"History is the lie commonly agreed upon." --Voltaire
"What you do in this world is a matter of no consequence. The question is what can you make people believe you have done." --Arthur Conan Doyle, A Study in Scarlet
Every so often, I post about a topic that reaches far beyond the confines of Minooka CCSD 201 but nonetheless affects the district and the people that live in the district. The current federal government shutdown, the debt ceiling debate and the trajectory of federal debt are issues that affect all of us. No matter where a person stands on the issues, it is always a good idea to approach the issues without any myths or misconceptions about what has come before (i.e., the past).
Numerous leading political figures have been making statements about the untarnished credit history of the United States. The following is a sample:
"There is no magic wand that allows us to wish away the chaos that could
result if -- for the first time in our history -- we don't pay our
bills on time." --President Barack Obama
"No Congress in 224 years of American history has allowed our country to
default, and it’s my sincere hope that this Congress will not be the
first." --Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew
"There is precedent for a government shutdown. There's no precedent for default." --Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs
The facts, however, seem to intrude upon this narrative of an untarnished U.S. credit history. The United States has defaulted on its obligations many times in its history (for a sampling of articles discussing previous defaults, see here, here, here, here, and here).
The list of U.S. defaults include the following:
1. 1814 - Under President James Madison, U.S. defaults on debt payments for a few months in the wake of the War of 1812.
2. 1862 - Under President Abraham Lincoln, U.S. defaults on "greenback" demand notes by refusing to redeem them in gold as promised.
3. 1933 - Under President Franklin Roosevelt, U.S. defaults on the "gold clause" in its debt contracts and pays in paper dollars rather than gold.
4. 1968 - Under President Lyndon Johnson, U.S. defaults on "silver certificates" by refusing to redeem them in silver as promised.
5. 1971 - Under President Richard Nixon, U.S. defaults on the Bretton Woods international currency arrangement and ceases to exchange dollars for gold.
6. 1979 - Under President Jimmy Carter, U.S. defaults on certain debt obligations due to back office "glitch" at Treasury.
So, let us debate the issues regarding the shutdown, debt ceiling and the trajectory of debt. But, let us do so without the myth of a default being unprecedented in U.S. history.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Friday, October 11, 2013
Sales Tax Redux
The Grundy Economic
Development Council and Grundy County Chamber of Commerce and
Industry are hosting a meeting and presentation regarding the proposed County School Facility Tax
(the proposed sales tax increase which I have previously written about here and here) at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, October 22, in the board room of the Grundy
County Administration Center. The address is 1320 Union St., Morris. The public is welcome to attend this meeting.
The meeting will feature a presentation from representatives of Stifel, Nicolaus, an investment banking firm based in St. Louis, Missouri. They, of course, will tell everyone that they are doing this out of the "goodness of their hearts" and have "no financial interest" in seeing a sales tax increase pass. I find that hard to believe, when they make their money by helping school districts to float bond issuances, and there will be a lot of money to be made on those if this sales tax passes in Grundy County. Mark my words, if the sales tax passes, and Grundy County schools float bonds based on the anticipated revenue from this sales tax, you will see Stifel, Nicolaus and their ilk collecting handsome fees from Grundy County school districts.
An additional side note: the County School Facility Tax has been defeated twice in neighboring LaSalle County (the second time around the percentage opposed was greater than the first time around).
The meeting will feature a presentation from representatives of Stifel, Nicolaus, an investment banking firm based in St. Louis, Missouri. They, of course, will tell everyone that they are doing this out of the "goodness of their hearts" and have "no financial interest" in seeing a sales tax increase pass. I find that hard to believe, when they make their money by helping school districts to float bond issuances, and there will be a lot of money to be made on those if this sales tax passes in Grundy County. Mark my words, if the sales tax passes, and Grundy County schools float bonds based on the anticipated revenue from this sales tax, you will see Stifel, Nicolaus and their ilk collecting handsome fees from Grundy County school districts.
An additional side note: the County School Facility Tax has been defeated twice in neighboring LaSalle County (the second time around the percentage opposed was greater than the first time around).
Monday, October 7, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
The First Casualty of the Common Core: Math
Perhaps you have heard that Minooka 201 is piloting a new math curriculum in elementary school. The name of the new curriculum is Go Math. The curriculum that Minooka 201 had been using exclusively in the elementary grades up to this year was Saxon Math. Now, some classes are using Go Math and the other classes are using Saxon Math.
