On June 21st Senator Iris Estebrook and her fellow cronies voted to add full day kindergarten to the definition of an "adequate education" in the passing of HB 927. This clearly was pandering to the educrats and unions. Anyone in their right mind and who has done research knows that kindergarten does little to enhance long term student achievement.
For more information on this we suggest readers visit the Rand Corporation website. The following brief comes directly from their site.
"Abstract
For children who enter school unready to learn, policymakers have been looking to full-day kindergarten as a way to level the playing field. Using longitudinal survey data on a nationally representative sample of children, this RAND study examined issues related to school readiness and the effect of full-day kindergarten on student performance. Both academic and nonacademic school readiness skills at entry to kindergarten were significantly related to reading and mathematics achievement in fifth grade. As with earlier studies, the study finds that full-time kindergarten programs may not enhance achievement in the long term."
To read the full report go to the Rand Corporation Website.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
The Special Ed Myth.
We placed this post under the category of Failures of Our Public Education System because of the labeling of students by Educrats. Often times you will hear that academic performance in schools has been hindered by special education programs. The fact is schools get more money if they have larger numbers of students labeled with some sort of disability. It is true that there are more "special ed" children in schools, in fact the percent increase is 50% from the 1976-1977 school year to the 2000-2001 school year. * Closer inspection of this information reveals that we do not actually have more "special ed" children but the standards for labeling these children has been reduced.
* Digest of Education Statistics 2002, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Educaiton, 2003, Table 52.
To learn more about the education myths we recommend the book Education Myths What Special-Interest Groups Want YOU to BELIEVE about our SCHOOLS - AND WHY IT ISN'T SO.
The Money Myth "Schools perform poorly because the need more money."
At the end of WWII the US spent $1214 (inflation adjusted for 2001-2002 dollars) per student for those in elementary and secondary schools. By 2001-2002 we were spending a total of $8745. That is an 8 fold increase. From 1971/1972 to 2001-2002 spending doubled from $4479 per student to $8745 per student with no increase in student performance.*
*To learn more about this education myth and other myths we recommend the book Education Myths What Special-Interest Groups Want YOU to BELIEVE about our SCHOOLS - AND WHY IT ISN'T SO.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The Myth: Increased spending correlates to increased performance.
Stanford University researcher Eric Hanushek researched every study (163) that examined the relationship between spending and educational performance. Only 27 or 16% of the studies found increased spending produced increased results. Of this 16% other researchers have found that the increased in performance was so small compared to the increased spending that is does not justify the increased in spending.
Eric A Hanushek, "School Resources and Student Performance," in Does Money Matter? The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement and Adult Success, Gary Burless, ed., Brookings Institution, 1996.
Richard Rothstein with Karen Hawley Miles, "Where's the Money Gone? Changes in the Level and Composition of Education Spending," Education Policy Institute, 1995.
To learn more we suggest Education Myths What Special-Interest Groups Want YOU to BELIEVE about our SCHOOLS-AND WHY IT ISN'T SO - Jay P. Greene
Eric A Hanushek, "School Resources and Student Performance," in Does Money Matter? The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement and Adult Success, Gary Burless, ed., Brookings Institution, 1996.
Richard Rothstein with Karen Hawley Miles, "Where's the Money Gone? Changes in the Level and Composition of Education Spending," Education Policy Institute, 1995.
To learn more we suggest Education Myths What Special-Interest Groups Want YOU to BELIEVE about our SCHOOLS-AND WHY IT ISN'T SO - Jay P. Greene
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Charlie Arlinghaus: Gov. Lynch should veto the Senate's experiment with deficit spending
The following piece appears in the Union Leader. No further comment is needed.
Charlie Arlinghaus: Gov. Lynch should veto the Senate's experiment with deficit spending
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS
EVERY BUDGET requires a conference committee to sort out the differences between the House and Senate versions. The differences are usually subtle. This year, however, the details reveal startling differences that suggest the Senate version should be either fixed or vetoed.
The House passed a professional and responsible budget. I have been critical of the House revenue estimates for being too high and its spending increase for being huge by recent historical standards, but those criticisms amount to policy differences and different views of the economy.
Both the Senate and House budgets raise spending too much. A 16 percent increase is much too high, vastly outpaces inflation, and cannot possibly be maintained over time without significant tax hikes or "reform." However, by three important measurements the House budget is responsible and the Senate budget is an enormous mistake.
