Please Ignore the Huge Pile of Payola Behind the Curtain

March 18, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

The New York Times turned in a must read article on Arizona State University President Michael Crow:

He quickly made a name for himself, increasing enrollment by nearly a third to 67,000 students, luring big-name professors and starting interdisciplinary schools in areas like sustainability, projects with partners like the Mayo Clinic and Sichuan University in China, and dozens of new degree programs

But this year, Mr. Crow’s plans have crashed into new budget realities, raising questions about how many public research universities the nation needs and whether universities like Arizona State, in their drive to become prominent research institutions, have lost focus on their public mission to provide solid undergraduate education for state residents.

I love the way the term “quality” is used by Dr. Crow. Maybe it is just me, but it certainly appears to me that ASU has been seeking to create the appearance of quality more than the reality. As JPGB readers will recall, ASU’s four year graduation rate is 28%, lowest among the peer institutions as identified by the Education Trust.

Case in point, National Merit Scholars- ASU has a lot of them. But **ahem** there is a little problem identified by the New York Times:

Arizona State University recruits National Merit Scholars nationwide with a four-year $90,000 scholarship, a package so generous that Arizona State enrolls 600 National Merit Scholars, more than Yale or Stanford. Through the cuts, Mr. Crow has kept that program, even while proposing to cut a scholarship for Arizona residents with high scores on state tests, a proposal the state regents turned down.

In their promotional materials, ASU boasts of the number of National Merit Scholars they enroll, but doesn’t bother to mention the obscenely large bribe offered in order to get those National Merit Scholars. If I wanted to be cruel, I’d compare this package to another university and…

Okay, so I’m cruel: the Education Trust identified the University of Indiana Bloomington as the highest performing peer institution for Arizona State based on 4 year graduation rates (over 50% for IU). Last year, their National Merit Scholars had an average package worth $13,609 each.

For some reason, ASU feels compelled to offer almost seven times as much as IU. Maybe the weather is just better in Indiana. Oh wait, you don’t have to hang around at ASU in the summer, so it can’t be the weather.

Well, um, some people don’t like palm trees…


Izumi’s Video Op-Ed in the New York Times: Vouchers in Sweden

March 16, 2009

Good stuff-Check it out.


Random Pop Culture Apocalypse: Cover Songs

March 15, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Mrs. Ladner has the kiddos off in the Land of Enchantment visiting their relatives on spring break. Rather than sit around in my boxers piling up pizza boxes and watching tons of NCAA basketball (NOT that there is anything wrong with that!) I am out of town myself, in the Raven, a great coffee bar in Prescott Arizona.

So as long as I’m here, chugging cafe mocha, I may as well blog, so here is a random subject for you: cover songs. I love cover songs. Cover songs are recordings made by one artist that were previously made popular by another artist. For reasons that I’ll try to figure out as I write this, I tend to like a much higher percentage of cover songs. Perhaps it is simply because nostalgia, not gravity, is the most powerful force in the universe. Perhaps it is something more than that, however.

Back in the day, there were songs that were “the standards”and you were judged as a performer based on how well you sang them. More than that, how entertaining you managed to make them.

Needless to say, people sitting around singing the same songs all the time would get boring. There is a reason however that certain songs achieve standard status-there’s something special about them.

My favorite thing about a good cover song is that an artist or producer have recognized something special about a song, even if it isn’t obvious. I remember watching the VH1 Behind the Music on Rod Stewart. Rod had hit a lull in his career, and a producer called him. The producer told Rod that he was a pretty good singer of pretty good songs, but a great singer of great songs. Rod’s next question was classic:

Do you have a great song for me?”

From this came Stewart’s cover of Tom Wait’s Downtown Train. Here is the original:

And here is what the now great again Rod Stewart did with the song.

I think it’s great that Waits wrote the song, but I can’t say I ever need to hear his rendition again. Stewart said something to the effect of “Tom didn’t know there was so much soul in that song, but there was.” Stewart went on to make a fortune with a series of cds of- you guessed it- the standards.

