News
ENLARGE
That didn't take long. Now that Referendum C — a tax increase we were promised would be “temporary” back in 2005 — has ridden into the sunset, the tax miners in Denver and their political allies have come up with a new vehicle to assure the money spigot remains open for their favored classes.
This time it's Proposition 103, the brainchild of State Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder. Another “temporary” tax increase, it will raise $3 billion over five years, all slated for Colorado's schools.
If one follows the money, it's apparent that the organization created to push this proposition is funded largely by Colorado's teachers' unions. I notice no objection from those who might, in other circumstances, howl about “money in politics,” probably because increasing teacher pay and numbers will add funds to teachers' unions — who supported Democrat candidates in Colorado with about 99.8 percent of their $1.5 million in political contributions in the 2009-10 election cycle. What's to complain about, right?
The ads have already begun. In sonorous tones, the narrator outlines the debilitated state of Colorado's educational system and threatens the Apocalypse if Proposition 103 fails. There's just one problem: The claims are, to use Mark Twain's term of art, “stretchers.”
Yes, some school districts in Colorado have a four-day week. But this affects only 2.7 percent of students, mostly in rural districts, many of which altered schedules in the 1980s — hardly a response to current economic problems. The Colorado Department of Education studied the use of four-day school weeks in 2006; their findings throw cold water on the fearmongering of the tax-increase argument. Read the report at http://bit.ly/fFXKpK
And no, Colorado is not last — or even close — in higher education expenditures. According to figures from the Organization of State Higher Education Executive Officers, Colorado actually saw a 20 percent increase in higher education payments between 2005-10; in total revenue appropriated per student FTE, we even lead California. Read their report at http://bit.ly/g0jHMk
More important is the underlying assumption of the tax-them-til-the-pips-squeak crowd: that expenditure equals performance — a known falsehood. If it were true, the District of Columbia would produce legions of Rhodes Scholars, instead of failing miserably in student achievement.
There's also the question of efficient use of resources. The largest single item on any school district's budget — usually, well over half the total amount — is salaries. So before we allow the teachers' unions to insinuate their hands further into our pockets, we ought to note that even in Summit County — as an example — there are a considerable number of non-teaching, non-custodial positions in school systems. In Summit Cove Elementary, nine out of 29 staff fit this description. In the high school, it's 22 out of 84. Maybe these numbers are justified. Principal, OK. Assistant principal, probably okay. But “Family Liaison?” “Campus Supervisor?” Shouldn't we require that any non-teaching position be justified? After all, there's a recession on …
Then there's that unspeakable value-for-money question. Yes, it's hard to “put a value on a good education,” but shouldn't we have some idea about what a “good education” entails, and shouldn't we demand that, if more funds are requested, better performance be required?
John Dewey and other early twentieth-century educational reformers believed that the purpose of education was to acquaint the student with his or her culture and society, and to provide the skills — reading, writing, logic — and information to make the student a productive member of that society. It's a practical, purposeful vision that has never been bettered. Unfortunately, our educational system seems less and less to concentrate on these goals. And it shows.
Recent Colorado high school graduates I encounter are usually motivated, hardworking, and interested in their studies. But some have difficulty with college-level reading; many have problems with writing and analysis. A majority can neither accurately date the US Civil War, nor explain why the Founders thought it important to have two houses of Congress. Most think Richard Nixon was impeached, and that there were two Kennedy presidents, although they are vague about the name of the second; “Teddy” is the popular choice.
Have these young men and women been well-served by our primary and secondary system of education? Are they adequately prepared to participate in our culture and society? Are we getting good value for our educational dollars? And why do we keep hearing that more of the same will produce better results?
These are questions we should ask as we are once again dunned for cash — uncomfortable questions, but necessary to avoid being stampeded into throwing good money after bad, without measurable result. So, “No” on Proposition 103. After all, “It's for the children.”
Summit County resident Morgan Liddick pens a Tuesday column. E-mail him at mcliddick@hotmail.com.
This time it's Proposition 103, the brainchild of State Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder. Another “temporary” tax increase, it will raise $3 billion over five years, all slated for Colorado's schools.
If one follows the money, it's apparent that the organization created to push this proposition is funded largely by Colorado's teachers' unions. I notice no objection from those who might, in other circumstances, howl about “money in politics,” probably because increasing teacher pay and numbers will add funds to teachers' unions — who supported Democrat candidates in Colorado with about 99.8 percent of their $1.5 million in political contributions in the 2009-10 election cycle. What's to complain about, right?
The ads have already begun. In sonorous tones, the narrator outlines the debilitated state of Colorado's educational system and threatens the Apocalypse if Proposition 103 fails. There's just one problem: The claims are, to use Mark Twain's term of art, “stretchers.”
Yes, some school districts in Colorado have a four-day week. But this affects only 2.7 percent of students, mostly in rural districts, many of which altered schedules in the 1980s — hardly a response to current economic problems. The Colorado Department of Education studied the use of four-day school weeks in 2006; their findings throw cold water on the fearmongering of the tax-increase argument. Read the report at http://bit.ly/fFXKpK
And no, Colorado is not last — or even close — in higher education expenditures. According to figures from the Organization of State Higher Education Executive Officers, Colorado actually saw a 20 percent increase in higher education payments between 2005-10; in total revenue appropriated per student FTE, we even lead California. Read their report at http://bit.ly/g0jHMk
More important is the underlying assumption of the tax-them-til-the-pips-squeak crowd: that expenditure equals performance — a known falsehood. If it were true, the District of Columbia would produce legions of Rhodes Scholars, instead of failing miserably in student achievement.
There's also the question of efficient use of resources. The largest single item on any school district's budget — usually, well over half the total amount — is salaries. So before we allow the teachers' unions to insinuate their hands further into our pockets, we ought to note that even in Summit County — as an example — there are a considerable number of non-teaching, non-custodial positions in school systems. In Summit Cove Elementary, nine out of 29 staff fit this description. In the high school, it's 22 out of 84. Maybe these numbers are justified. Principal, OK. Assistant principal, probably okay. But “Family Liaison?” “Campus Supervisor?” Shouldn't we require that any non-teaching position be justified? After all, there's a recession on …
Then there's that unspeakable value-for-money question. Yes, it's hard to “put a value on a good education,” but shouldn't we have some idea about what a “good education” entails, and shouldn't we demand that, if more funds are requested, better performance be required?
John Dewey and other early twentieth-century educational reformers believed that the purpose of education was to acquaint the student with his or her culture and society, and to provide the skills — reading, writing, logic — and information to make the student a productive member of that society. It's a practical, purposeful vision that has never been bettered. Unfortunately, our educational system seems less and less to concentrate on these goals. And it shows.
Recent Colorado high school graduates I encounter are usually motivated, hardworking, and interested in their studies. But some have difficulty with college-level reading; many have problems with writing and analysis. A majority can neither accurately date the US Civil War, nor explain why the Founders thought it important to have two houses of Congress. Most think Richard Nixon was impeached, and that there were two Kennedy presidents, although they are vague about the name of the second; “Teddy” is the popular choice.
Have these young men and women been well-served by our primary and secondary system of education? Are they adequately prepared to participate in our culture and society? Are we getting good value for our educational dollars? And why do we keep hearing that more of the same will produce better results?
These are questions we should ask as we are once again dunned for cash — uncomfortable questions, but necessary to avoid being stampeded into throwing good money after bad, without measurable result. So, “No” on Proposition 103. After all, “It's for the children.”
Summit County resident Morgan Liddick pens a Tuesday column. E-mail him at mcliddick@hotmail.com.
