By Les Schreiber
Virginia’s General Assembly gets underway in a few hours in an important session for Governor Bob McDonnell. His party totally controls both houses of the Legislature and due to Virginia’s unique succession and budget laws this is the only budget that will be totally his. This is “his” session.
The Governor has indicated several laudable goals for higher education. He wants to increase the number of degrees granted and find a way to increase productivity in higher education by shortening the time it takes to receive an undergraduate decree. One easy way to aid the Governor in his goal is to repeal Virginia’s “King’s Dominion Law.”
This piece of legislation prevents Virginia’s school districts from opening before Labor Day. This law is an impediment to the Governor’s goals.
One of the best ways to prepare high schoolers for college and to earn college credit is by participating in the Advanced Placement System. Advanced Placement courses are taught in high schools by high school faculties. In early to mid-May, students sit for a national exam. These exams are rated on a score of 1-to-5. Most colleges give credit for a score of “3″ or better. This program thus allows high school students to arrive at university with credits under their belt. Research also shows that exposure to A.P. classes in high school leads to better academic achievement at the university level. However, Virginia students begin with a handicap.
The King’s Dominion Law put Virginia at a disadvantage by denying them instructional time to prepare for the test. The Los Angeles School District, the home of Disneyland, opens school for the year in early August, while the tourist-dependent Miami/Dade County Florida area opened this academic year on August 23rd. Most of the private schools in the Richmond area begin before Labor Day.
Moving the school calendar forward would cost nothing, while aiding in the Governor’s goal of increasing productivity of the educational system. This should be a slam-dunk.
I’ve always wondered about that law. If you start earlier in the year you get out earlier in the year, no? Start after Labor Day, get out in late June. Start before Labor Day, get out in early June. So, why does King’s Dominion care whether the kiddies come for their fleecing in late August or early June?
the other issue that is a “sleeper” to the average observer but not to teaches is his initiative to do away with automatic contract renewal and instead to base it on performance.
there is speculation as to how you’d actually have a uniform rating system that would preclude principles from abusing their authority but one way to do this is to test the kids at beginning and ending of the school year and determine how many advanced a grade level. There is a whole lot of issues here…
and of course, assuming they come up with something that makes sense and works.. I’d certainly advocate that every single voucher school would have to meet the same exact standards.
Who wrote this?
I also have not heard anything about what the state might do with respect to how virtual schools are funded.
I think it is critical to deal with that issue. Right now, how much a provider receives per student depends on where they locate their business physically.
think about this. In a virtual world – Virginia has a system that incentivizes geographic location.
Ideally, Va would take the steps necessary to allow a business to locate where they need to but we also need to insure that we have level-playing field standards for evaluating academic rigor and performance – regardless of whether the provider is a public or private entity.
the key to Virginia’s economic future is very much related to how this will be resolved.
We actually need to do more than just “fix” this – we want a fully-competitive 21st century approach. The better Virginia’s kids are educated, the less entitlements, less MedicAid, less unemployment benefits taxpayers will have to fund.
and we need to get past the “blame parents”, “blame teachers” excuses.
Our education system should be responsible for effectively educating all kids with normal IQs just as our competition around the world does – better than us ..putting us 15th and lower in academic performance.
Barely 30% of our kids are graduating with a 21st century competitive education. The other 60% are going to become entitlement wards of the state and the state’s taxpayers if we continue to deny the realities of just how far behind our education system really is.
LarryG’s egalitarian beliefs are simultaneously heart-warming and misdirected. In Larry’s world public schools should not provide any extra opportunities to those students who demonstrate an exceptional ability in the class room. Rather, the money now spent on advanced placement and IB programs should be re-directed toward those who, as he writes, have normal IQs.
Unfortunately, Larry’s apparently egalitarian ideas would do far more harm than good. In today’s technology-centric world the skills of the most talented are magnified. Any country which does not identify and cultivate its most talented students is doomed to economic failure. And that failure will not only hinder the naturally talented students it will have catastrophic effects on those with “normal IQs”.