Here’s another great example: Overkill by Men at Work. The original:

I kind of liked that song back in 1983, but I liked the 1996 cover by Lazlo Bane and Colin Hay much, much better:

My favorite sub-genre of cover songs is the ironic cover song. Here is the Carpenters singing their song Superstar:

Now, here is perhaps the greatest of all cover bands, Me First and the Gimme Gimmes version of the same song from their hilarious cd Ruin Jonny’s Bar Mitzvah. MFATGG is a side project which draws members from several different punk bands to do punk rock covers.

Now of course there are plenty of bad and awful covers, but generally, I like a higher percentage of covers than average. I think the reasons are fairly simple: nostalgia, but also a double quality screen. For the marketing of a typical song, someone is hoping that enough people will like it to buy it. If no one does, you probably never hear of it anyway, or ignore it if you do.

This applies to cover songs as well, but in addition someone has seen something in the song, or a way to put an entertaining twist on it. If it isn’t any good, the paragraph immediately above still applies, but if done well the cover starts with good material but benefits from a new twist and from the nostalgia factor.

So if you know of a cool cover that I’ve probably never heard, post a link in the comment section. It’s time for me to get an espresso.

 


Saudi Arabia versus al Qaeda

March 12, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Must read article by Stratafor.


You can’t handle the truth!

March 12, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

A Few Good Men was a good movie that could have been a great movie. On the good side, no romance between Demi Moore and Tom Cruise, and very well done court room drama. On the bad side, the director had to make sure that we understood that Jack Nicholson’s character was the bad guy by having him make crude remarks to Demi Moore. It was like a 30 second summary of Titanic where Leo’s arrogant rival tells Kate Winslet “I’m going to slap you now so that the audience will understand that I’m the bad guy.”

My favorite part of that summary by the way was the meeting between Leo and Kate’ s characters. Leonardo says “I’m pretty!” Kate says “I’m pretty too!” Leo responds “Yes, you are pretty, but not as pretty as me.”

But I digress.

Out here among the cacti, we have a pervasive myth that Arizona public schools are desperately underfunded to the tune of $6,500 per pupil. After the officials report this hideous number to the NCES, then comes the claim that Arizona is ranked 49th in per capita spending. This however is an exercise in issue framing.

As it turns out, Arizona has plenty of company in claiming to be 49th in spending. Another problem- when you take the total amount of revenue and divide it by the total number of students, you get a figure of $9,707 per pupil. Strange- a more than $3,000 per pupil difference…

Now the Arizona legislature’s Joint Legislative Budget Board has produced a document regarding expenditure per pupil in the state. Curiouser and curiouser, but it gives a figure of $9,399 per student for the year before the revenue per pupil figure of $9,707.

I had previously said that this meant that Arizona was not 49th, but somewhere in the middle. An ongoing discussion with a progressive blogger in Arizona, however, has led me to realize that I have little confidence in any state’s spending numbers, other than those of Texas, which can easily be double checked.

Jay successfully pushed a method for calculating dropout rates that looked at the size of a student cohort over time. Perhaps we need to do something similar for spending per pupil figures. Let’s keep it simple: add up all the spending, divide by the number of students.

Otherwise, you get a pig’s breakfast where people down in the basement of state education departments decide this type of funding counts, but this kind of funding doesn’t. Some states report a total number, while others report some interpretation of a spending number as rendered by Bureaucrat X.


Arizona Corporate Tax Credit Prevails in Court

March 12, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

From the Institute for Justice:

Victory for School Choice: Arizona Court of Appeals Declares  Corporate Tax Credit Scholarship Program Constitutional

Arlington, Va.-The Arizona Court of Appeals today declared that tax credit programs that fund tuition scholarships for low- and middle-income children to attend private schools “pass constitutional muster.”  The decision follows the Arizona Supreme Court‘s 1999 decision in Kotterman v. Killian, which upheld the constitutionality of Arizona’s
Individual Tax Credit Scholarship Program from an identical legal attack.  

“Today’s real winners are the families who rely on Arizona’s Corporate Tax Credit Scholarship Program to attend high-performing private schools tailored to meet their children’s unique educational needs,” declared Tim Keller, executive director of the Institute for Justices Arizona Chapter.  “This decision affirms that the state and federal constitutions protect the right of parents, not bureaucrats, to make the educational decisions that will forever impact their children’s lives.” 

