Errors of Enchantment

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 (1) | 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 (2) | 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 (1) | 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 (1) | 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.