Why the change? Was Saxon Math not a good curriculum? Were the children not doing well in math? Actually, the children were doing very well in math. I am not one to base my decisions on standardized test scores, but math is one subject where test scores are useful since mathematics deals with objectively right or wrong answers. Based on the test scores, Minooka elementary students were performing very well. Our scores in math were consistently in the high 80s and 90s.
No, the reason for the change was the new Common Core State Standards. Go Math, the administration was told, was aligned with the Common Core. Saxon Math was "not quite aligned." Therefore, Saxon Math would have to go. Never mind that students were seemingly doing very well in math. Never mind that Saxon Math actually utilizes a "spiraling" methodology where skills are built up step by step and previously introduced skills are constantly reviewed.
So how is the pilot of Go Math going? Well, from purely anecdotal evidence, it is a slow motion car wreck. And, perhaps, that is no accident, since the only mathmetician on the validating committee for the Common Core State Standards, Professor James Milgram of Stanford University, refused to sign-off on the math standards of the Common Core and has since publicly opposed implementation of the standards (see here, and here). In addition, the District administration rushed into their decision to pilot Go Math at the end of the last school year without adequate preparation or training for the teachers, thus compounding the problems.
If your children were doing well in math, perhaps even enjoying math, and are now doing poorly in math, perhaps even hating math, it may be due to the Go Math pilot and the new Common Core State Standards. And, if you are of a mind to complain about the Go Math pilot and/or the way in which it was implemented, approaching your child's teacher is of limited value since the teachers have no authority to change curriculum. Any complaints should be directed to the Assistant Superintendent (for curriculum), the Superintendent and/or the school board.
Why the change? Was Saxon Math not a good curriculum? Were the children not doing well in math? Actually, the children were doing very well in math. I am not one to base my decisions on standardized test scores, but math is one subject where test scores are useful since mathematics deals with objectively right or wrong answers. Based on the test scores, Minooka elementary students were performing very well. Our scores in math were consistently in the high 80s and 90s.
No, the reason for the change was the new Common Core State Standards. Go Math, the administration was told, was aligned with the Common Core. Saxon Math was "not quite aligned." Therefore, Saxon Math would have to go. Never mind that students were seemingly doing very well in math. Never mind that Saxon Math actually utilizes a "spiraling" methodology where skills are built up step by step and previously introduced skills are constantly reviewed.
So how is the pilot of Go Math going? Well, from purely anecdotal evidence, it is a slow motion car wreck. And, perhaps, that is no accident, since the only mathmetician on the validating committee for the Common Core State Standards, Professor James Milgram of Stanford University, refused to sign-off on the math standards of the Common Core and has since publicly opposed implementation of the standards (see here, and here). In addition, the District administration rushed into their decision to pilot Go Math at the end of the last school year without adequate preparation or training for the teachers, thus compounding the problems.
If your children were doing well in math, perhaps even enjoying math, and are now doing poorly in math, perhaps even hating math, it may be due to the Go Math pilot and the new Common Core State Standards. And, if you are of a mind to complain about the Go Math pilot and/or the way in which it was implemented, approaching your child's teacher is of limited value since the teachers have no authority to change curriculum. Any complaints should be directed to the Assistant Superintendent (for curriculum), the Superintendent and/or the school board.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Common Core Standards: Fact vs. Myth (vs. Propaganda) . . . Part III
I thought I would share a recent article by another critic of the Common Core State Standards. The article is entitled "The Biggest Fallacy of the Common Core Standards."
Friday, September 20, 2013
Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting and Budget Hearing
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is
Wednesday, September 25, 2013. The Committee of the Whole Meeting starts
at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The Committee of the Whole Meeting will be followed by a Budget
Hearing at 6:45 p.m. in the gymnasium. The Budget Hearing will be
followed by the regular Board Meeting at 7
p.m. Each of the
meetings is open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to attend.
You can find the agenda for each of the meetings here. In addition, for those who are interested, click here and here for
information regarding issues that will be discussed at the Committee of
the Whole Meeting and the Board Meeting.
The proposed budget for fiscal year 2013-2014 can be found here.
