September 1-8, 2013
Sep 01 12:48 Keystone Cops strike again Sep 03 00:42 The next administration Sep 04 03:33 St. Cloud State Police Department Sep 04 16:31 Washington Post touting virtues of PPACA Sep 05 02:34 The Obama Stagnation, Part I Sep 05 12:01 The Obama Stagnation, Part II Sep 06 03:44 President Potter's enrollment nightmare, Part III Sep 06 11:39 Is Obama headed for historic defeat? Sep 08 00:09 Questioning Common Core's principles
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Keystone Cops strike again
Minnesota's version of the Keystone Cops, aka Gov. Dayton, Speaker Thissen and Senate Majority Leader Bakk, are poised to further screw up the upcoming unsession :
Democrats who control state government showed disagreements and problems communicating while discussing a special legislative session this week at the Minnesota State Fair and the state Capitol.
There was a sharp disagreement between Gov. Mark Dayton and Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk during interviews minutes apart when they were asked about sending another $1 million to southwest Minnesota counties affected by an April ice storm. And Bakk had expected a joint House-Senate committee to draw up disaster-relief legislation, but the Wednesday night meeting of the group is the only one planned.
What a state emergency services official called straight-forward disaster aid is turning into a legislative struggle.
"There are a couple of challenges," House Speaker Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, said about the Dayton wish to give $1 million Rock and Nobles counties for the April storm. One of those "challenges" is a dispute between Dayton and Bakk.
"I'm really pushing hard," Dayton said of the added $1 million, adding later that he "insists" on the money. "I'm very persuasive."
Dayton and the Democrats are screwing something up as simple as spending federal disaster relief money.
During the regular session, they fought amongst themselves on which taxes to increase. It wasn't a debate of whether to raise taxes, which would've been a worthwhile debate. It was about which parts of the economy they wanted to hurt most.
This time, it's about whether Gov. Dayton will get an addition $1,000,000 to spend. It isn't needed. It isn't a stretch to think that it's going to a DFL political ally.
This isn't just about Gov. Dayton's foolishness, either:
Bakk also said he expected an informal legislative committee to write legislation to be considered during the Sept. 9 special disaster-relief session.
However, after the committee met Wednesday night, its chairmen said they had no plan to call another meeting. "The leadership will have to figure it out," Bakk said, after being told no more meetings will be called.
Bakk and Thissen tasked this committee with writing the legislation. They couldn't even finish that. Now they'll have to craft that legislation when this session starts. That needlessly lengthens the special session.
The DFL's incompetence is stunning. They aren't getting disaster relief money to the victims without fighting over spending additional money. They couldn't finish their regular work without tensions, animosity and additional drama. Even then, they couldn't get their job done without hurting high tech companies (telecommunications tax), farmers (farm equipment repair sales tax), convenience stores (cigarette tax) and iconic Minnesota businesses (warehouse services tax).
Iconic companies are thinking about moving major parts of their operations to other states. That list includes Red Wing Shoes, Polaris and DigiKey. Another iconic Minnesota company, Cargill, already shipped part of their operation to Colorado.
Gov. Dayton and this DFL legislature have done a terrible job. They've hurt businesses. They had a difficulty getting their basic functions done on time. Now, they're having difficulty getting disaster relief to storm victims.
Posted Sunday, September 1, 2013 12:48 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 01-Sep-13 01:06 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget that they rushed and gave the state gay marriage where the margin of victory might have been caused by people on the right thinking government restrictions is bad and to tell day care workers that they have to be in the union.
Somehow they found lots of time for that and celebrated that they did that!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The next administration
To say that the administration at St. Cloud State has had its difficulties is understatement. They've made terrible financial decisions, including paying for St. Cloud Police Department police officers and signing a contract that guarantees they lose hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Coborn Plaza apartments. Enrollment is dropping fast, which means tuition revenues will be down by $4,000,000-$5,000,000 for the fall semester.
