Daily Herald: Blagojevich Gets an "F"
Although the Daily Herald was given side-by-side comparisons of the Blagojevich lottery proposal and the Topinka Education Plan, Eric Krol opts to stick it to the Governor with this headline and lede:
Group flunks governor’s schools plan
Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich is fond of poking fun at his mediocre academic history, often mentioning his C in constitutional law.
But the governor might be wishing for a C after a school reform group flunked his education plan — which is centered on selling the Illinois Lottery — with two D’s, two F’s, and a B-.
Republican challenger Judy Baar Topinka’s plan — which would give
You can read the rest of the story here.
A+ Illinois report cards on the Governor is here, Topinka's is here.
What do you think?
Are the report cards fair?
Are there other criteria you'd like to see an education plan judged by?
Is depending on local property taxes the best way to fund our schools?
What impact do you think our current education systm has on Illinois' economic future?
If you were running for Governor, what would you include in a comprehensive eduation plan?
I know that some folks have argued that the state should strip away some local control from school boards, especially when it comes to negotiating union contracts. If that's your position, I'd like to know what school district you live in and whether you've ever run for school board or campaigned for a school board candidate. If you live in Chicago, I'd like to know whether you think Mayor Daley really is accountable for the school system there, since he argued for control of the schools back in 1995, and whether this will impact your vote in the upcoming mayorl race.
18 comments:
Dog, appreciated your comment on the Capitol Fax blog. I know non-profits are limited in their lobbying, but there are a lot of non-profits more actively involved than A+. I think it's more of a mission choice, as many of A+'s members do lobby actively.
The grades were totally predictable; we all know what A+ is for and against, and any one of us could have filled out these report cards ourselves. The problem for A+ is that it's effectively really only about revenue sources. They pay lip service to education reform, and some members of the coalition really believe in education reform, but A+ Illinois is not at essence a group focused on education so much as it is on the state's revenue system. Which is an important thing to be focused on, for sure, but let's just call it what it is.
I don't think they're entirely wrong about the state revenue system, by the way. I'd sell the tollway for pension funds (before the suburbanites protest, don't forget that (a) it's your teachers who are getting that money out of TRS, so a lot of the money "stays with the suburbs," and (b) if taxes increase you're paying for the pensions anyway); I'd consider updating the sales tax code the way Rauschenberger, Martire, and others have suggested; I'd put a casino in Chicago (wouldn't expand slots elsewhere); and then I'd at least think about an income tax increase. My problem with 750 is that I don't think it does what people say it's going to do.
Actually Gus, as Treasurer Topinka acknowledged in her Education Plan, A+ Illinois has been actively engaged in the whole education reform debate, and A+ Illinois thinks that promoting specific and proven strategies for closing the student achievement gap ought to be part of any comprehensive proposal. In fact, they included in their report card.
They gave Blagojevich a B- for the strategies that he outlined in his lottery proposal, and they gave Topinka a B+, specifically touting her idea of tying dollars to proven strategies through a block grant program, based on a successful program in Pennsylvania. Now, you don't hear alot of teacher's unions demanding block grants, which is why I think this whole argument that A+ Illinois is a tool of teacher's unions is a little absurd.
But I think most reasonable people would agree that it is absurd to talk about new ideas and new programs for reform without talking about how you're going to pay for them, and you really can't separate the "quality reform" issue from the "funding reform" issue.
I could propose all kinds of great ideas for quality reform tomorrow -- like wireless laptops for every kid -- but if I'm not going to put forward a realistic plan for how to pay for them for the voters to see, it's a scam, not a plan. That is how I think most reasonably intelligent people would describe the Blagojevich lottery proposal. Except Abby Ottenhoff and Doug Scoffield, who are very intelligent people, but they have a job to do.
Thanks for the dilatory comment, anonymous.
As I mentioned over a capitolfax, Rich is closing comments for the weekend, and I thought there should be a place for people who have something constructive to add over the weekend.