The proposed budget for fiscal year 2013-2014 can be found here.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Common Core Standards: Fact vs. Myth (vs. Propaganda) . . . Part II
In a previous post (see here), I talked about the Common Core State Standards and the propaganda machine at the Illinois State Board of Education. Well, it seems that the propaganda machine has shifted into high gear as schools throughout Illinois begin to implement the new curriculum. They have come up with approved information releases and even suggested "tweets" for administrators and teachers to send out to parents and others in order to influence them into accepting the new curriculum (see here, here, here, here, and here).
Let's examine just one of the elements of propaganda in this post. One oft repeated element of propaganda regarding the Common Core is that it is not a national curriculum and is not being imposed upon the states by the federal government. There are two parts to this. First, there is the issue of a national curriculum. It is very difficult to argue that the Common Core does not represent a national curriculum. Now it is true that not all of the states have signed on to implement the Common Core (forty-four states and the District of Columbia have signed on to implement the Common Core), but it might as well be the entire nation. Second, there is the issue of Common Core being imposed by the federal government. No, there is no federal law requiring the states to implement the Common Core. The federal government has, however, tied the grant of certain education dollars to the implementation of the Common Core (including the testing and data gathering that goes with it). So, rather than using a stick, the federal government is using a carrot, in much the same way that the federal government in the 1980s used the carrot of withholding highway funding unless the states increased their drinking ages to 21. And, guess what . . . all the states raised their drinking ages to 21 since they could not maintain the highways without federal money. Likewise, it is easy to see why the vast majority of states signed on to implement the Common Core.
Why is this an issue? Why does the Illinois State Board of Education (and others) so often stress that this is not a national curriculum imposed by the federal government? Well, perhaps it is because a national curriculum would violate current federal law (see this report). Or, perhaps it is because parents and others are justifiably wary of a national curriculum imposed by the federal government.
Our children are much more likely to need to be continuous learners than previous generations. The pace of technological change and innovation has increased throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century. A rigid, top-down model (whether imposed by a consortium of states or the federal government) is exactly what is NOT needed in the face of this type of world (if indeed it was ever needed). A flexible, bottom-up model (where freedom and innovation are valued and each child is treated as an individual rather than a widget) is what is needed. The Common Core State Standards will shackle the vast majority of primary and secondary students in the United States to a rigid set of standards which are bound to fail to provide a quality education. And, when it begins to become clear to a great many people that the Common Core State Standards are failing our children, it will take a great deal of time and political will to remove them due to their being imposed on a statewide and almost national basis.
Let's examine just one of the elements of propaganda in this post. One oft repeated element of propaganda regarding the Common Core is that it is not a national curriculum and is not being imposed upon the states by the federal government. There are two parts to this. First, there is the issue of a national curriculum. It is very difficult to argue that the Common Core does not represent a national curriculum. Now it is true that not all of the states have signed on to implement the Common Core (forty-four states and the District of Columbia have signed on to implement the Common Core), but it might as well be the entire nation. Second, there is the issue of Common Core being imposed by the federal government. No, there is no federal law requiring the states to implement the Common Core. The federal government has, however, tied the grant of certain education dollars to the implementation of the Common Core (including the testing and data gathering that goes with it). So, rather than using a stick, the federal government is using a carrot, in much the same way that the federal government in the 1980s used the carrot of withholding highway funding unless the states increased their drinking ages to 21. And, guess what . . . all the states raised their drinking ages to 21 since they could not maintain the highways without federal money. Likewise, it is easy to see why the vast majority of states signed on to implement the Common Core.
Why is this an issue? Why does the Illinois State Board of Education (and others) so often stress that this is not a national curriculum imposed by the federal government? Well, perhaps it is because a national curriculum would violate current federal law (see this report). Or, perhaps it is because parents and others are justifiably wary of a national curriculum imposed by the federal government.
Our children are much more likely to need to be continuous learners than previous generations. The pace of technological change and innovation has increased throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century. A rigid, top-down model (whether imposed by a consortium of states or the federal government) is exactly what is NOT needed in the face of this type of world (if indeed it was ever needed). A flexible, bottom-up model (where freedom and innovation are valued and each child is treated as an individual rather than a widget) is what is needed. The Common Core State Standards will shackle the vast majority of primary and secondary students in the United States to a rigid set of standards which are bound to fail to provide a quality education. And, when it begins to become clear to a great many people that the Common Core State Standards are failing our children, it will take a great deal of time and political will to remove them due to their being imposed on a statewide and almost national basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)