September 9-13, 2013
Sep 09 23:29 Paying for Dayton's, DFL's mistakes Sep 10 02:19 Public education: home of "mediocrity" Sep 10 02:43 Dr. Stotsky criticizes Common Core's curriculum Sep 10 11:30 No vote on Syria is a vote of no confidence Sep 11 02:53 A speech in search of a logic Sep 11 14:27 Gun control senators defeated in Colorado Sep 12 01:06 What SCSU teamwork? Sep 13 05:05 SCSU's shrinking president
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Public education: home of "mediocrity"
When it comes to education, it's frightening to take a look inside a liberal's mind. The content in this op-ed is filled with frightening statements, not to mention illogical beliefs. Let's start with this paragraph:
I am not an education policy wonk: I'm just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it , for the eventual common good. (Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system: That shouldn't be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.)
First, it's frightening that Ms. Benedikt would admit that her policy would doom a generation of students to "mediocre educations." That's unacceptable. Second, it's counterintuitive to think that eliminating competition with anything will improve a product. There's no proof that eliminating competition has ever improved any product. Wishful thinking won't change that time-tested reality. This paragraph is almost as delusional:
Everyone needs to be invested in our public schools in order for them to get better. Not just lip-service investment, or property tax investment, but real flesh-and-blood-offspring investment. Your local school stinks but you don't send your child there? Then its badness is just something you deplore in the abstract. Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.
If the neighborhood public school stinks, isn't the better solution to give parents the opportunity to get their children out of these schools? This author apparently hasn't heard of the theory that you shouldn't throw good money after bad.
At times, the writer says something so foolish, I have to question whether she's just being sarcastic. This is one of the statements that make me wonder:
I left home woefully unprepared for college, and without that preparation, I left college without having learned much there either. You know all those important novels that everyone's read? I haven't. I know nothing about poetry, very little about art, and please don't quiz me on the dates of the Civil War. I'm not proud of my ignorance. But guess what the horrible result is? I'm doing fine. I'm not saying it's a good thing that I got a lame education. I'm saying that I survived it, and so will your child, who must endure having no AP calculus so that in 25 years there will be AP calculus for all.
Ms. Benedikt is arguing against giving this generation a great education because it's more important for kids a generation or two to possibly get a better education. I say possibly because I'm being charitable. It isn't likely that the teachers union will allow any meaningful reforms. If society doesn't fight against the current status quo, this and future generations will be doomed to a terrible education.
Furthermore, the writer isn't doing fine. There's a difference between doing fine and being blissfully ignorant. She's the latter, not the former. The point is that she's ignoring an important American principle: American exceptionalism. Mediocrity isn't who we are as a nation. Forcing everyone into failing institutions isn't part of the American DNA, either.
Finding solutions is part of the American DNA. That's why parents are opting for charter schools, private schools and home-schooling. They want their children to be well-equipped for college, then for a productive career. School systems like Cristo Rey are helping students excel already. It's important to ask what they're doing differently than public schools.
It isn't that they're cherrypicking the best students:
A Cristo Rey school serves only economically disadvantaged students. The school is open to students of various faiths and cultures.
What's most impressive is that 96% of their students are students of color .
Ms. Benedikt should take off the blinders. She should realize that public schools are a treasure is union-sponsored myth. Enrollment increases at charter schools and other options to public schools shows that parents from across the political spectrum are opting for a better option because they want the best for their children.
Ms. Benedikt said that parents that don't send their children to public schools are bad people. My question for Ms. Benedikt is this: Since when is it bad for parents to want what's best for their children?
Posted Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:19 AM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 10-Sep-13 09:11 AM
Allison Benedick't article was undoubtedly one of the dumbest articles I have read in a long time. This does not speak highly of the publisher, either.
Dr. Stotsky criticizes Common Core's curriculum
This video, put together by Dr. Sandra Stotsky, explains why Common Core's standards shouldn't be adopted:
Here's a disturbing statement Dr. Stotsky made about Common Core:
DR. STOTSKY: Dr. Milgram from Stanford was as frustrated as I was. We could not find out what countries we were benchmarked with in either Math or English Language Arts and he could tell from the topics that were mentioned in the mathematics standards that, by Grade 8, US students would be about 2 years behind their peers in high achieving countries.
