Over at The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby has a multi-part essay dissecting one of Diane Ravitch’s op-eds discussing her policy prescriptions for replacing testing and choice. See here, here, and here.

He’s quite scathing. Here’s a portion from the first essay, responding to Ravitch’s claim that states should help out low-performing schools by sending in “inspection teams”:

According to Ravitch, “every state should have inspection teams [which] diagnose what is wrong in these schools.” (As she ends, another Gardnerism: “Whatever the cause of low performance, the inspection team should create a plan to improve the school.”) But please note: As Ravitch has explained in her previous paragraph, the thing that is “wrong” with these schools will routinely involve matters of demographics: Often, the children in these schools will come from low-income, low-literacy, non-English speaking backgrounds. Question: When those “inspection teams” survey these types of schools, what type of “plan” should they create? In more than 800 words, Ravitch makes only the most Gardeneristic attempts to answer this question. (Extra bilingual staff! An after-school program! And even this: “Other resources!”)

Surely, no one but an expert would think of solutions like those. What should teachers of delightful, deserving low-income kids do to address their academic problems? In a familiar bit of evasion, Ravitch doesn’t say.

. . . After all these years—after all these decades—we find this type of column repellent. We’ve been reading columns like this for forty years—columns in which “educational experts” play the Gardner role, pretending that they have ideas for ways to help low-income kids. How should we help low-income kids? Under the previous Ravitch regime—the regime built around accountability and standards—the answer to this was fairly simple: We should threaten teachers with getting fired, and they will somehow magically figure how to get test scores up. In this new regime by Ravitch, the solution is no less magical. We’re now supposed to send “inspections teams” into these schools, and they will come up with a plan! But what sorts of proposals will be in their plans? Like “educational experts” of time immemorial, Ravitch doesn’t much say. And by the way: The various states simply don’t have such “inspections teams”—teams can somehow magically say how a low-income school can get right. These teams of savants simply don’t exist—except as a novelistic devise to let Ravitch continue to pose as an expert.

We’re certain that Ravitch is well-intentioned. But at some point in time, work like this becomes repellent. Unhelpful too are the liberal saps who line up to drink this Gardneresque stew. Also unhelpful: The familiar data-spinning found at the start of Ravitch’s piece. But when the lives of low-income kids are at stake, work like this—cheered on by liberals—has been the norm for years.

(guest post by Jay Greene)

EDITORS NOTE:  To get the full effect, play both videos at the same time.

The TV airwaves in Arkansas are filled with third-party ads supporting Bill Halter against Blanche Lincoln. Here’s one:

And here is a basic translation of what the ad says:

I’d like to be able to say that Senator Lincoln’s ads in response are any different, but they aren’t. And the Republicans aren’t yet running many ads, but their rhetoric is basically the same. Arkansas politicians seem determined to fulfill the worst stereotypes that people may have about the state.

UPDATE:  So, I commented on Jay’s blog that to get the full effect you should play both videos at the same time, and he replied with this:

My head might asplode

As Josh mentioned yesterday in this space, the Manhattan Institute and the Foundation for Educational Choice released a report written by me and Josh Barro. The title: “Unfunded Teacher Pension Plans: It’s Worse Than You Think.” The main finding:

According to the fifty-nine funds’ own financial statements, total unfunded liabilities to teachers—i.e., the gap between existing plan assets and the present value of benefits accrued by plan participants—are $332 billion. But according to our more conservative calculations, these plans’ unfunded liabilities total about $933 billion.

In addition, we have found that only $116 billion, or less than one quarter, of this $600 billion discrepancy is attributable to the stock market drop precipitated by the 2007 financial crisis. The Dow Jones Industrial Average would have to nearly double overnight to make up for the present underfunding of these plans.