The history of professional music provides a case in point. Prior to the advent of recorded music people who wanted to hear music had to see it performed live. Relatively average musicians could make a living by being willing to go to where the people wanted to hear music. Then came the phonograph. Suddenly, people could hear music produces by the top musicians regardless of whether those musicians were physically present or not. The result was twofold. First, a decrease in the number of people employed in the “traveling minstrel business”. Second, a vast increase in wealth for that small percentage of musicians deemed to be “the best”.
More modern examples exist. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s middle class people often had a stockbroker. They would put their money with a person who they personally knew and trusted. These stockbrokers would meet with their clients, invest according to the client’s goals and make a fairly good living. Today, people purchase professionally managed mutual funds over the internet without ever seeing or speaking to another human being. The invest decisions are made by a small number of fund managers and the trade execution is managed by an even smaller number of computer scientists.
Larry, like many others, years for a return to yesteryear. Back in yesteryear people with “normal IQs” could be educated in the public school system and then seek employment as telephone operators, travel agents, secretaries, middle level managers or stockbrokers. Today, it seems that only health care provides any growth in jobs like that. Unfortunately, health care only provides such jobs because, in America, health care is an over regulated cottage industry with inefficient processes which can only be “papered over” with a river of people. This too will change.
America’s future is compromised when schools fail to provide the curricula required to challenge all students – especially those with above average aptitude. In an internationally competitive world where technology focuses talent it is critical that those with talent be identified and groomed.
So far, I assume that all the Republicans out there are nodding their heads up and down. Unfortunately, that will now change.
America’s present system of taxation and wealth distribution has failed to keep pace with the advances in technology and the ability of technology to enrich a few at the expense of many. No amount of wishful thinking will return us to a world where a good high school education is adequate preparation for a middle class life. Nor will any amount of wishful thinking return us to a world where sophisticated technology generates more and more jobs for those with “normal IQs”. IQ stands for intelligence quotient. It is meant to provide a measure of potential. Therefore, a person with a “normal IQ” has “normal potential”. In a technologically focused world, it is those people who suffer the most.
America must not only reexamine its educational system it must also reexamine its laws regarding taxation and wealth distribution. In plain language, our current taxation and wealth distribution policies will allow those with superior IQs and superior educations to effectively “corner the market” on America’s wealth. This is not the result of any right wing conspiracy or silent revolution conducted by the Federal Reserve. It is the natural consequence of the powerful tools of technology magnifying the talent of those born on the high side of the human IQ curve.
We are at a point where government must step in and establish policies where America’s wealth is reasonably redistributed.
There, I said it.
Improving the education system is a good idea but it is pure folly to believe that any realistic improvement will return America to the days of the 1950s where tens of millions of people moved up into the middle class by working in factories, stock brokerages, travel agencies, etc.
Don/Groveton makes an interesting argument here: The nature of a technology-intensive economy that benefits those with high IQs will tend to increase the disparity in wealth over time. Let’s assume that’s true. He then states, “We are at a point where government must step in and establish policies where America’s wealth is reasonably redistributed.”
Here’s my question to Don: How do you define “reasonable”? Is the current level of transfer payments reasonable? Is the income tax code reasonable? Have we achieved a reasonable equilibrium or do we need to redistribute wealth more aggressively? And, if we do so, how do we do so without undermining the incentives to work, save and invest?
we already cater to the best – that’s the 30% that does excel and matches the students academic performance in other countries.
Groveton/Ripper is essentially advocating abandoning the other 60% as if they’ll dry up and blow away instead of living … not able to find employment – or good enough employment to pay for their needs and ultimately end up with the 30% who do well.. picking up the entitlement tab.
Groveton thinks the country is separate and the folks who don’t get a good education will go off into the wilderness and disappear.
Nope. Groveton’s kids and their kids are going to pay for the 60% if we fail to understand what is at stake.
Jim:
You are asking the right questions. Let me put forth my best guesses.
First, the system is not working. Recessions used to be relatively short lived affairs. The came too often and were usually fairly severe. However, they ended pretty quickly and the country got back on the growth path in short order. Over the last few recessions that has changed. The recessions still come too often and they are still severe. However, they now linger. The historical “V shaped recession” has become a “U shaped recession”. Something has changed. Something structural.