The most important distinction is balance. Just four years ago, the state's bond rating was lowered after four consecutive years of general fund deficits. The bond rating is important because it affects the rate at which we borrow money. A lower rating is like being forced to pay higher mortgage interest rates.
More important, a bond rating is a more objective assessment of the state's fiscal stewardship than the political process usually allows. Each party will criticize the other, emphasize the positive aspects of its own ideas and denigrate the other party. A bond rating is one of the few objective assessments delivered by national rating agencies on Wall Street.
The House budget combines the interdependent general and education funds into one budget (a suggestion Doug Hall and I made two years ago) for clarity. It balances that budget each biennium and puts any surplus into the state's rainy day fund as required by the state's budget law.
The Senate budget can only be described as hand crafted to get us into trouble with the bond rating agencies. While I was happy to see senators adopt more conservative revenue estimates in a few areas, the rest of the budget is out of balance and relies on gimmicks.
The Senate split the budget back into a general and an education fund. Each of its two budget years and the end of the most recent is in deficit. Despite revenue $60 million ahead of budgeted expenses, the fiscal year ending next week shows an $8 million general fund deficit (spending $1.394 billion and estimating revenue at $1.385 billion).
Because the education fund came in strong, there will be a surplus of $48 million. State law and the House budget call for it to be deposited into the rainy day fund. Surpluses in good economic times are saved for recessions. The Senate, in contrast, suspends state law to keep most of the money so the state can run large general fund deficits in both of the next two fiscal years.
In FY 2008, the Senate runs a $49.5 million deficit. In FY 2009, it swells to $60.7 million. On top of a small 2007 operating deficit, that will make three years in a row of deficits during years of significant revenue growth. You can almost hear the eyebrows on Wall Street rising.
The Senate budget spends $110 million more than it raises. The state is saved from deficit only by transferring $87 million from the education fund and borrowing $48 million left in the rainy day fund two years earlier.
The Senate's experiment with deficit spending is the result of a similar escapade two years ago. The Legislature then suspended the rainy day fund law to borrow $30 million from the surplus Craig Benson left. Benson's $30 million forms the bulk of the 2007 surplus that the Senate is borrowing.
It is an action that makes a mockery of the rainy day fund. However, at a minimum, senators should put the $30 million back in the rainy day fund or send Craig Benson a thank you note for the surplus that allows the their profligacy.
The governor should insist the final budget come closer to the House's version. Any surplus that our windfall levels of revenue create must be deposited in its entirety in the rainy day fund, not borrowed to perpetuate problems. Also, the general and education funds should be recombined to reduce the operating shortfall to $23 million. The remaining deficit should be eliminated with spending cuts.
If the final version doesn't do each of those three things, the governor's only responsible choice is to veto it.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
Charlie Arlinghaus: Gov. Lynch should veto the Senate's experiment with deficit spending
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS
EVERY BUDGET requires a conference committee to sort out the differences between the House and Senate versions. The differences are usually subtle. This year, however, the details reveal startling differences that suggest the Senate version should be either fixed or vetoed.
The House passed a professional and responsible budget. I have been critical of the House revenue estimates for being too high and its spending increase for being huge by recent historical standards, but those criticisms amount to policy differences and different views of the economy.
Both the Senate and House budgets raise spending too much. A 16 percent increase is much too high, vastly outpaces inflation, and cannot possibly be maintained over time without significant tax hikes or "reform." However, by three important measurements the House budget is responsible and the Senate budget is an enormous mistake.
The most important distinction is balance. Just four years ago, the state's bond rating was lowered after four consecutive years of general fund deficits. The bond rating is important because it affects the rate at which we borrow money. A lower rating is like being forced to pay higher mortgage interest rates.
More important, a bond rating is a more objective assessment of the state's fiscal stewardship than the political process usually allows. Each party will criticize the other, emphasize the positive aspects of its own ideas and denigrate the other party. A bond rating is one of the few objective assessments delivered by national rating agencies on Wall Street.
The House budget combines the interdependent general and education funds into one budget (a suggestion Doug Hall and I made two years ago) for clarity. It balances that budget each biennium and puts any surplus into the state's rainy day fund as required by the state's budget law.
The Senate budget can only be described as hand crafted to get us into trouble with the bond rating agencies. While I was happy to see senators adopt more conservative revenue estimates in a few areas, the rest of the budget is out of balance and relies on gimmicks.
The Senate split the budget back into a general and an education fund. Each of its two budget years and the end of the most recent is in deficit. Despite revenue $60 million ahead of budgeted expenses, the fiscal year ending next week shows an $8 million general fund deficit (spending $1.394 billion and estimating revenue at $1.385 billion).