The meat of what we did is this: Most state plans assume that their current investments will get about an 8% rate of return in perpetuity. So that means that they set aside less money now to cover the pensions that will be paid in 2015, 2020, 2025, etc. But the 8% assumption is wrong, we argue, for two reasons: First, recent history shows that it may be too optimistic. Second, investments that have an 8% expected rate of return necessarily carry some risk — risk that the plan will actually fall short in a given year or even decade. And when a plan falls short, the burden falls to the taxpayer to make up the difference.

So we reanalyzed the teacher pension plans using the same interest rate that private plans are allowed to use — about 6%, based on corporate bond rates. When we do that, it turns out that pension plans are way more underfunded than they are publicly admitting.

Over at The Quick and Ed, Chad Aldeman has a response to our study:

States, unlike private companies, do not fold under. Indiana, which according to the authors has a DB pension plan for teachers that is only 42% funded, is not likely to go out of business and take its workers down with it. The state of Indiana can assume a riskier investment return for its pension fund than an employer like those mentioned above or any other modern private firm (and, just for good measure, it’s worth pointing out that Indiana assumes only a 3 percent real rate of return).

All this is lost on the report’s authors, who would prefer states lower their assumptions on stock market returns from about 8 percent down to 6, the standard rate used by corporations in their calculations. This would mean telling a state like Pennsylvania, which has accumulated a 9.23 percent return in the stock market over the last 25 years (as of February 2010), that its 8 percent investment assumption is too high.

This is all irrelevant. We’re not saying that when states engage in risky investments, teachers then are at risk of not being paid their pensions. The problem is precisely the opposite: Teacher pensions are guaranteed by states that don’t go out of business. But that doesn’t make the risk magically go away. The risk just ends up being borne by the taxpayer. So if a state decides to blow all of its pension money gambling at a horse race, the teachers will still get their pensions, but taxpayers will suddenly find themselves paying higher taxes to make up the shortfall (or else seeing huge budget cuts to other important state services).

In the last sentence, Aldeman cites a document put out by the Pennsylvania pension system, but that document actually proves our point. The Pennsylvania pension system may have made an average of 9.23% per year for the past 25 years, but they still predict that looking forward, there will still have to be “significant and perhaps prohibitive tax increases at the State and/or Local levels.”

Moreover, to focus on the 25-year rate of return, as Aldeman does, ignores three things: 1) past performance is no guarantee of future success; 2) the PA pension system now has less assets on Dec. 31, 2009 than on June 30, 2004, which means it lost money over a 5.5 year period; and 3) this kind of variability (i.e., risk) requires taxpayers to pay extra when investments are disappointing for years on end.

The problem with Pennsylvania, as with many other states, is that when times were flush (the late 1990s or the mid-2000s), legislators did not have the foresight to let pension systems accumulate some savings for possible tough times ahead. Instead, they decided to lower contributions to pension systems and/or increase pension benefits, all on the assumption that high stock market returns would magically pay for it all. But when the stock market falls, the pension systems are left with extra liabilities that no one ever paid for, and the risk ultimately rests with the taxpayer.

It’s a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose system. That’s why taxpayers need state pension systems to use an accounting method that more properly and honestly accounts for all of the risk that they’re shifting onto us.

Sherlock Holmes (played here by our very own Stuart Buck) has solved the case of the missing teacher pension liability. In a new report, coauthored with Josh Barro and sponsored by Foundation for Educational Choice and the Manhattan Institute, Buck and his coauthor adjust state reported pension funding shortfalls to calculate the actual unfunded liabilities, and the results are quite striking. They find that “these plans’ unfunded liabilities total about $933 billion.”

This topic has been in the news quite a lot lately. Here and here are a couple of articles that appeared in the New York Times just in the last month.

Why should you care? First, because you, the taxpayer, are on the hook for nearly $1 trillion. And second, because these unfunded liabilities have the very real potential to strain state budgets to the point that other spending priorities, like education, might really suffer.

Check out the table below to see how Arkansas stacks up against our immediate neighbors.