Passed in 2006, Arizona’s Corporate Tax Credit Scholarship Program encourages private companies to donate to charitable organizations that provide scholarships to low- and moderate-income families to attend private schools.  Companies receive a tax credit for their donations.  In 2008, the corporate contribution limit was capped
at $14.4 million.  That amount will increase by 20 percent in 2009. According to the most recent figures from the Arizona Department of Revenue, in 2007, funds donated to scholarship organizations enabled
1,947 students to attend 156 private schools. 

The scholarships are available only to children who transfer from a public to a private school, or those entering kindergarten.  With the average corporate scholarship totaling just under $2,400, the state saves money every time a child previously enrolled in a public school chooses to attend a private school.  

“The taxpayers of Arizona also won today because every time a child transfers from a public school to a private school, the state saves thousands of dollars that would otherwise have been used to pay for that child’s education in a public school,” Keller continued.  “The program is constitutional, and it is sound public policy.  It is time for the ACLU to drop its spurious legal claims.”

Judge Donn Kessler filed a dissent in the case suggesting that the program violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Judge Kessler’s reasoning misapplies the U.S. Supreme Court‘s 2002 decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, which upheld a state-funded voucher program for low-income children in Cleveland.  

IJ, the nation’s leading legal advocate for school choice, is currently defending Arizona’s state-funded scholarship programs for children with disabilities and children in foster care, as well as Arizona’s individual tax credit scholarship program, and helped secure the Kotterman victory for school choice.  The Institute also helped win
a victory in the U.S. Supreme Court for school choice in Cleveland and successfully defended vouchers in Milwaukee and tax credits in Illinois.


The Rhetorical Rights and Wrongs of the Obama Speech

March 11, 2009

 (Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

I agree with both Jay and Greg about Obama’s speech- first, that it is symbolically important. The endorsement of merit pay and charter schools is very encouraging. Jay is correct however to ask…

There are a couple of items in the President’s speech, however, that I think he’s off base on. For instance, the idea that everyone needs to attend college. In the Carnegie Foundation’s publication Change, Paul Barton wrote that the notion that the U.S. has a dire need for an ever increasing number of college graduates is a myth. “Confusion about the demand for college graduates runs throughout discussions of national workforce needs,” Barton wrote.

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, only 29 percent of all jobs actually required a degree in 2004. The Bureau projects that of the top ten occupations with the largest growth from 2004 to 2014, seventy percent won’t require a college education.

Interestingly, the U.S. Department of Education’s National Education Longitudinal Study reports that 40 percent of its sample attained a two- or four-year degree or higher. Therefore, many people with college degrees have jobs that don’t require them. So it really might be true when your cabbie says he has a Ph.D.

Barton’s clear-eyed presentation of the data reveals a job market far more complex than simply an unmet demand for college-educated job applicants. For example, proponents of greater higher education funding often point to an increasing wage gap between the college educated and those who aren’t.

Barton, however, notes that the wage gap is due largely to the falling earnings of high-school graduates and dropouts rather than to higher earnings for college graduates.

Second, the President’s call for the expansion of preschool programs isn’t supported by the weight of empirical evidence, which generally show small academic gains that quickly fade out.

Overall, however, it was a better speech than I could have dared hope for, demonstrating at least a rhetorical independence from the reactionary forces of the status-quo. Let’s see if the President gets around to backing his fine words with actual reform.


WSJ Video on DC Vouchers

March 11, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Check it out.


Creative Destruction in Public Schooling

March 9, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

The Center for Education Reform released The Accountability Report – Charter Schools today. Lots of interesting information about the state of the charter schooling movement, including state by state information. For example, my state of Arizona has 510 charter schools operating, but since the charter law passed here in 1994, 96 Arizona charter schools have closed.

I suspect that some of those 96 schools never actually opened, but that is okay. Let’s face it, there are district schools we wish we had never had open as well, based on their long track records of abysmal test scores.

One out of five new school closing may not be the cold howling wind of the market for restaurants, but it is something. Creative destruction and competition for students provides focus, which helps to explain why 9 out of the top 10 public high schools, as ranked by their reading scores, in the greater Phoenix area are charter schools. Check it out for yourself here.