Shortly thereafter, Dr. Stotsky added this:
DR. STOTSKY: I would certainly agree, in general, that Common Core's standards were not going to be preparing American students for authentic college work in any subject.
If it isn't preparing students for college, if it isn't helping math students catch up with the rest of the world, what's the usefulness? This won't improve preparedness for postsecondary educations. Common Core won't help the United States' competitiveness with other countries, either.
Let's recall that the deliberations were kept secret because the deliberations were hijacked by the Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation work isn't subject to FOIA requests or open meeting laws. That's before talking about how people putting Common Core together signed confidentiality agreements.
The more people learn about Common Core, the more questions they have, the more passionately they protest against Common Core. What's noteworthy is that people from across the political spectrum oppose Common Core. School boards don't like it because it strips them of control of the curriculum. Conservatives don't like Common Core because the standards don't help students achieve more. Independents oppose the data collection because they don't trust government to protect the data.
Still, the biggest thing arguing against Common Core is that "by grade 8, US students would be 2 years behind their peers in high achieving countries."
My bottom line is that what's known is troubling and what isn't known can't be found out because open meeting laws didn't apply, participants signed confidentiality agreements and the deliberations aren't subject to FOIA requests. Before Common Core implementation takes another step, public hearings need to be held, including extensive briefings on what Common Core does and doesn't do.
Posted Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:43 AM
No comments.
Paying for Dayton's, DFL's mistakes
I've been a fan of Kurt Daudt's for awhile now but I'm especially proud to call myself an ally of his after watching this video:
Here's part of what Rep. Daudt said that caught my attention:
REP. DAUDT: Even Gov. Dayton, when facing Minnesotans at public functions, reversed his support for some of these damaging tax increases. This special session was Gov. Dayton's and Democrats' opportunity to make good on their statements and ensure that their actions match their words. We're all here and today, you had a chance to correct your mistakes. And Democrats, you have absolute and complete control of state government in Minnesota. You have no excuse to make Minnesota taxpayers wait even one more day. If Minnesota loses even one employer or one job because you failed and delayed in repealing your mistakes, it's one too many. Minnesota companies and hard working families can't afford to pay for your mistakes.
Rep. Daudt is totally consistent in criticizing the DFL. He's consistently said that it's Gov. Dayton's and the DFL's mistakes that are hurting Minnesota farmers and taxpayers. It's only right that they take the blame for these counterproductive tax increases. After all, the DFL wrote the bills. Additionally, those tax increases passed without a single GOP vote in the House.
About a month ago, Gov. Dayton said that he'd changed his mind on the farm equipment repair sales tax while attending FarmFest. Days after pandering to farmers, the DFL broke Gov. Dayton's promise .
Cargill has shifted part of its operations to Colorado. Red Wings Shoes is considering shifting its warehouse operations to Wisconsin . Other iconic Minnesota businesses are considering moving, too, as a direct result of the Democrats' tax increases.
Friday night, I was stunned to hear Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk hint that the DFL might not repeal these B2B sales tax increases. Sen. Bakk said that he doesn't know how he'd come up with the $300,000,000 in lost revenue those repeals would represent.
While Democrats insist that they'll repeal their mistake taxes, Sen. Bakk's statements put their statements into question. It isn't at all clear that the DFL will repeal these ill-advised tax increases.
Monday's special session dealt with natural disaster relief. Unfortunately, the DFL was too stubborn to deal with their "man-caused disasters", aka their ill-advised and counterproductive tax increases.
Posted Monday, September 9, 2013 11:29 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 10-Sep-13 09:16 AM
Typical Democrat. You don't NEED to find $300M in taxes to "offset" these mistakes; you could cut $300M out of spending! Why does this never occur to these chowderheads?
No vote on Syria is a vote of no confidence
When Hugh Hewitt interviewed Max Boot about the Syrian affair, Boot said a no vote was "a vote for isolationism and retreat." That's questionable. In fact, I'm not buying it. Glenn Reynolds isn't buying it either:
When I wrote last week on our bumbling Syria diplomacy, it seemed that things couldn't possibly go further downhill. Boy, was I wrong.
Last week, it seemed our only ally was France. But now the French are having second thoughts. Obama's efforts to get support at the G20 conference came to nothing. Even the pope is undercutting him.