HT Greg Forster over at jaypgreene.com

The Arkansas Department of Education has launched a new data visualization website.  Here is the ADE blog post announcing the launch. You can find the new sites here and here. The site, built on a flash framework, provides several tools that allow users to both view individual district data in unique ways and compare districts on various metrics. You should check it out when you get a chance. Between this new tool and the ADE’s data center, people in Arkansas have a wealth of interesting education data at their fingertips.

The city’s Economic Incentives and Job Growth Group held a public input session on the proposed city business license last night. Based on the report in the Northwest Arkansas Times, it looks like the group received some push back on the proposed license from at least a few local business owners.

It appears that our city leaders do not understand that the burden of proof is theirs. In my view of responsible government , when the city wishes to levy a new tax, they must provide some rational basis for the new requirement. The city could argue that the services supported by the new tax would increase the individual’s welfare or possibly the social welfare of the city as a whole. But, I have yet to see a single city official or chamber staff member make a reasonable case for having a business license.

Don Marr, city chief of staff, has made the argument that the business licence received ”overwhelming support” at Fayetteville’s economic development summit, and that the Chamber of Commerce likes it. He is quoted as saying, “You can’t go to a single place to find this data.”

Karen Minkle, director of strategic planning and internal consulting, continually states that Fayetteville is the only city of any size in the state that does not require a business license.

Well, OK, but these are not convincing arguments that Fayetteville should institute a business license. First, just because some people, mainly the small number that would obviously benefit, are in favor of requiring a licence does not mean it’s right for our city. And second, who cares if several other city’s are doing it? What are the reasons that Fayetteville should do it? What benefit will the citizens of Fayetteville gain through the institution of a business license?

Christopher Spencer over at Ozarks Unbound has had some good articles about this issue lately here, here, and here.

The city’s case for the license was best articulated in a report prepared by Ms. Minkel dated March 2. You can find it here. The city claims that the reason for having a business license is threefold (the following is an excerpt from the study):

1. Economic Development: The lack of data prevents economic development organizations from providing statistics on job growth and business sector growth and ultimately providing meaningful economic performance measures. Some of these measures include new jobs created and new businesses opened. Without a systematic method for collecting this information, confidence in the accuracy of the measures will be compromised.
2. Public Safety: The lack of data also contributes to inefficiencies and public safety concerns. The Central Dispatch Division spends significant time attempting to track new business openings, moves and re-namings. The Fire Marshal’s office also needs this information in order to ensure that new businesses meet current fire codes. In addition, the City lacks information on the storage of hazardous materials and installation of fire suppression systems. The accuracy of this information is crucial for responding to emergencies safely, effectively and efficiently. The Arkansas Department of Health also lacks information about restaurants and food related businesses in Fayetteville, resulting in inefficiencies in its ongoing inspection program. Determining when businesses open, relocate or close also takes significant staff time that could be better spent providing inspection services, according to an interview with James Shumate, Arkansas Health Department Inspector. The haphazard process also increases the likelihood that a restaurant or other food service provider will slip through the cracks, which if a problem arises, could be detrimental to the health of Fayetteville’s citizens and visitors.
3. Law Enforcement: A business registry and license program will also assist the City Prosecutor’s Office in addressing code and tax violations. An ordinance that requires a business license in order to conduct business in the City of Fayetteville will provide additional leverage for the City Prosecutor’s office in resolving code and tax violations before they result in a warrant or criminal summons.

Number one does not hold water upon further inspection.  The chamber already collects information on their members and a large proportion of businesses in the city are chamber members. And, as Aaron Stahl put it in the NWA Times article linked above, “I have yet to find a business that’s not in the chamber (of commerce), that’s not in the Yellow Pages, that’s not googleable.”  The truth is that, in this digital age, promoting your business is easier than ever, and many businesses use internet advertising extensively. Given that it is very easy to find businesses on the web already (have you used Google maps lately), the marginal benefit of economic development activities resulting from a business license is not likely to be worth the cost.  Businesses would be better off spending that money, even if it is a meager amount, promoting their business independently on the web or otherwise.