Plenty of interesting information in the report, well worth a look.

UPDATE: Kara Hornung Kerwin of CER, the first and only woman to ever have a bachlorette party thrown on her behalf by a group of education policy geeks in Jackson Hole Wyoming, wrote me to say that in fact all 96 of those schools opened and closed. The school market is a bit more savage than I thought.

Notice the titles here and with the recent Fordham Report on standardized testing. The Accountability Report-Charter Schools vs. The Accountability Illusion.

Things that make you go hmmmmm…..


Why President Obama is an Outlier

March 5, 2009
(Guest Post by Dan Lips)

In his new book, Outliers, best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell examines why some people become extraordinarily successful and others do not.

Challenging the conventional notion of the self-made man, Gladwell argues that most great success stories spring from unique advantages and opportunities that enable remarkable achievement.

Consider Bill Gates. Most people know how, as a young computer whiz, he dropped out of Harvard to start Microsoft and revolutionize the software industry and the American economy in the process. But often overlooked in this simple tale are the events in Gates’ life that put him on the path to greatness.

Gladwell explains that, as a teenager, Gates attended a private school that offered a computer club. At a time when few colleges were offering students hands-on computer experience, Gates was practicing real-time computer programming in the eighth grade. This early experience led Gates to capitalize on other unique opportunities, including working part-time testing code for a local tech company and sneaking into the University of Washington at night to steal time computer programming.

These unique opportunities made Bill Gates an outlier, as he admits: “I had a better exposure to software development at a young age than I think anyone did in that period, and all because of an incredibly lucky series of events.”

Or consider perhaps the greatest outlier of our time: President Barack Obama. Part of what captures the public’s imagination about our new president is that his is the quintessential tale of the self-made man.

You know the story. The son of an absent African father, the young Obama was raised by his mother and grandparents in middle-class America. He went on to earn degrees from Columbia and Harvard University, where he became the first black president of the law review. This historic achievement earned the young lawyer a book deal from a top publisher and a grip on a career ladder that he climbed to the top of Illinois politics and, finally, to the White House.

Perhaps the most important door to open in young Obama’s life came in 1971, when, at age 10, he received a scholarship to enroll in the private Punahoa school in Hawaii.

He spent the next eight years learning aside the children of the elite in the state’s most prestigious school, where he came to thrive in academics, athletics and extracurricular activities.

After being elected to the Senate in 2004, Obama returned to the school and spoke about its importance in his life: “There was something about this school that embraced me, gave me support and encouragement, and allowed me to grow and prosper. I am extraordinarily grateful.”

In the cases of both Gates and Obama, it takes a special person to take advantage of their opportunities. But it’s fair to conclude that Gates likely wouldn’t have founded Microsoft had he not joined a computer club in 1967, and that Obama wouldn’t have become president had he not attended the Punahoa school.

In the latter case, one wonders what might have become of Obama had he not received his scholarship. Would he have even graduated from college (let alone Columbia and Harvard) if he attended one of Hawaii’s generally mediocre public schools instead of Punahoa? The America’s Promise Alliance reports that the high-school graduation rate in Honolulu’s public schools is just 64 percent. In 2007, only 20 percent of Hawaii’s eighth-grade students scored “proficient” in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

The point of Gladwell’s book isn’t to explain away our greatest successes, but to challenge us to create a society where one doesn’t have to be an outlier to be a success. “To build a better world,” he writes, “we need to replace the patchwork of lucky breaks and arbitrary advantages that determine success with a society that provides opportunities to all.”

One way to level the playing field would be to give all children access to educational opportunities similar to those enjoyed by Gates and Obama. The new president could help make that a reality in the US by supporting the principle that all families — regardless of background — should have the power to choose the best school for their children and by challenging lawmakers across the country to make that promise a reality.

President Obama knows the benefit of that opportunity — he’s passing it along to his daughters by enrolling them in an elite private school in Washington. As president, he could fight to give more children in the District and beyond the same opportunity.

Every child deserves a chance to become the next Bill Gates or Barack Obama, not just the outliers.

Dan Lips is a Senior Policy Analyst for education at the Heritage Foundation.