The Bangor Daily News was good enough to publish an op-ed I wrote on the subject of school choice. It will be interesting to see what kind of a response it generates...
November 2008 Archives
Over on our school choice website, http://maineschoolchoice.ning.com, Karen Balas-Coté, who helped lead the effort to preserve school choice in Orland, provides a quick overview of what the Orland school choice supporters did in their successful effort to save choice:
Choice advocates in Orland talked among parents, got phone numbers and e-mails, and solicited donations from parents to send out a saturation mailing to every Orland resident that had many points on why Orland should keep school choice, how to vote to keep school choice, and a copy of the very lengthy and confusing ballot so people could understand what they were voting on before they went into the voting booth.
We also put up around 10 large, simple to read, signs telling people which way to vote to keep school choice, in strategic locations about 2 weeks before the vote. We also talked to Heads of Schools where the majority of Orland students who choose high schools other than Bucksport attend. They were helpful with general information and even sent out a letter to current parents and alumni advocating school choice and getting out to vote.
Additionally, we encouraged parents and alumni who attended other area high schools to write letters to the editors of local newspapers in support of school choice and why.
In other words, a good old fashioned grassroots effort, done on a shoestring and pulled off by dedicated volunteers. It is important to note how little time they had to do this - opponents of choice started circulating a petition to get rid of it in early September. That left Karen and her allies only a few weeks to organize the all-out effort she describes.
Some good lessons here as we move forward, though some of the battles, I think, will be in Augusta, which will require a different approach and much larger and more organized coalition of supporters.
Choice advocates in Orland talked among parents, got phone numbers and e-mails, and solicited donations from parents to send out a saturation mailing to every Orland resident that had many points on why Orland should keep school choice, how to vote to keep school choice, and a copy of the very lengthy and confusing ballot so people could understand what they were voting on before they went into the voting booth.
We also put up around 10 large, simple to read, signs telling people which way to vote to keep school choice, in strategic locations about 2 weeks before the vote. We also talked to Heads of Schools where the majority of Orland students who choose high schools other than Bucksport attend. They were helpful with general information and even sent out a letter to current parents and alumni advocating school choice and getting out to vote.
Additionally, we encouraged parents and alumni who attended other area high schools to write letters to the editors of local newspapers in support of school choice and why.
In other words, a good old fashioned grassroots effort, done on a shoestring and pulled off by dedicated volunteers. It is important to note how little time they had to do this - opponents of choice started circulating a petition to get rid of it in early September. That left Karen and her allies only a few weeks to organize the all-out effort she describes.
Some good lessons here as we move forward, though some of the battles, I think, will be in Augusta, which will require a different approach and much larger and more organized coalition of supporters.
In Sunday's Portland Press Herald, economist Charles Lawton made some rather dubious claims about the economic impact of transfer payments. He states: "In short, the reason for the rising share of transfer payments in Maine's total personal income is not their rapid growth rate. Rather it is the slower growth rate of earnings from employment. In a word, it's the jobs, stupid. If the nation as a whole can grow employment earnings by nearly 150 percent over an 18-year period encompassing two recessions while more than doubling the volume of transfer payments, there is no reason Maine can't do the same--at least no theoretically necessary reason to the detrimental effects of transfer payments."
Whoa, hold on Tex. I am not even sure where to begin on that one. First, Dr. Lawton should read my study on "Why Taxes Matter." In fact, transfer payments do come at the expense of earning. Earnings, government employment excluded, are generated by the private sector. Transfer payments come from taxes which are paid from the private sector. If transfer payments grow, then taxes to pay them must go up. Throw in the deadweight losses from the higher taxes, and the private sector--earnings and jobs growth--suffer. There is one "theoretically necessary reason for detrimental effects." And empirical reasons as well.
Dr. Lawton also downplays the enormity of the transfer payment problem in Maine. While he likes to talk about the national average, Mainers can only wish they were even close to the national average. In my new study on Maine state government spending--"Maine Spends too Much . . . But Where?" The study shows that Maine state government spending on "Public Welfare" (Medicaid, TANF, etc.) and "Health" (WIC, state clinics, etc.) rank the highest in the country as a percent of income. In fact, Maine spends nearly double the national average on Public Welfare and more than three times the national average on Health.
One last point--though I'm sure there are others I am forgetting. In another recent paper--"Maine's Dwindling Private Sector Economy"--I show that there is a clear relationship between the size of a state's private sector and its overall economic well-being. Transfer payments crowd out the private sector to the detriment of all Mainers. Of course, we don't need complex graphs to tell us that. Just look over the border. New Hampshire has the 2nd largest private sector in the country and the 9th highest per capita personal income in the country. Alas, Maine is the polar opposite.