Numbers two and three could be valid grounds for requiring a licence. If there truly are public safety and law enforcement benefits that might be realized by instituting a business license, then I am all for it.  But, this case has not been the most prevalent in city officials public statements. If these are the real reasons for wanting a registry of all businesses in the city, then the city, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Marr or Ms. Minkel, need to make the case publicly. Let’s dispense with this “We just want to promote you” BS.

UPDATE: Ozarks Unbound links to us today, and the Fayetteville Flyer has an article about the proposed city business license as well.

The Arkansas legislature listened to a report from Paul Atkins, of the Bureau of Legislative Research, on Tuesday descriptively linking school expenditures to student achievement. You can view the report here. Mr. Atkins did a great job making it clear in his statements that legislators (and the public) should be careful drawing causal conclusions from this purely descriptive analysis, but one thing the report clearly demonstrates is that after Lakeview, we are providing our poorest districts with more resources. On the flip side, this report also demonstrates that money is not everything, or at least it can’t magically turn things around. Take a look at the following portion of the Dem Gaz article:

Regarding revenue per student from all sources (federal, state and local), the top quintile of districts received $10,753 per student.

Those same districts had the highest percentage of students – 75 percent – on free and reduced-priced lunches from the federal government. This is the indicator the state uses to show poverty.

They also had the lowest percentage of white students (58 percent) and the lowest percentage of students scoring at proficient or greater (also 58 percent) on the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program, known as ACTAAP.

Atkins also found that the quintile with the highest percentage of proficiency (81 percent) had the lowest percentage of poverty students (48 percent) and the highest percentage of white students (89 percent).

This group also posted the highest percentage of expenses on instruction, 60 percent. The lowest ACTAAP quintile spent the least on instruction, 56 percent.

Atkins said that could be because the districts with better academic scores might pay their teachers more than other districts.

It turns out that it may be how districts spend their money that really makes the difference. It is curious (or maybe not so curious) that the best performing districts spent the most on instruction. I am inclined to believe spending more in the classroom will make a difference in achievement, but this report and this data cannot answer that question exactly. It is likely true that high poverty districts need more support support staff because their children come to school with more problems. However, these poor districts also experience the greatest difficulty recruiting and retaining high quality teachers, and teacher pay is likely part of the problem. If the state is looking to, as Jimmy Jeffress said, get “any bang for our buck”, it is time  they took another look at strategies to recruit and retain high quality teachers in these poor districts.

Another interesting takeaway from the report is that by the state’s measure of growth the poorest districts, where we spend the most money, are not catching up. In fact it appears that while they are improving, the richer district’s scores are improving at a faster rate. Here is what the Dem Gaz quote:

Over the past two years, the percentage of students scoring at least at the proficient level in the quintile with the lowest ACTAAP scores went up by 9 percent from 2007 to 2009. The highest scoring quintile posted proficiency scores that were up by 12 percent.

If simply spending more money in the same old ways really did the trick, we should be seeing at least some evidence of this in the data. This report is a reminder that overcoming the difficult challenges associated with poverty require clever, innovative solutions, not just more of the same.

Here is a link (it was impossible to embed, sorry) to Commissioner Kimbrell’s latest video address. Not a whole lot of substance here, but he does discuss the Race to the Top competition and National Standards. For those of you interested in keeping abreast of Arkansas education news, the ADE Blog is a good site to check regularly. While blog posts are often not all that substantive, you will find many interesting department news items (e.g. Dr. Diana Julian is retiring) as well as Dr. Kimbrell’s weekly video addresses. At the very least the ADE blog gives us an idea what the commissioner and department staff are working on. Give it a look sometime.