Then there's the transcript fraud scandal, which is causing troubles of its own. After that, there's the money that President Potter has spent on rebranding. The rebranding campaign has been a failure. Then there's the ISELF problem. It's a sparkling facility that should've been built on a research university, not on St. Cloud State's campus.
While there's much to be critical of, this post will look at what's needed to turn SCSU around.
First, it will take a new administration. President Potter has said that changing his mind would be a sign of weakness. The next president a) must think things through thoroughly before making a decision, b) must be willing to admit when he's/she's made a bad decision and c) must be a collaborator.
The next administration needs to work cooperatively with the faculty rather than hiding important information from them. Whether enrollment is down or up, the next administration should get the information out on schedule. The next administration shouldn't hide a negative enrollment report.
The next administration should speak clearly when the Faculty Association asks questions about serious issues. When the FA started inquiring about the transcript fiasco, the administration said they'd provide specific answers to specific questions. This administration hasn't given the FA that report or those statistics.
The next administration should give the Wedum Foundation notice that they're opting out of their contract after 5 years. Thus far, St. Cloud State has lost an average of $1,125,000 a year the first 2 years of the contract. That isn't expected to improve anytime soon. The bleeding must stop ASAP. Ideally, that bleeding shouldn't have gotten started.
In general, the financial management of the University must dramatically improve under the next administration. Hiring a California company to rebrand the University was foolish, especially considering the fact that SCSU has a marketing staff on the payroll.
What's worse is the quality of the product SCSU is getting from this California marketing company. One of the SCSU billboards along I-94 has this simple slogan:
Think. Do.That isn't going to persuade students to attend St. Cloud State. It won't convince those students' parents to send their students to SCSU.
Whether you're grading this administration on enrollment, the academic scandals or the financial mismanagement, they'd get an F.
The next administration can't a) include anyone from the current administration or b) be a bureaucrat place holder. The University needs a reformer with a record of turning universities around. With enrollment and tuition revenues declining rapidly and academic scandals plaguing the University, this isn't the time for someone to get on-the-job training.
Finally, the administration must be people of integrity. That's the only way SCSU will solve its problems and right its wrongs.
Posted Tuesday, September 3, 2013 11:51 AM
Comment 1 by James Rugg at 03-Sep-13 07:19 PM
A complete outside audit of SCSU is needed. The first question that needs attention is the mission of the University. A new group including a majority of business and private community members not directly connected to the University must review University programs to determine their benefit to future societal growth and needs along with student interests.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 03-Sep-13 09:49 PM
Jim, I'm totally with you.
St. Cloud State Police Department
What's glossed over in this article about security near the St. Cloud State campus is important. In fact, there isn't a legitimate reason for what isn't in the article. What the editorial lacks in important information, though, it makes up for with applause for Earl Potter, part of which is genuinely deserved:
During the just-completed 2013 move-in weekend, St. Cloud police reported issuing 59 citations, only 11 of which went to university students. That's a huge drop from last year's citations, which totaled 161. More importantly, the 11 citations to students last weekend continued a steady decline in the number of university students contributing to any move-in weekend problems.
St. Cloud State deserves applause for their focus on campus security. Students should be applauded for behaving responsibly. The St. Cloud Police Department deserve applause for clamping down on students' bad behavior.
The Times should be ridiculed for including this paragraph in its editorial:
Look no further than the latest tool to make the campus neighborhood safer - the St. Cloud Police Department's new Campus Area Police Services officers. Thanks to the university paying salaries and benefits, three city police officers are assigned to the campus area.
Conveniently missing from the Times editorial is the monthly amount St. Cloud State is paying the City of St. Cloud for police the city should be paying for. According to the Memorandum of Understanding, aka the MOU, St. Cloud State "shall pay" St. Cloud "$20,000 per month for services performed satisfactorily pursuant to this agreement."
According to the MOU, the contract started on July 1, 2013 and expires on June 30, 2016. That means St. Cloud State will pay the City of St. Cloud $720,000 for services that should be paid for by the city government. That's if you're convinced that SCSU needs additional security. According to the editorial, move-in weekend citations dropped 63%. Only 18.6% of the citations went to St. Cloud State students.