Whoa, hold on Tex. I am not even sure where to begin on that one. First, Dr. Lawton should read my study on "Why Taxes Matter." In fact, transfer payments do come at the expense of earning. Earnings, government employment excluded, are generated by the private sector. Transfer payments come from taxes which are paid from the private sector. If transfer payments grow, then taxes to pay them must go up. Throw in the deadweight losses from the higher taxes, and the private sector--earnings and jobs growth--suffer. There is one "theoretically necessary reason for detrimental effects." And empirical reasons as well.
Dr. Lawton also downplays the enormity of the transfer payment problem in Maine. While he likes to talk about the national average, Mainers can only wish they were even close to the national average. In my new study on Maine state government spending--"Maine Spends too Much . . . But Where?" The study shows that Maine state government spending on "Public Welfare" (Medicaid, TANF, etc.) and "Health" (WIC, state clinics, etc.) rank the highest in the country as a percent of income. In fact, Maine spends nearly double the national average on Public Welfare and more than three times the national average on Health.
One last point--though I'm sure there are others I am forgetting. In another recent paper--"Maine's Dwindling Private Sector Economy"--I show that there is a clear relationship between the size of a state's private sector and its overall economic well-being. Transfer payments crowd out the private sector to the detriment of all Mainers. Of course, we don't need complex graphs to tell us that. Just look over the border. New Hampshire has the 2nd largest private sector in the country and the 9th highest per capita personal income in the country. Alas, Maine is the polar opposite.
MHPC has done quite a bit of work to publicize the fact that school choice in Maine is under threat. Is it possible that school choice could be expanded as a result of consolidation?
The Times Record reports that residents of Wiscasset, which is destined to be the only non-choice district in its new RSU, are thinking about extending school choice to their own students. The article is tremdously revealing about the motives of the two sides.
On the side favoring choice, you have this argument:
Smith noted that, with school enrollment falling and no sign the other seven towns would send students or funding to Wiscasset to help combat the dropoff, the high school could continue to wither away. If the disappearance in funding and programs reached severe enough levels, he argued, it would be unfair of the town not to allow its students to seek better educations elsewhere.
"If we can't save the high school, isn't our obligation to the students?" asked Smith.
In other words, for the good of the children, we have to provide the best options available, and if that means closing a school to which kids don't want to go, then so be it.
The argument on the other side is that for the good of the school, we need to avoid giving kids a choice:
However, School Committee Chairman Gene Stover remained worried that opening the door of school choice would exacerbate what he described as the "exodus we're experiencing from Alna and Westport Island."
Alna and Westport Island had already been partnered with Wiscasset before the larger consolidation talks began, but as Smith noted, "one-third of the Westport Island kids choose schools other than Wiscasset due to misconceptions about the quality of our schools."
Allowing Wiscasset's own students to leave, too, argued Stover, would be a bad idea.
"We've got to combat this business of people leaving because of what they perceive as programs that aren't as good as other schools."
I find this line of thinking facsinating. The kids that have choice are voting with their feet and leaving the schools. They are doing so, Mr. Stover suggests, because of "perceptions" that the schools are not that good.
His solution, evidently, is not to deal with the perception issue (or what may be underlying perfomance issues), but simply to use the law to prevent students from leaving.
It says something about how ingrained the public school monopoly model has become that nobody gets worked up about trapping kids in underperforming schools. "So what if kids want to leave - we won't make the school better, we'll just prevent them from leaving."
Someday we'll look back at this era and be amazed that people put up put up with this...
The Times Record reports that residents of Wiscasset, which is destined to be the only non-choice district in its new RSU, are thinking about extending school choice to their own students. The article is tremdously revealing about the motives of the two sides.
On the side favoring choice, you have this argument:
Smith noted that, with school enrollment falling and no sign the other seven towns would send students or funding to Wiscasset to help combat the dropoff, the high school could continue to wither away. If the disappearance in funding and programs reached severe enough levels, he argued, it would be unfair of the town not to allow its students to seek better educations elsewhere.
"If we can't save the high school, isn't our obligation to the students?" asked Smith.
In other words, for the good of the children, we have to provide the best options available, and if that means closing a school to which kids don't want to go, then so be it.
The argument on the other side is that for the good of the school, we need to avoid giving kids a choice:
However, School Committee Chairman Gene Stover remained worried that opening the door of school choice would exacerbate what he described as the "exodus we're experiencing from Alna and Westport Island."
Alna and Westport Island had already been partnered with Wiscasset before the larger consolidation talks began, but as Smith noted, "one-third of the Westport Island kids choose schools other than Wiscasset due to misconceptions about the quality of our schools."
Allowing Wiscasset's own students to leave, too, argued Stover, would be a bad idea.
"We've got to combat this business of people leaving because of what they perceive as programs that aren't as good as other schools."
I find this line of thinking facsinating. The kids that have choice are voting with their feet and leaving the schools. They are doing so, Mr. Stover suggests, because of "perceptions" that the schools are not that good.
