virginia -- are considering challenges to No Child Left Behind."

One can only hope that this is the beginning of the end for the fraudulently titled "no child left behind" act.

The Washington Times further reports today that state legislators are demanding more flexibility.

Unfortunately, in response the Department of Education seems to have abandoned all principles of federalism: "The Bush administration warned that the national conference's action 'could be interpreted as wanting to reverse the progress we've made.' 'We will not reverse course,' said Ray Simon, U.S. assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education. 'Children must be challenged to reach their full potential, not told to settle for someone else's lowered expectations.'" The administration is going to regret its top-down, one-size-fits-all centralized control.

When is New Mexico going to opt out of NCLB?

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 09:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Is anybody really surprised about the report of waste by Albuquerque Public Schools? It is easy to understand why. Recall the words of economist Arnold King:

�In my view, government's biggest weakness relative to the private sector is its inability to reward success more than failure. The biggest reason that I believe private-sector education would prove superior in the long run is that I think it would tend to weed out failing teachers and failing processes in general.�

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The other day I mentioned that Educate New Mexico is now providing choice to poor parents having children in failing government schools. How can you help? If you are in the 28% federal tax bracket and 6% state tax bracket, a contribution of $1,000 to Educate New Mexico would only cost you $679 net of taxes (assuming, of course, that you are itemizing deductions). But it's even better! Educate New Mexico receives a one dollar match for every two dollars donated. Using the above example, the donor would be able to get $1,500 into school choice for a cost of only $679 net-of-taxes! It's worth pointing out that Educate New Mexico has very low overhead, so most of the $1,500 would actually reach the poor family. If you are in a lower or higher tax bracket than the example, your net-of-tax contribution would differ very little.

Another benefit to the taxpayer: not as much of your money will go to our inept government.

I recommend you help us take matters into our own hands when it comes to school choice. Donate to Educate New Mexico. Let's go around our inept government and make it happen!

Posted by Harry Messenheimer at 08:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)