Also, Stuart Buck, a regular Mid-Riffs contributer, is doing a series of posts over on Jay P. Greene’s Blog titled “Ravitch is Wrong.” Here is his intro for the series:

Diane Ravitch’s new book “The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education” has been burning up the charts. Ravitch has been ubiquitous, writing op-eds in support of her book, doing lectures and interviews all over the place, and being reviewed in all sorts of high-profile venues.

As an overall matter, the book says little, if anything, that is actually new on the subjects of testing and choice. What Ravitch is really selling with this book is the story of her personal and ideological conversion. Not so long ago, she was writing articles like “In Defense of Testing,” or “The Right Thing: Why Liberals Should Be Pro-Choice,” a lengthy article in The New Republic that remains one of the most passionate and eloquent defenses of school choice and vouchers in particular. Now she seems to be a diehard opponent of these things. But she’s not saying anything that other diehard opponents haven’t already said countless times.

The book does score a few points in critiquing the charter school movement (e.g., charter schools have an unfair advantage in competing with Catholic schools in the inner cities, and charter test results haven’t been as promising as might have been expected), or in critiquing testing and accountability (e.g., states have been watering down their standards, as shown by wide discrepancies between NAEP and state tests).

But these few good points are outweighed by the bad arguments and leaps of illogic that permeate much of the book. The book’s faults fall into five general categories, each of which will be the subject of a blog post this week (click the link to see the post pertaining to the specific critique):

1. Ignoring or selectively citing scholarly literature;
2. Misinterpreting the scholarly literature that she does cite;
3. Caricaturing her opponents in terms of strawman arguments, rather than taking the best arguments head-on;
4. Tendering logical fallacies; and
5. Engaging in a double standard, such as holding a disfavored position to a high burden of proof while blithely accepting more problematic evidence that supports one’s own position (or not looking for evidence at all).

This week the director of the research unit that creates Arkansas’ grade inflation report told lawmakers that it was a poor measure and should not be used to determine which hurdles high school students must clear before becoming eligible for an Arkansas Lottery Scholarship. Under a law that will go into effect next year, high-school students who attend schools identified as grade-inflaters must score a 19 or higher on the ACT to  be scholarship eligible.  Students from all other schools only need a 2.5 GPA to be deemed eligible for a scholarship.

State Senator Jimmy Jeffress (D-Crossett) suggested that the debate over the dual measures could be ended if a minimum score of 19 on the ACT was made the sole criteria.  Jeffress also questioned why the minimum was set at 19, which is a relatively low ACT score.

This is a good sign from Jeffress, and we said almost the same in an earlier post here. Requiring everyone to make at least a minimum score on the ACT gives everyone an even playing field to compete for a scholarhsip.  Still, while GPA should never be used as a sole indicator, it is probably worth keeping because it does capture some important college-ready characteristics, like the ability to work hard over a sustained period of time.  While ACT scores are likely correlated with hard work, they really only provide a snapshot of knowledge and skills.

Still, even in the best case scenario where both measures are required for all, raising both the GPA and ACT requirements should be considered.  Other state scholarship programs typically require GPAs in the range of 2.75 – 3.0, with ACT requirements in the mid-20s.

Welcome to Spring .. Some Interesting News is Hitting the Wire Today.  Read on ….

Progressive School District in Mississippi Planning “Straight-Free” Prom

• Ricky Martin and Toby Keith will headline the afterparty

Teacher Union Leader Comes Clean: “We don’t really care about children!”

• NEA general counsel Bob Chanin admits surprise — “Frankly, I can’t believe we had people going this long … I just had to tell!”

Texas Removes All References to Arkansas in State Textbooks

• State’s lead educator argues that “like evolution, the claim that there are fifty states is merely a theory.”

Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times - Caught Shopping at Wal-Mart

• Sources close to the Arkansas Times admit that Brantley is also an avid Glenn Beck listener.

Nation’s 4th Graders Continue to Trail Nation’s 5th Graders

• Experts fear this will continue into grade 6