A no vote in either the House or the Senate is a vote of no confidence in President Obama and President Obama's national security team of incompetents. Secretary Kerry's flippant remark yesterday gave Russian President Putin the opening he was waiting for. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Putin didn't call Bashar al-Assad to share a hearty laugh after Kerry's mistake. Thanks to Kerry's mistake, Assad gets to stay in power, Syria's chemical weapons get to stay in Assad's hands and Putin gets to say checkmate to President Obama.
Anyone that's thinking that Syria's WMD stockpile will suddenly be in the hands of the "international community" is kidding themselves. That won't happen. Ever.
Here's something that Boot said that I'm questioning:
MB: I think they have to vote yes, because for all the qualms they might have about whatever course of action President Obama might embark on, and I have some qualms myself, the bottom line is at this point a no vote is a vote for American retreat and isolationism, and it will send a terrible, terrible signal to WMD proliferators in places like Iran and North Korea. We just cannot afford to shoot down the Syria resolution.
That's wrongheaded thinking because it assumes North Korea and Iran will take President Obama seriously if the resolution passes. They don't take him seriously now. They won't take him seriously if Congress authorizes the use of force.
That's because President Obama is a known quantity. Dr. Reynolds says he's a laughingstock. I wholeheartedly agree. World leaders already know what he'll do. He's utterly predictable. His pattern is to ignore a problem until it's about to explode in his face, then he dithers, votes present, then dithers a little bit more. Then he makes a decision that nobody likes.
Thanks to that pattern, allies can't trust him and enemies won't fear him. If there ever is a vote on the Syrian fiasco, the only right vote is a no vote. Voting yes will just give President Obama the belief that he isn't in over his head. That's sending the wrong message to this incompetent president.
Finally, I appreciate Dr. Reynolds'perspective:
As I said, if I were George W. Bush or Romney, I'd be sorely tempted to laugh, because Obama's chickens are coming home to roost. Obama was elected after he and his party sowed distrust of U.S. military endeavors, mocked "intelligence estimates" about "weapons of mass destruction," and suggested that anything the United States did in the region was probably somehow a scheme to benefit oil companies. Now Obama and his administration are shocked to find that when they go on about intelligence estimates and weapons of mass destruction, people don't take them seriously.
But I'd bet that Bush and Romney aren't actually laughing. That's because they're both serious men who understand international politics and who care for the future of the country. They no doubt understand that, as fun as it is to watch a political opponent twist in the wind due to his own ineptitude, the price will ultimately be paid not by Obama, but by the people of America.
I totally agree.
Posted Tuesday, September 10, 2013 11:30 AM
No comments.
A speech in search of a logic
President Obama's rheotical skills were certainly on display Tuesday night when he addressed the nation about Syria's civil war. His speech was a conundrum wrapped in a mystery. Put differently, it was a speech that didn't make sense. For instance, this paragraph from early in the speech was wrapped in "the fierce urgency of now":
Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.
In this paragraph, President Obama is justifying using military force. That's understandable. Initially, the purpose of this speech was to rally the American people and, more importantly, Congress to support an ill-advised war. Shortly thereafter, the "fierce urgency of now" turned into the intellectual equivalent of "Whatever":
However, over the last few days, we've seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they'd join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.
It's too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad's strongest allies.
I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I'm sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I've spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control. We'll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas, from Asia to the Middle East, who agree on the need for action.
President Obama had changed his mind on what to do with Syria frequently because he didn't know what to do. First, Syria is a mess, thanks to President Obama's dithering. Thanks to President Obama's dithering, the options available to him are filled with peril.
Second, President Obama's leading-from-behind style, combined with John Kerry's flippant remark, gave Vladimir Putin the opening he needed to checkmate President Obama. Putin stepped into the leadership void and made a proposal that's as insincere as it is appealing. This is a perfect situation for Putin because President Obama is now taking credit for Putin promising to take Syria's WMD out of the equation.
There's no chance Syria will give up its WMD but it sounds good to President Obama. He's now thankful to not face a humiliating defeat in Congress. Ultimately, that's all President Obama cared about. Ultimately, he dodged a bullet of his own making.
Third, President Obama has been identified as an anti-war activist. While the public might not catch on, Congress knows that he isn't a leader. Additionally, he's now identified as a reluctant decisionmaker.
The hard truth, though, is that this speech won't change public opinion.
Posted Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:53 AM
No comments.