Another consideration that isn't being talked about is whether St. Cloud State has the financial wherewithal to afford these officers. Currently, they don't. If this administration says different, they aren't being honest with the public. They've lost $2,250,000 during the first 2 years of the agreement between the University and the Wedum Foundation. With enrollment declining at a precipitous rate, tuition revenue is shrinking dramatically.
Faculty, staff and administrators alike agree that enrollment is the lifeblood of a university. The highest FYE enrollment was in 2010. Depending on where enrollment settles in this semester, enrollment since that high point will have dropped by more than 20%.
Here are some questions worthy of consideration:
- Is it the responsibility of SCSU to pay for city police officer salary and benefits?
- Is it justifiable for SCSU to pay for police services conducted off campus?
- With significant declining enrollments at SCSU, would one or two officers be more appropriate? Would it have been better if this agreement was delayed altogether?
- Would it be more appropriate to spend $720,000 (based on a 3 year contract) on existing academic programs, staff services (e.g., like admissions personnel), or OAS personnel?
- Is it reasonable for SCSU to have 3 police officers during the summer months?
- Will the campus-based police officers have any teaching assignments to generate FTE's?
- Is there a mechanism to objectively measure the effectiveness of this agreement?
- Will police services be paid through student fees, students' tuition, taxpayer money or a combination of these sources?
- Will this arrangement open up a Pandora's box for SCSU to pay for other city services?
Aside from these questions, the MnSCU Enrollment Report dated 8/28/2013 paints a bleak picture:
St. Cloud State did come up, but still is down almost 13% . As I mentioned in my last report, there is little doubt in my mind that St Cloud CC is affecting St. Cloud State.
With St. Cloud State's enrollment and tuition revenue problems being this dire, it's difficult seeing how the University can afford to pay for police officers, much less officers that are the city's responsibility.
Posted Wednesday, September 4, 2013 3:33 AM
No comments.
Washington Post touting virtues of PPACA
H/T: Erika Johnsen
The Washington Post's editorial touting the virtues of the PPACA is some of the worst writing I've seen. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
You wouldn't think state leaders would need convincing to accept mountains of federal cash to help people with meager incomes obtain health insurance. But many Republican leaders and activists have waged a disruptive and harmful campaign to complicate, delay and undermine the ACA, which starts phasing in when state insurance markets begin enrolling customers in a month.
When the Supreme Court ruled that the PPACA was constitutional, they ruled that forcing states into expanding Medicaid wasn't constitutional. They ruled that the federal government didn't have the constitutional authority to force that onto states.
In making that ruling, the Supreme Court said that states had the right and responsibility for caring (or not caring) for low income people. Let's remember that the "mountains of federal cash" that the Washington Post speaks of won't last forever. It's an initial enticement to expand Medicaid, which makes it politically impossible to 'unexpand' Medicaid once the federal gravy train dries up.
But the most disruptive activity has been at the state level. Twenty-one states have refused to expand their Medicaid programs, blowing a large hole in the ACA's coverage strategy. The Urban Institute estimates that 5 million people won't get coverage as a result.
While the Washington Post insists that it's evil Republicans that are "blowing a large hole in the ACA's coverage strategy", it's more honest to say that Democrats shouldn't have put a questionable "coverage strategy" into the PPACA.
It's more accurate to say that the PPACA is one of the worst written bills in the United States' history. Its implementation is behind schedule. It can't keep the promise its authors made while ramming it down peoples' throats. Now the sycophants and apologists who touted the virtues of the bill are upset that Republicans are fighting against a bill that's hurting full-time job creation and hurting hard-pressed American families.
Here's a question for the PPACA apologists on Washington Post's editorial board: Why is it a bad thing for politicians to fight against a bill that hurts families through stagnant job creation? Wouldn't we be better off if more politicians would fight against terrible legislation?