Because the education fund came in strong, there will be a surplus of $48 million. State law and the House budget call for it to be deposited into the rainy day fund. Surpluses in good economic times are saved for recessions. The Senate, in contrast, suspends state law to keep most of the money so the state can run large general fund deficits in both of the next two fiscal years.
In FY 2008, the Senate runs a $49.5 million deficit. In FY 2009, it swells to $60.7 million. On top of a small 2007 operating deficit, that will make three years in a row of deficits during years of significant revenue growth. You can almost hear the eyebrows on Wall Street rising.
The Senate budget spends $110 million more than it raises. The state is saved from deficit only by transferring $87 million from the education fund and borrowing $48 million left in the rainy day fund two years earlier.
The Senate's experiment with deficit spending is the result of a similar escapade two years ago. The Legislature then suspended the rainy day fund law to borrow $30 million from the surplus Craig Benson left. Benson's $30 million forms the bulk of the 2007 surplus that the Senate is borrowing.
It is an action that makes a mockery of the rainy day fund. However, at a minimum, senators should put the $30 million back in the rainy day fund or send Craig Benson a thank you note for the surplus that allows the their profligacy.
The governor should insist the final budget come closer to the House's version. Any surplus that our windfall levels of revenue create must be deposited in its entirety in the rainy day fund, not borrowed to perpetuate problems. Also, the general and education funds should be recombined to reduce the operating shortfall to $23 million. The remaining deficit should be eliminated with spending cuts.
If the final version doesn't do each of those three things, the governor's only responsible choice is to veto it.
Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
New Hamshire Parents for Educational Freedom
I would like to encourage parents to visit a new site called New Hampshire Parents for Educational Freedom.
To Republican lawmakers, I say, the choice is yours.
The biggest crock of poop I heard today.
"To Republican lawmakers, I say, the choice is yours." - Ray Buckley chairman of the state Democratic Party.
The above quote appeared in today's Union Leader. To read the whole piece, which would best be used as a birdcage liner pick up the June 19th edition of the Union Leader.
To Mr. Buckley I give the following response to your quote.
There is no choice here. Mr. Buckley you and bullies have given no one a choice. The Claremont and Londonderry attorneys did not give anyone a choice when they rammed these lawsuits down the peoples throats. The courts in turn rendered an unconstitutional decision and did not give the legislators a choice. Spineless legislators are yielding to the judges when they do not have to. Democrats are just pandering to the Londonderry and Claremont attorneys, educrats and the teacher's unions. There is no choice here, I do not have a choice as to where I may educate my child unless I pay twice (property taxes and private tuition elsewhere). No Mr. Buckley you have made it clear that you do not want parents to have a choice. Your majority is killing what little choice parents had in killing charter schools by sneaking in House Bill 2 to the State Budget.
If you really want parents to have choice give us a choice. Ignore the judges decision they have no right to do what they did anyway. For once and for all Mr. Buckley you and your party should stop pandering to the unions and do what is right for New Hampshire's Children. Give us a choice where we can educate our children in the institution of our choice and finally stop the educational spending spree that results in mediocre results and deficit spending.
"To Republican lawmakers, I say, the choice is yours." - Ray Buckley chairman of the state Democratic Party.
The above quote appeared in today's Union Leader. To read the whole piece, which would best be used as a birdcage liner pick up the June 19th edition of the Union Leader.
To Mr. Buckley I give the following response to your quote.
There is no choice here. Mr. Buckley you and bullies have given no one a choice. The Claremont and Londonderry attorneys did not give anyone a choice when they rammed these lawsuits down the peoples throats. The courts in turn rendered an unconstitutional decision and did not give the legislators a choice. Spineless legislators are yielding to the judges when they do not have to. Democrats are just pandering to the Londonderry and Claremont attorneys, educrats and the teacher's unions. There is no choice here, I do not have a choice as to where I may educate my child unless I pay twice (property taxes and private tuition elsewhere). No Mr. Buckley you have made it clear that you do not want parents to have a choice. Your majority is killing what little choice parents had in killing charter schools by sneaking in House Bill 2 to the State Budget.
If you really want parents to have choice give us a choice. Ignore the judges decision they have no right to do what they did anyway. For once and for all Mr. Buckley you and your party should stop pandering to the unions and do what is right for New Hampshire's Children. Give us a choice where we can educate our children in the institution of our choice and finally stop the educational spending spree that results in mediocre results and deficit spending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)