If you're one of those people, great. If not, have a great holiday weekend.
Well, Dog, I know Treasurer Topinka said that in her plan, but it's simply not true. Many of the constituent organizations have been actively involved in that debate, but they haven't. They focus on funding -- which, as you correctly point out, is an essential component of the programmatic debate. My point isn't that revenue issues aren't important, or that A+ shouldn't advocate on them; it's that in A+'s public debate and focus, it's looked in much greater depth/detail at the revenue sources to support education (and education reform), not at the specific programs needed. That kind of advocacy has come from other groups -- including the teacher unions, but also including groups like charter school advocates, voucher advocates, preschool advocates, etc. A+ really doesn't muck around too much in that kind of thing, at least that I've seen.
By the way, I thought it was interesting that you called Blagojevich's plan "unrealistic," at opposed to "foolish" or some such. "Realistic" means that you can get the Senate and House to pass them, and there are real questions about both plans on that front, but I'm not 100% sure his plan is less "realistic" than hers. But --sadly -- that's a totally different issue than whether or not it's good public policy.
Too bad they ommitted Rich Whitney. HB750 is a cornerstone of his plan!
Yea, Where is Whitney? It is easy to predict Whitney would earn the the highest grades, afterall he is the only candidate in this race who supports HB 750. I hope A+ is going to include Whitney. Otherwise it seems blatently unfair. Has A+ been caught not doing their homework?
Gus - When I say unrealistic, I was referring to comments from the lottery expert who said there is no realistic way that the Gov can get $10 billion upfront for the lottery, unless they are allowed to dramatically expand gaming (like opening keno parlors, or allowing instant game sales online), something the Gov said he wouldn't do. Education experts also argued that it is unrealistic to expect school districts to launch new programs that don't have any funding after four years, or to expect those same programs to move test scores in such a small time frame.
But if you want to call trading away a long term source of steadily increasing cash for a fistful of dollars tomorrow "foolish," I sure won't quibble with you.
A+ Illinois is already backed by the state's largest pre-school advocates, and HB 750 included significant investment in pre-school education. Charter public school advocates aren't at the table yet, but I agree they should be. They are, after all, public schools too, and they have just as much at stake when it comes to increasing foundation level funding.
I think voucher advocates probably have very little to add to the discussion, and they've never shown a willingness to reason or compromise, so they aren't the helpful people to have around the negotiating table. They're pretty much a one-trick pony, and their position on public education funding is well-worn. Besides, given the fact that George Bush's own Dept. of Education found that private schools in general perform no better than public schools when you take demographics into acount, I think the voucher idea is pretty much dead.
Vouchers remind me of that old line from the movie The American President: "If people are thirsty enough, they'll drink sand."
Most research indicates that early childhood education results in increased educational achievement later in life. The governor has addressed this with semi-universal pre-school, Topinka with all day kindergarten.
Socio-economic factors are the greatest predictors of academic succcess. Students who come from stable homes where they are well fed, have their medical needs taken care of, and where discipline abounds and education is a priority will almost always out perform students without these advantages.
The governor has tried to address the health issues with allkids.
There is a limit as to what the state can do to address these other factors. Teachers from poor areas will tell you that poor attendance and the transient nature of students are the main barriers to success.
Is increased funding the answer? If it is then least complicated way to achieve that is to increase income taxes and sales taxes without the sham of a tax swap. Just go ahead and raise them, never mind the gimmicks.
However, I don't believe that more money is the end all answer.
The sociological barriers must also be addressed or the money won't make any difference.
bill -
good points. Another strong indicator, which you pointed at, is the educational attainment of parents.
However, other states are doing a better job, charter public schools are doing a better job with the same kids in Chicago, so I know the answers are out there somewhere.
Keep in mind too that we spend almost $20K more on the public education of white kids than minority kids in Illinois, a factor that can't be ignored.
I don't think it's necessarily more money, but what that more money is spent on, that matters most.