The Supreme Court found most of its provisions to be constitutional. Republicans, having opposed the bill and supported the legal challenge to it, are entitled to be unhappy about the outcome, though in our view they are wrong on the merits. They are not entitled to obstruct and flout the laws of the United States.
The Washington Post didn't mention that one of the provisions that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional was the "law" that the Washington Post now accuses Republicans of violating? If it's unconstitutional to force states to expand Medicaid, then the Washington Post shouldn't criticize Republicans for watching out for the taxpayers in their states.
Posted Wednesday, September 4, 2013 4:31 PM
No comments.
The Obama Stagnation, Part I
Heidi Schierholz's op-ed for CNN strips away the administration's spin that the economy is recovering. It isn't. Here's Ms. Schierholz's explanation:
According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, if the labor market were healthy, the labor force would number about 159.2 million. But the actual labor force numbers just 155.8 million. That means about 3.4 million "missing workers" are out there -- jobless people who would be in the labor force if job opportunities were strong.
Given the weak labor market, they're not actively looking for work and so aren't counted. If those missing workers were actively looking, the unemployment rate would be 9.4%.
The White House has repeatedly said that the key to growing the economy is to grow the middle class. Here's a recent example of their spin :
While more work remains to be done, today's employment report provides further confirmation that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression. It is critical that we remain focused on pursuing policies to speed job creation and expand the middle class, as we continue to dig our way out of the deep hole that was caused by the severe recession that began in December 2007.
The flaw in the administration's thinking is that increasing demand for products is the key to growing the economy. It isn't that this strategy hasn't worked in the past. It's that it isn't working this time. That's because small businesses are getting hit with this administration's extraordinary burden of regulations.
While Wall Street prospers thanks to their army of K Street lobbyists, small independent businesses have gotten hammered. This administration's hostility towards small and medium-sized companies is frightening.
We need 8.3 million jobs to get back to the prerecession unemployment rate, considering the 2 million jobs we are still down from the start of the Great Recession in December 2007 plus the 6.3 million jobs we should have added since just to keep up with normal growth in the potential labor force.
Over the past three months, we've added 175,000 jobs a month. At this rate, it will take six years, until the middle of 2019, to return to a healthy labor market.
Repealing the PPACA and aggressively increasing fossil fuel energy production would transform today's economy from the sluggish millstone of the Great Stagnation into a rapidly expanding economy that creates 250,000-350,000 full-time jobs a month for 3-5 years.
It's time to be blunt with this administration. Job creation stinks. Economic growth is stagnant. Wages have shrunk. Employers have shrunk employees' hours to avoid the penalties of the PPACA as much possible. If the Fed wasn't pumping in $1,000,000,000,000 a year into the economy, we'd be in another major recession.
The reason we are having such a sluggish jobs recovery is not complicated -- there is simply not enough work to be done. Economists refer to this as weak aggregate demand. Another way to say this is that demand for goods and services hasn't picked up enough for businesses to ramp up hiring.
There's a simpler way of putting it. When families have little disposable income, they can't afford much more than paying their rent or mortgage, heat or cool their homes and feed their families. That won't lead to a strong economy.
Check back later today for the second in this series.
Posted Thursday, September 5, 2013 2:34 AM
No comments.
The Obama Stagnation, Part II
One of the things I cited about why our economy is going through the Great Stagnation in this post was the Obama administration's overregulation. This article is another stunning example of how the Obama administration is using federal regulatory agencies as a weapon against the people:
When agents with the Alaska Environmental Crimes Task Force surged out of the wilderness around the remote community of Chicken wearing body armor and jackets emblazoned with POLICE in big, bold letters, local placer miners didn't quite know what to think.
While the Alaska Environmental Crimes Task Force were the people who stormed the gold miners near Chicken, AK, it was the EPA pulling the strings behind the scene:
The EPA has refused to publicly explain why it used armed officers as part of what it called a 'multi-jurisdictional' investigation of possible Clean Water Act violations in the area.