Gun control senators defeated in Colorado
In special recall elections yesterday, Coloradans swept 2 Democrats out of office for supporting restrictive gun control laws:
Two Democratic lawmakers in Colorado, including the president of the state Senate, were recalled Tuesday in elections brought about by their support for tougher gun control laws.
According to unofficial results, voters in Colorado Springs favored recalling state Sen. John Morse, the body's president, by 51 percent to 49 percent. With 100 percent of precincts reporting, state Sen. Angela Giron of Pueblo was defeated in her recall election, 56 percent to 44 percent.
Defeating incumbents is a tough thing, which means Republicans did a great job of appealing to voters. Then they did a great job of getting these people to the polls. Mitch Berg notes that gun control advocates' money didn't win the day:
Even better? The avalanche of liberal money didn't do the job (emphasis added)!:
While both sides campaigned vigorously, knocking on doors, holding rallies and driving voters to the polls, gun-control advocates far outspent their opponents . A range of philanthropists, liberal political groups, unions and activists raised a total of $3 million to defend Mr. Morse and Ms. Giron. Mr. Bloomberg personally gave $350,000 .
Money won't defeat tons of true believers. People still believe in the right to keep and bear arms. They still believe in the right to defend themselves and their families.
Nedless to say, Democrats were licking their wounds after these stinging defeats:
Colorado's Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper, said he was "disappointed by the outcome of the recall elections" before calling on state residents to "refocus again on what unites Coloradans, creating jobs, educating our children, creating a healthier state, and on finding ways to keep Colorado moving forward."
In other words, they want to put this defeat in the rear view mirror ASAP. They'd rather change the subject than defend their position on gun control. Meanwhile, Republicans were jubilant:
The Colorado Republican Party called the vote results "a loud and clear message to out-of-touch Democrats across the nation" in a statement released late Tuesday.
It's natural for people to gloat following a big victory like this. The Colorado GOP is right that tons of Democrats are out of touch with people on gun control and other issues. It's proof that Democrats who listen to their special interest fanatic base will get defeated.
Posted Wednesday, September 11, 2013 2:27 PM
No comments.
What SCSU teamwork?
SCSU Prof. Dick Andzenge's monthly column is one of the columns I look forward to each month. Barbara Banaian's and Phyllis VanBuren's columns are the other highlights amongst Times Writers Group writers. That's why it's sad to read Prof. Andzenge's column this month. Here's a part of his column that deserves additional scrutiny:
The president recognized the Robert H. Wick Science Building addition, renovation of Riverview, parking ramp, Public Safety Center, Brown Hall, Welcome Center, Coborn's Plaza, Atwood Center renovation and Miller Center renovation. The president also recognized the grand opening of the ISELF building and the planned opening later this month of the Herb Brooks National Hockey Center.
All are evidence of successful team work on campus.
First, some of these accomplishments happened during Roy Saigo's time as president. Potter appropriating them as proof of his administration's teamwork doesn't cast him in a flattering light. Second, Potter isn't a team player. Potter's team first attitude took a hit when he secretly signed an agreement with Mayor Kleis . The agreement calls for St. Cloud State to pay the salaries of 3 police officers, which St. Cloud State can't afford because enrollment is declining rapidly.
Another example of President Potter's hesitance to work collaboratively is the fact that his administration didn't take Tamara Leenay's grievance about transcript poofs seriously. Dr. Leenay continues to insist that a student's participation in Organic Chemistry was wiped from St. Cloud State's official transcript system. She also insists that she hasn't been contacted by the administration to find out what happened.
Instead, Potter's administration has insisted that poofs don't exist .
There's more proof that teamwork isn't regularly practiced at St. Cloud State. The turnover amongst administrators isn't normal. In February, David DeGroote was fired as dean of the College of Science and Engineering, aka COSE. Two months later, he was brought back to replace John Palmer, who was moved out of his administrative position. Professors have left because they'd been passed over tenure without getting an explanation for why they hadn't gotten tenure.
This sentence shouldn't be taken seriously:
Beyond bricks and mortar, Potter recognized successes that exemplify the university as an institution of excellence.
Institutions of excellence don't experience 3 straight years of dramatic enrollment declines. If the enrollment decline this year exceeds 7%, which is likely, that'll mean enrollment at SCSU will have declined by more than 15%. It'll be approaching 17-18%. Universities of excellence don't require a California marketing group to rebrand the university. If the product is excellent, it'll sell itself.