-Teacher recruitment, training, and retention;
-Smaller class sizes;
-Up-to-date textbooks and other teaching tools;
There are others, but these usually spring to the front of the list in my mind. What about yours?
Bravo on the misleading headline.
Let's compare;
Daily Herald:
Group flunks governor's schools plan.
You:
Daily Herald: Blagojevich gets an "F"
Now one would indicate that a particular group (identified as "group") has flagged the governor for not meeting that particular "group's" standard.
The other seems to indicate that the Daily Herald, a seemingly independent player here, has given Blagojevich an "F" for reasons unknown.
Now personally, I think both selling the Lottery and opening a Chicago casino (shudder) are TERRIBLE ideas.
I agree with the group to the extent that reliance on property taxes is a poor way to ensure equal funding. But like a lot of other property tax payers, I fear the swap would temporarily relieve property taxes (which in our little corner of suburban Cook exploded recently) only temporarily while drivng up income taxes, only to have the property taxes drift upward again.
As to the fairness, the problem is that it is easy for a candidate (or sitting governor, for that matter) to propose ideas. Getting them to actually pass (and then actually work) is another matter altogether.
My guess is when the rubber meets the road, neither proposal would meet A+ IL's standards.
I agree turd. As a resident, I don't want a casino in Chicago either.Mine is not a moral objection, but a quality of life issue. Also, I think the Topinka plan exagerates the revenue derived from the 10th license. Gambilng revenue is not infinite and the over proliferation of gaming will eventually reach the point of diminishing returns. Add to this the skepticism of President Jones about the possibility of passage in the Senate and I think that the conerstone of the Topinka funding plan is somewhat pie in the sky.
The same goes for the tollway and lottery schemes so, again, we are back to tax increases. At last count, there were maybe 29 Senate votes for SB 755. Maybe after the election something similar will pass.
As far as how to spend the money,Dog, your list is a excellent start. We should also remember after school programs,year-round school, and a much needed capitol program. Many schools, built at the turn of the century, are foreboding structures in serious need of repair and upgrades. Sen. Meeks' comparison of a Chicago high school with one in an affluent suburb brought attention to this problem.
Raising the foundation level to EFAB levels and funding the categoricals in more affluent areas would be a fair way to distribute the new income.
As far as any real property tax relief, I wouldn't count on it.
The way that people like Rich Whitney get a "chance in hell" of winning is for organizations like A+ to include him on an equal basis.
Polling already shows that as many as 25% are not planning on voting for Rod Blagojevich or Judy Baar Topinka, and it is possible to win a three-way race with only 34% of the vote.
A number of residents in my Oak Park community have commented favorably on HB 750 because many received substantially higher property tax bills this year.
Some, including seniors who raised families here, are talking about being unable to afford to live here and seniors have complained about being forced out when they would have preferred to live here as long as they can manage independently.
Astonishingly, supporters of HB750 have failed to point out to these seniors that Illinois is one of the few states which does not tax pensions. At least for a time, Oak Park seniors living primarily on pension income, would benefit from HB 750. And Oak Park property has appreciated considerably over the past couple of decades, making reverse mortgages a viable option for seniors needing help with housing costs.
HB 750 is a problem because we in Oak Park and other communities do not really know what the impact would be on our pocketbooks. And the wealthy liberal elites who are
promoting HB750 are hopeful that we will not find out.
In May, 2005 Diane Rado of the Trib published a report which demonstrated that many suburbanites would see a substantial increase in their overall tax burden if HB750 were passed. It is likely that her findings would hold today, a little over a year later.
In addition, we really don't know how much Oak Park (substitute any suburb) schools would receive in additional state funding under 750 compared with what we currently receive and can expect to receive in the near future. We do know that if there is not a very substantial increase under 750 (unlikely) we will, in addition to our new income tax, shortly see more substantial increases in our property taxes. There will be a HB750 windfall for somebody but
it won't be Oak Park.