A conference call was held last week to address the investigation. On the line were members of the Alaska Congressional delegation, their staff, state officers, and the EPA. According to one Senate staffer, the federal agency said it decided to send in the task force armed and wearing body armor because of information it received from the Alaska State Troopers about 'rampant drug and human trafficking going on in the area.'
This information should frighten every law-abiding citizen in the United States, whether they're in the Lower 48 or whether they live in Alaska:
The miners contacted by the task force were working in the area of the Fortymile National Wild and Scenic River. The federal designation, made in 1980 as part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, protects 32 miles between Chicken and Eagle, Alaska. It is a remote area, close to the Canadian border and the town of Boundary. The nearest city of any real size is Fairbanks, 140 miles to the northwest. It was unknown to everyone in the area that there is a rampant problem with drug and human traffickers.
This also came as news to the Alaska State Troopers, whom the EPA said supplied the information about drugs and human trafficking, and at least one U.S. senator.
Saying that the EPA has abused its authority isn't enough. They've used intimidation as a tactical weapon against law-abiding citizens. Not only that, when confronted by honest law enforcement officers, they lied in their attempt to rationalize their actions. What's worse is that they lied by saying the Alaska State Troopers had told them that the miners were involved in human trafficking.
Now the troopers are pushing back, saying that they didn't provide that information. That leaves a question that won't be easy to answer. Since we know that the EPA's story is a lie, what other explanation is there for a criminal task force to arrest these miners while wearing full body armor?
In other words, what's the real story?
Who thought of raiding this mining operation? What motivated the raid? Who authorized the armed raid? Who put the raid together? Was this part of the EPA's intimidation tactics?
We know that the EPA thinks intimidation is a legitimate tactic :
Al Armendariz, the EPA administrator in the Region 6 Dallas office, made the remarks at a local Texas government meeting in 2010. He relayed to the audience what he described as a "crude" analogy he once told his staff about his "philosophy of enforcement."
"It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean," he said. "They'd go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw, and they'd crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years," he said.
Thanks to the Obama administration's heavy-handed, thuggish regulatory environment, companies are refusing to expand. Others are abandoning the United States for countries that have more business friendly regulations.
The EPA didn't "crucify" the miners. They just used guns and body armor to intimidate them. When powerful government agencies are used as weapons against companies, it isn't surprising that the economy stagnates.
Posted Thursday, September 5, 2013 12:01 PM
No comments.
President Potter's enrollment nightmare, Part III
Last spring, the Potter administration predicted that attendance at St. Cloud State would be down by 2.8%-3.2%. When I wrote this post based on a report put together by Dr. Tom Fauchald on Aug. 16, 2013, FYE enrollment for the fall semester at St. Cloud State was down by 18.4%. By comparison, Makato's enrollment was down by 11.4% while Moorhead's enrollment was down 9.1%.
FYI- Dr. Fauchald's reports are based on MnSCU's enrollment figures. Dr. Fauchald's figures are the only figures I've used in my posts. Finally, all of Dr. Fauchald's reports are based on FYE (Full-year Equivalents) enrollment figures.
The next post I wrote about was from the Aug. 22, 2013 report. According to that report, St. Cloud State's enrollment had improved. Still, it was down by 15.6% compared with Mankato's enrollment still being down by 8.4% and Moorhead's enrollment down by 5.7%.
Thursday afternoon, I got the MnSCU report dated Sept. 4, 2013. Moorhead's FYE enrollment is still down 3.8%, followed by Winona State at 3.3% and Mankato State by 2.1%. The bad news from the report again belonged to St. Cloud State, which is still down by 12%. This is from Dr. Fauchald's report:
The state universities are getting close to what they will be winding up for enrollment, with the exception of Southwest, which will see an additional 700 PSEO FYEs in Sept. With the exception of St. Cloud the state universities are looking fairly good, given that enrollments across the entire system are down. St. Cloud is, of course, a major problem in that it looks like they will have a decrease in enrollment of 10% (in the past, St. Cloud hasn't had a great deal of PSEO credits).