His solution, evidently, is not to deal with the perception issue (or what may be underlying perfomance issues), but simply to use the law to prevent students from leaving.
It says something about how ingrained the public school monopoly model has become that nobody gets worked up about trapping kids in underperforming schools. "So what if kids want to leave - we won't make the school better, we'll just prevent them from leaving."
Someday we'll look back at this era and be amazed that people put up put up with this...
An article from today's New York Post details the choice facing President-Elect and Mrs.Obama as they look to move to Washington in January - to which school will they send their kids?
Most Americans, of course, don't have that choice to make. They are forced to attend the public school assigned to them by the state unless they can afford to go elsewhere. Many Maine communities offer school choice, though fewer and fewer all the time.
Most Americans, of course, don't have that choice to make. They are forced to attend the public school assigned to them by the state unless they can afford to go elsewhere. Many Maine communities offer school choice, though fewer and fewer all the time.
Future Mom-in-Chief Michelle Obama flew into DC ahead of her husband yesterday on a reconnaissance mission to scope out private schools for her two daughters.
She headed first to the tony Georgetown Day School, an
ultra-progressive prep school where students and their teachers are on
a first-name basis.
After Georgetown, Michelle headed to Sidwell, a liberal Quaker school that many consider the front-runner in the heated Race for the Schoolhouse.
Still to be visited is Maret, a college-prep school with an emphasis on sports.
The DC public schools made an unsuccessful push for Chelsea Clinton back in 1992, but it seems unlikely the Obama girls will end up in a city school.What is even more amazing about this article are the long lists of prominent Democrats with kids at each of these ritzy private schools. It amazes me that these people are never called on the carpet for the blatant hypocrisy of denying ordinary people the same school choice rights they enjoy. They are all very supportive of D.C. public schools until they have to send their own kids there...Unbelievable.
Turns out, more folks are prepared to merge school districts than I had anticipated. I predicted in this space that about half of the consolidation plans sent out to voters would pass, turns out that 12 of 18 did.
I had thought opposition in Freeport would spell the end of that plan, with opposition in SAD 38 sinking its merger with SAD 48. Wishful thinking, I guess - both those plans will end school choice for a number of students.
A number of plans are still waiting to go, and plans that were rejected still have time to be reworked and put back in front of voters in January. The big question will be whether the state moves forward to impose penalties on those districts not in compliance. They are likely to if most plans pass, unlikely to if most plans fail, I would guess. So far, 2 out of 3 are passing, which will embolden the administration to keep pushing the merger effort forward in the face of what is likely to be at least some legislative opposition.
Democrats have built large majorities in both the Senate and House. Will they oppose the administration's effort? Unlikely. Consolidation is here to stay.
I had thought opposition in Freeport would spell the end of that plan, with opposition in SAD 38 sinking its merger with SAD 48. Wishful thinking, I guess - both those plans will end school choice for a number of students.
A number of plans are still waiting to go, and plans that were rejected still have time to be reworked and put back in front of voters in January. The big question will be whether the state moves forward to impose penalties on those districts not in compliance. They are likely to if most plans pass, unlikely to if most plans fail, I would guess. So far, 2 out of 3 are passing, which will embolden the administration to keep pushing the merger effort forward in the face of what is likely to be at least some legislative opposition.
Democrats have built large majorities in both the Senate and House. Will they oppose the administration's effort? Unlikely. Consolidation is here to stay.
Not a great Election Day as far as I'm concerned, but there was one bright note. Voters in Raymond and Orland both voted to preserve school choice.
The vote in Orland was very close, 671 to 644. That means Orland will continue to have at least some school choice after merging with Bucksport, assuming the merger plan passes when the time comes. That plan would limit high school choice in Orland to only 35% of students. The other 65% will be required to attend Bucksport High School.
School choice in Raymond was upheld by a better than two-to-one margin, 1923 to 788. This means Raymond will keep choice after merging with Windham. This is a truly great win considering that much of the school board and the school administration were adamantly against choice.
The battle is not over yet. We're still learning the outcomes with regard to a handful of consolidation plans dealing with school choice, though it looks as though the Freeport-Durham-Pownal merger will go through, ending choice for students in Pownal and Durham.
Stay tuned...
The vote in Orland was very close, 671 to 644. That means Orland will continue to have at least some school choice after merging with Bucksport, assuming the merger plan passes when the time comes. That plan would limit high school choice in Orland to only 35% of students. The other 65% will be required to attend Bucksport High School.
School choice in Raymond was upheld by a better than two-to-one margin, 1923 to 788. This means Raymond will keep choice after merging with Windham. This is a truly great win considering that much of the school board and the school administration were adamantly against choice.
The battle is not over yet. We're still learning the outcomes with regard to a handful of consolidation plans dealing with school choice, though it looks as though the Freeport-Durham-Pownal merger will go through, ending choice for students in Pownal and Durham.
Stay tuned...