There are a multitude of other issues, not the least of which is the serious lack of accountability
(Oak Park elementary schools are mediocre at best when compared with broadly similar close-in suburbs such as, say, Wilmette)
and a historically overstaffed, overpaid and underperforming administrative corps. Downstate communities have historically devoted a smaller proportion of their residential property taxes to their schools, expecting the rest of the state to bail them out.
And so on.
But the solution to these problems is not to raid selected Chicago suburbs and the collar suburbs for money for Downstate and the so-called inner city. Our political leaders will have to do better than that.
Turd -
My point is this: nowhere did A+ Illinois actually say that the governor flunked. That was the Daily Herald's editorial spin, not A+ Illinois'. The group didn't hand out overall grades on either plan. In fact, while Topinka got better individual grades overall, both report cards have "needs improvement" written at the top.
Krol chose to write the lede that, in three paragraphs said basically:
1. Governor Blagojevich is a patronizing baffoon with a disdain for education;
2. Governor Blagojevich's education plan sucks;
3. Topinka's education plan is better.
Editors write headlines, and the editor could have just as easily chosen "Group says Blagojevich, Topinka education plans need improvement."
Instead, the editor handed the Topinka campaign a nice, juicy headline to use in their direct mailpieces to suburban women.
Anonymous -
I agree with you that Rich Whitney indeed is a credible candidate, although he'd be much more credible if the Green Party didn't have such a disdain for fundraising. If Whitney is going to make a serious run, he needs to raise $1 million in the next month. Can he do it? I doubt it or he would've been raising money already. But if he doesn't try, he can't win.
I'd still put even money on him winning 5% of the vote, just for not being Blagojevich or Topinka.
That said, just because he can't win doesn't mean his ideas aren't relevant to the debate. Ross Perot wasn't going to win in 1992, but he focused Bill Clinton's attention on balancing the budget and reducing the deficit like a laser beam. Candidates don't have to be electable to be relevant, and its for that reason that I've long argued that Whitney should be included in the debates. The guy does have more than a few good ideas.
The Green Party doesn't have a distain for fundraising--it just refuses to accept contributions from corporations.
Greens feel that this is a conflict of interest--a form of legalized bribery; so this is an ethical stand, and one that voters appreciate when they learn about it. Now that Whitney is starting to be included in the media and polls, there's a good chance that he'll be getting a lot more funding. He also presents much better than Blagojevich or Topinka, so once Illinois voters hear what he has to say, he'll be earning new supporters too.
Anonymous 4:53 -
First of, get a name.
Secondly, I have to agree with Rich Miller on this one.
Rich Whitney reported raising $1,679 from individuals in the first six months of 2006. If the polling is to be believed and 17% of Illinois voters plan on supporting a third party candidate, that means there are some 625,000 individuals out there who are potential Whitney donors, at least.
Pledging not to take corporate money is no excuse for not having atleast tried to identify these 625,000 folks and asked them for money.
Has Whitney given all he can?
Has his family given all they can? What about their friends?
Has he asked the 39,000 folks who signed his petition to contribute? What about their friends?
Has Ralph "The Pariah" Nader sent in fat check or been asked to hold a fundraiser?
I'm betting that the answer to atleast some of these questions is "No."
The problem with progressive candidates is that they too often act as though "money is the root of all evil."
Timothy 6:10 actually reads "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
I've said it again and again, the reason most progressive candidates fail isn't because their ideas are out of the mainstream, it's because they are unwilling or afraid to get their hands dirty, get on the phone or go see the people that support them face-to-face, and ask them to give not until it hurts, but until it feels deliciously good.
Instead, Whitney and the Greens are sitting back -- lazily -- and hoping that some folks will be struck by an epiphany (or a lightning bolt) and spontaneously whip out their wallets and send him a check. That's not a fundraising plan, that's a recipe for disaster.
Democrats have been keeping the Whitney campaign busy defending against a frivilous objection to their petition. Whitney has only been certified to be on the ballot since September 1st. What do you expect? The bulk of fundraising is yet to come.
Post a Comment