That's startling news, though it isn't a big surprise for SCSU. It's likely that the next report will be the official 10-day report from SCSU. After that, the next (and last) enrollment report will be the 30-day report.
While it's likely that the 10- and 30-day enrollment figures will be better for SCSU, it's impossible to picture the 30-day enrollment report to not show at least a 10% drop in enrollment from last year's 30-day enrollment report. According to Dr. Fauchald's report, St. Cloud State should expect $5,300,000 less in tuition revenue for the 2013 Fall Semester.
Finally, if SCSU's fall semester enrollment is off another 10% this year, it will mark the third straight year of sharply declining enrollments for St. Cloud State. If these figures hold, FYE enrollment at St. Cloud State will have shrunk by over 20% in 3 years.
That certainly isn't the recipe for success.
Posted Friday, September 6, 2013 6:09 PM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 08-Sep-13 11:27 AM
The numbers tell a disturbing story. Losing 1 out of 5 students at a major university is alarming. No fuzzy math here.
Comment 2 by Greg Jarrett at 18-Sep-13 07:06 AM
I would like to see the actual numbers of students broken out. White, African American, Somali American (Muslim), Asian etc. I would suspect that that the swelling of the Muslim category(and related tensions /crime) has a direct correlation.
Comment 3 by Paul Rooney at 18-Sep-13 11:14 AM
If your students continue to be assaulted , robbed and in other ways feel unsafe, of course they will seek other alternatives to higher education.
Too many FLUFF courses? Not enough real world training?
Who know? BUT there is a perception that college and university curriculums today are the grown up versions of skateboarding
Now it's coming back to bite and it HURTS
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Sep-13 11:24 AM
Mr. Rooney, I'm questioning whether there's been an uptick in violent crime. It's one thing when the crime logs & anecdotal evidence support that. It's another when it's just a theory.
Comment 4 by Greg Jarrett at 18-Sep-13 02:51 PM
St Cloud PD has made a deal with SCSU for officers and patrols and maybe more.. Has it helped? Why was it needed in the first place?
Answer those 2 questions.. Its not a theory...its fact
Comment 5 by Bob Goreland at 02-Dec-13 03:50 PM
The proper name is Minnesota State University, Mankato. The name change has been around for the better part of a decade get with the times LFRB.
Comment 6 by Bob J. at 04-Dec-13 10:07 AM
Moorhead is a Minnesota State too, Bob. Do you have anything to say about Gary's comments, or just third-grade snark?
Is Obama headed for historic defeat?
If this article is right, President Obama is staring at an historic defeat in the House of Representatives:
If the House voted today on a resolution to attack Syria, President Barack Obama would lose - and lose big.
That's the private assessment of House Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides who are closely involved in the process.
If the Senate passes a use-of-force resolution next week, which is no sure thing, the current dynamics suggest that the House would defeat it. That would represent a dramatic failure for Obama, and once again prove that his sway over Congress is extraordinarily limited. The loss would have serious reverberations throughout the next three months, when Obama faces off against Congress in a series of high-stakes fiscal battles.
That's the least terrible information in the article. This is a political nightmare for President Obama:
But Democrats privately say that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) can only round up between 115 and 130 'yes' votes.
That comes out to President Obama getting 150-175 votes for a limited missile strike on Syria. What's more is that it would fail because a solid bipartisan group of congressmen and women voted against the resolution.
That's a political nightmare for this administration.
First, it would virtually confer lame duck status on President Obama before the 2014 midterm elections. Second, it would deny President Obama the credibility he'd need to blame the defeat on recalcitrant Republicans. He'll still accuse Republicans of obstructionism but it won't convince anyone who isn't already in the tank for President Obama.