Against the macro-economic backdrop of “V shaped recessions” becoming “U shaped recessions” America has seen an historic change in the distribution of both income and wealth. It’s well advertised that more wealth now accumulates in the top few percentages of the economic strata. However, it is less well published that more wealth also accumulates in the bank accounts of relatively older Americans. In 1965, people aged 65 or older were the most likely age demographic to be living below the poverty line. Today, they are the least likely age demographic to live in poverty.
All of which leads me to believe that our present policies and processes have failed to keep pace with the changing reality of American economics / demographics.
As you might imagine, defining “reasonable” is a chore. I’d look at the income distribution in quintiles. I’d look at success as gains in real income or wealth. The policy declaration might go something like, “The income distribution in the United States will not be considered reasonable until eight of the ten economic quintiles achieve real financial gains over a rolling five year period.”. Complicated? Yes, but so the issue. The fundamental premise is that the vast majority of Americans should be improving their lot over time.
The question of transfer payments is similarly complex. Generally, the existing discrete transfer payments are fine – public assistance (welfare), nutritional assistance (food stamps), etc. I believe there is room for improvement around poor mothers with young children and children’s nutrition. However, the current eve of transfer payments is not the problem.
The question of non-discrete transfer payments (i.e. subsidies) is a different matter. I’ll go heretical again. Our laws should encourage collective bargaining and union formation. Free markets are very effective and efficient over the long term. However, they are often ineffective over the short and mid term – particularly in times of fundamental economic change. We are in such a time of fundamental change. If we let the market set the price for labor it will set the price too low for too many. People are not factories or machines. They cannot be scrapped if you determine there are too many relative to demand. At the less skilled end of the spectrum the choice is increasingly clear – do you want to see more people making a living wage represented by unions or more people on welfare? I’d rather pay higher prices for items made with union labor than pay higher taxes to support those who can’t earn a living wage even if they do work.
The income tax code is a disaster. Herman Cain was on the right track with his 9 – 9 – 9 approach (even if the actual numbers need to vary). Eliminate the endless loopholes, credits, rebates, etc and I think you’ll go a long way to solving the deficit problem. Moreover, estates should be taxed heavily for the foreseeable future. The Baby Boomers who caused the mess we’re in have no basis thinking they can pass on assets to their micro-slice of the next generation. The Boomers stole from society at large by running up idiotic deficits and they should return the money to society at large. Equal opportunity is not achieved when a small percentage of Americans are significantly enriched through the accident of lineage.
It has to pay to work or people won’t work. That’s why I’d rather see union wages than welfare checks. The free market balances supply and demand through pricing. Over-supply (relative to demand) causes prices to fall. If the price falls low enough then the item in question gets scrapped. It’s a great plan for every asset on Earth save one – people. Trying to solve the problem of an over-supply of people (relative to demand) by continually lowering the wages paid to those people is a formula for disaster. In this case, government is justified in intervening in the free market.
Gotta love Larry math:
“we already cater to the best – that’s the 30% that does excel and matches the students academic performance in other countries.”.
“Nope. Groveton’s kids and their kids are going to pay for the 60% if we fail to understand what is at stake.”.
Larry, what happened to the other 10%?
rounding error….
the 10% will muddle through and luck out.. there’s always a certain number who will claw their way to success..no matter their education level, right?
I mean..look at Bill Gates and others.
but even Bill Gates tells us that our education system is in trouble.
there is no way around the reality that there are knowledge-based jobs available in the world but there is stiff competition for them and the kids that used to flop through school and get a drive-by diploma are going to literally become wards of other taxpayers if we do not get ourselves straight.
The 30% does not need more resources.. especially if they have access to virtual schooling.
at some point – you ask yourself what a classroom teacher does that a virtual school does not…. not in K-6 but certainly through 9-12 and into the community college system for those on a technical track.
Our sanguine attitude about this is almost as dangerous as our attitude about the 1.5 Trillion annual deficit.
Jim Bacon is going to be horribly correct about Boomergeddon not because we were not able to avoid it – but because we were too dumb to not take steps that were right in front of us.