Unfortunately, media have focused on problems rather than successes at the university. During the summer, there were reports of discrepancies regarding student academic records and declining enrollment.
The only news agencies that've reported on the transcript fiasco have been MPR, the Strib, the SCSU Chronicle and LFR. Additionally, LFR is the only place where SCSU's enrollment has been covered.
The St. Cloud Times will argue that they covered the transcript fiasco but that's shading the truth. Technically, it's true because they've run 1 article about the transcripts. That article wasn't written by one of their reporters. Instead, they ran Conrad Wilson's article that MPR first published.
I've had SCSU professors contact me just to ask my opinion for why the Times won't write about the transcript fiasco, the declining enrollment or Coborn's Plaza. I've told them I honestly don't know why the Times hasn't written about these issues because the Times' indifference to these things is inexplicable.
To be fair to Prof. Andzenge, though, he made a couple important points:
In a country with many options of universities, the reputation of universities is key to their enrollment numbers. The appearance that administrators and faculty are working at cross purposes erodes this reputation.
Ultimately, two main factors influence any university's reputation. One is the programs offered that produce graduates with particular value to the market. The other is the quality of the professors associated with the university and what they do and say about the institution.
President Potter hasn't worked collaboratively with people he disagrees with. In fact, professors have said that they feel intimidated by Potter's management style. I don't doubt that.
Posted Thursday, September 12, 2013 1:06 AM
No comments.
SCSU's shrinking president
Thursday afternoon, I met with people from St. Cloud State. Last week, I'd heard the rumor that President Potter had talked about me during last Thursday's Meet & Confer meeting. During yesterday's meeting, I confirmed that. One of the people attending this afternoon's meeting asked me if I knew that "your name was entered into the record" at last week's Meet & Confer meeting. I said that I'd heard the rumor but that this confirmed it.
It's stunning that the president of a major university would mention me at a meeting between his administration and the Faculty Association. Apparently, he's upset with me writing about his enrollment difficulties. That led to him going off script, which led to him talking about me.
That's stunning from the standpoint that I didn't hide where I got the information from. I cited a report put together by Dr. Tom Fauchald. Dr. Fauchald used MnSCU's enrollment data pulled from the universities' enrollment data bases.
The reality is that enrollment is way off this year, perhaps by as much as 9 points from last year. Last week, I wrote that the Sept. 4th report from Dr. Fauchald showed SCSU enrollment down 12% from last year's 30-day enrollment. That's significantly different from President Potter's figures. During last week's Meet & Confer, Potter insisted that enrollment would be down 5% from last year's 30-day figure.
The 10-day report is awful news for Potter because dropping enrollments translate into a huge drop in tuition revenue and student fees. In turn, that potentially means major budget cuts. That's the last thing that's needed at a university where people walking on eggshells already.
Earlier, I wrote that this will be the third straight year of enrollment drops. If this year's drop is 5%, which it won't be, the three year drop will be more than 15%. If this year's drop is closer to 8%, which is likely, that figure will rise to nearly 20%.
That's a catastrophic figure. St. Cloud State lost its status as MnSCU's flagship university last year if measured by FYE enrollment, though they still held it in terms of total enrollment. This year, they'll lose on both counts.
The question shifts to whether Dr. Malhotra is sacrificed when the real enrollment figures are announced. Potter can't do nothing when his ship is sinking like this. When SCSU terminated Dr. Mahmoud Saffari, one of the reasons listed in Provost Malhotra's letter was that Dr. Saffari hadn't put together "a satisfactory strategic enrollment management plan."
It's been 2 years since Dr. Saffari was terminated. SCSU still hasn't "have not produced a satisfactory strategic enrollment management plan." While it's true that Dr. Malhotra wrote that Dr. Saffari needed to put together "a satisfactory strategic enrollment management plan", it's equally true that putting a satisfactory strategic enrollment management plan" should've been President Potter's priority, too. If President Potter didn't push that initiative, then he's responsible for SCSU's declining enrollment, too.
By all accounts from eyewitnesses at M&C, President Potter's stature dropped by criticizing me. He let his vindictiveness get in the way of solving important problems at SCSU.
Posted Friday, September 13, 2013 5:05 AM
No comments.