One person who's apparently still suffering from Kissing Obama's Ass-itis is a NYTimes blogger named Timothy Egan. This post is a portrait in either Mr. Egan's gullibility or his dishonesty. Here's how he's attempting to shift blame away from President Obama:
Blame Bush? Of course, President Obama has to lead; it's his superpower now, his armies to move, his stage. But the prior president gave every world leader, every member of Congress a reason to keep the dogs of war on a leash. The isolationists in the Republican Party are a direct result of the Bush foreign policy. A war-weary public that can turn an eye from children being gassed or express doubt that it happened is another poisoned fruit of the Bush years. And for the nearly 200 members of both houses of Congress who voted on the Iraq war in 2002 and are still in office and facing a vote this month, Bush shadows them like Scrooge's ghost.
What this idiot is arguing, feebly arguing I would add, is that Congress would vote overwhelmingly to authorize an unserious missile strike in Syria if President Bush hadn't soured us on war by invading Iraq. That's BS.
If the Syria authorization vote were held today, it would lose badly because President Obama isn't proposing doing anything serious about Syria's dictator. Had President Obama acted 2 years ago, there would've been support in Congress. Thanks to President Obama's dithering and his pacifistic nature, al-Qa'ida gained a foothold in Syria. Because of that X-factor, there aren't any good options in Syria.
This difficult decision is brought on by President Obama's unwillingness to lead, not President Bush's wars.
Posted Friday, September 6, 2013 11:39 AM
No comments.
Questioning Common Core's principles
Saturday afternoon, Mitch Berg interviewed Kirsten Block and Linda Bell of Minnesotans Against Common Core to talk about the disruptive nature of Common Core. (Make sure to check out MACC's website .) The information these ladies shared was stunningly Orwellian in nature. Here are some of the facts about Common Core:
Top 5 Facts about Common Core
- National student database - over 400+ data points collected, including child's medical history and parent's political and religious affiliations.
- Federally mandated - no local or parental control
- Curriculum not written nor approved by educators:
- English classic literature is greatly diminished;
- Math skills delayed by 2 years;
- Untested (no field test) curriculum;
- More testing, high-stakes tests, including biofeedback
Local tax dollars will have to pay the bill: Approximately 13.7 million for the state of Minnesota
That's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If you don't do anything else this weekend, reading this letter is essential. Dr. Sandra Stotsky put the letter together for a conference at Notre Dame. Here's part of what Dr. Stotsky wrote about Common Core:
What did this Work Group look like? Focusing only on ELA, the make-up of the Work Group was quite astonishing: It included no English professors or high-school English teachers . How could legitimate ELA standards be created without the very two groups of educators who know the most about what students should and could be learning in secondary English classes? CCSSI also released the names of individuals in a larger 'Feedback Group.' This group included one English professor and one high-school English teacher. But it was made clear that these people would have only an advisory role - final decisions would be made by the English-teacher-bereft Work Group.
It's astonishing that the people putting the standards and curriculum for subjects together aren't experts on the subject. That's foolishness. Again, that's just the tip of the iceberg:
The lead ELA writers were David Coleman and Susan Pimentel, neither of whom had experience teaching English either in K-12 or at the college level. Nor had either of them ever published serious work on K-12 curriculum and instruction. Neither had a reputation for scholarship or research; they were virtually unknown to the field of English language arts. But they had been chosen to transform ELA education in the US. Who recommended them and why, we still do not know.
It's worth asking what these people's qualifications were. It's also worth asking who picked them to be the lead writers of the curriculum. If these questions don't raise red flags, Dr. Stotsky's opening paragraph will:
Common Core's K-12 standards, it is regularly claimed, emerged from a state-led process in which experts and educators were well represented. But the people who wrote the standards did not represent the relevant stakeholders. Nor were they qualified to draft standards intended to 'transform instruction for every child.' And the Validation Committee (VC) that was created to put the seal of approval on the drafters' work was useless if not misleading, both in its membership and in the procedures they had to follow.
Everything was done behind closed doors. Open meeting laws didn't apply. The people writing the curriculum weren't experts in their assigned subjects. Again, there's more to this. Does this sound like a collaborative effort?
In a private conversation at the end of November, 2009, I was asked by Chris Minnich, a CCSSI staff member, if I would be willing to work on the standards during December with Susan Pimentel, described to me as the lead ELA standards writer. I had worked with her (working for StandardsWork) on the 2008 Texas English language arts standards and, earlier, on other standards projects. I was told that Pimentel made the final decisions on the ELA standards. I agreed to spend about two weeks in Washington, DC working on the ELA standards pro bono with Pimentel if it was made clear that agreed-upon revisions would not be changed by unknown others before going out for comment to other members of the VC and, eventually, the public.
A week after sending to Minnich and Pimentel a list of the kind of changes I thought needed to be made to the November 2009 draft before we began to work together, I received a 'Dear John' letter from Chris Minnich. He thanked me for my comments and indicated that my suggestions would be considered along with those from 50 states and that I would hear from the staff sometime in January.
In the second week of January 2010, a 'confidential draft' was sent out to state departments of education in advance of their submitting an application on January 19 for Race to the Top (RttT) funds. (About 18 state applications, including the Bay State's, were prepared by professional grant writers chosen and paid for by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - at roughly $250,000 each.) A few states included the watermarked confidential draft in their application material and posted the whole application on their department of education's website (in some cases required by law), so it was no longer confidential. This draft contained none of the kinds of revisions I had suggested in my December e-mail to Minnich and Pimentel. Over the next six months, the Pioneer Institute published my analyses of that January draft and succeeding drafts, including the final June 2 version. I repeatedly pointed out serious flaws in the document, but at no time did the lead ELA standards writers communicate with me (despite requests for a private discussion) or provide an explanation of the organizing categories for the standards and the focus on skills, not literary/historical content.
That isn't a collaborative effort. That sounds more like a rubberstamp operation than a collaboration. Ignoring all of the recommendations of a professor is one thing. To be invited to work on developing standards one week, then essentially being told a month later that your help isn't needed is a slap in the face. To then pass up opportunities to communicate with this professor indicates that the standards were predetermined and that she was being invited to be window dressing.
The VC members who signed the letter were listed in the brief official report on the VC (since committee work was confidential, there was little the rapporteur could report), while the five members who did not sign off were not listed as such, nor their reasons mentioned. Stotsky's letter explaining why she could not sign off can be viewed here , and Milgram's letter can be viewed here .
This was the 'transparent, state-led' process that resulted in the Common Core standards. The standards were created by people who wanted a 'Validation Committee' in name only. An invalid process, endorsed by an invalid Validation Committee, resulted not surprisingly in invalid standards.
It's understatement to say that the process left much to be desired in terms of transparency. It didn't set high standards, either. The public is entitled to know more about Common Core than we know currently. If they aren't willing to waive the privacy agreements, for instance, Common Core should be either rejected or repealed. If the working groups aren't willing to testify about their discussions and deliberations, state legislatures should either reject or repeal Common Core.
I'm sending special thanks to Mitch Berg for addressing this issue. Thanks also go out to Kirsten Block and Linda Bell for explaining the dangers of Common Core.
Posted Sunday, September 8, 2013 12:09 AM
Comment 1 by A.J.Kern at 08-Sep-13 10:19 AM
THANK YOU, GARY! We need absolutely everyone working to inform all citizens shedding the light of truth on Federal corruption behind Common Core. Common Core is bad for children. Bad for parents and families... BAD for America.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Sep-13 11:00 AM
Thanks A.J. You're right that Common Core is "BAD for America." I'd add that the data collection that's part of it is terrifying.
FYI for LFR readers: I'm planning on writing at least 2 more posts about Common Core this week.
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 09-Sep-13 02:19 PM
Common Core is another example of education gone awry. Is this truly going to help our students read, write, and think critically? I think it is sad that less emphasis is being placed on academic courses like math, science, and English. How many high school children actually take courses on the US Constitution and history of the US? No wonder the Constitution is rapidly losing relevance today.
