Education Excellence Idaho

Yugo Quality at a Hummer Price

2007-12-29T12:33:00.000-08:00

Intel recently introduced a new chip codenamed Penryn. In terms of current technology, this new chip packs double the transistors in the same space, uses 30 percent less electricity, is 20 percent faster in switching speed, and reduces power leakage by 5 to 10 fold. In 1965 Intel’s co-founder Gordon Moore observed that transistor density doubles every two years.

If public education productivity had improved as much as computer technology since 1965, it would cost less that one cent and take less than one second to produce a K-12 education.

Regrettably, the academic achievement of the U.S. public education system is considered a Yugo by international standards. Sorry to say we are paying a Hummer of a price and the future looks bleak.

Albertsons,Walmart, Winco, and Fred Meyer all compete to serve the public. Would you be happy if the government forced you to shop at only one of these stores based on your zip code? The government should not do anything to limit parent's ability to make the best choice for their children. All education providers — government, religious, and secular — can contribute to public education because all can serve the public by educating children.

ISAT Scholarships

2007-12-13T11:33:00.000-08:00

Bryan Fisher of the Idaho Values Alliance:

The "high stakes" test students must take to graduate from high school in Idaho is the ISAT (Idaho Standards Achievement Test). All sophomores take the 10th grade ISAT exam, which the Statesman describes as "the graduation test, which they (students) must pass before getting a diploma." This raises a thought-provoking question: if a student passes "the graduation test" in the 10th grade, and thus has demonstrated the academic proficiency we require of all high school graduates, why are we strapping him in a seat for two more years, at taxpayer expense? A better approach: once a student passes the ISAT, give him his high school diploma, and then use the taxpayer dollars Idaho would otherwise have spent on his last two years of high school instead financing the first two years of his college education. By the time he finishes what would have been his senior year, he'd already have two years of college under his belt, and he and his parents would have just two years of college to fund instead of four. Plus, students who know they are not college bound could begin training for a trade in what otherwise would have been their junior year in high school.

Gale notes:

According to the Idaho Department of Education, taxpayers were charged $8,279 per student last year. This is the average rate. Based upon the State funding formula, the rate for 11th and 12th grades is estimated at $10,665 per year.

Tuition at BSU, U of I, and ISU is $4,410 year year. The ISAT Opportunity Scholarship could provide a full four-year scholarship to any of Idaho's public universities.

Since federal grants and loans are available to private colleges, the ISAT Scholarship could also be used at Idaho's private colleges including College of Idaho, BYU-Idaho, and NNU.

Find the Road Money in the Bloated Education Budget

2007-12-06T16:52:00.001-08:00

Last year the Idaho Department of Education reported that taxpayers were charged over $2 billion dollars for K-12 public education. This indicated a rate of around $8,279 per student for 246,717 students. In contrast, Idaho’s private schools are charging around 60 percent of the public school rate or $4,800 per student per year.

The Albertson Foundation reports that private school academic performance is at or above the public school averages. This would suggest that private schools are over 70 percent more productive than public schools.

Why not give taxpayers a break and allow more students to attend Idaho’s highly productive private schools? If just 25 percent of Idaho’s public school students could attend private schools, over $214 million dollars would be available for new road construction.

Note to Butch: Be smart, don’t raise taxes to pay for new roads, increase choice in education. Idaho can have better education and better roads without raising more taxes.

Stop the Beg-A-Thons

2007-10-30T08:00:00.001-07:00

Why does the Meridian School District always expect kids to go door-to-door begging for more money for their schools? The State Department of Education reported that the district charged taxpayers $8,690 per student to attend their schools last year, but I guess this isn’t enough. These beg-a-thons perpetuate the myth that public schools are under-funded. Each student is expected to sell $100 worth of stuff, of which the school gets to keep $40. For students who are too busy doing homework, parents are expected to make a $40 “donation.”

I thought that the lottery was supposed to solve the under-funding crisis? Fat chance. We recently learned that 34 of the district’s 46 schools (78 percent) failed to make adequate progress. Is there any product or service that you could continue to use if it had such a dismal performance record? It looks like teachers should be spending more time teaching and less time expecting kids to shakedown the neighborhood for them. It’s easy to understand why so many parents feel that their kids are being held hostage at these costly low-performing schools.

Here’s a great offer to the Meridian School District: Let me be responsible for the education of my kids. Just give me half of the $8,690 that you spend and I’ll let you keep the other half. You get $4,345 and have one less kid to worry about. Furthermore, I promise not to call it ransom money. In the mean time stop expecting my kids to beg for you.

Hold Teachers Accountable, Not Buildings

2007-08-30T09:06:00.000-07:00

Buildings are not responsible for educating students, teachers are. So why does the State Board of Education report ISAT scores by building name? Imagine if police gave speeding tickets to cars instead of drivers, or arrested houses instead of the drug dealers who occupy them?

By reporting ISAT score by building name instead of teacher name, the State Board is evading its constitutional responsibility to supervise the public school system. If the Board is really serious about improving education productivity, it must report scores by teacher. This would provide parents with the relevant information they need to make informed decisions about getting the best education for their children.

The Board’s credibility and reputation require full disclosure and transparency. Time to hold teachers accountable, not buildings.

Time for the State Board to Offer School Vouchers

2007-08-28T09:43:00.000-07:00

The State Board of Education recently reported that taxpayers were charged $8,279 per student for public schools last year, but not a single school in the Nampa or Caldwell Districts made adequate yearly progress. When was the last time you spent this much money on a defective product and didn’t demand a full refund?

There is something deeply immoral about the government charging taxpayers this kind of money and forcing parents to send their children to failing schools. Clearly the current system of granting monopolies to districts has failed Idaho’s students and taxpayers. When district schools fail to provide adequate education, they don’t go out of business; they use their failure as evidence that they need bigger budgets and more staff. Expect calls for higher taxes and more spending.

So where are Tom Luna and the State Board of Education on this issue? It’s time for them to end the excuses and rhetoric and start making real reforms. Mr. Luna and the State Board must tell districts that the days of unaccountable monopoly are over. All other state agencies require competitive bidding on government contracts. So, why should the Department of Education be any different? The Board could directly offer parents the option of accepting a $5,000 voucher that could be used to attend a private school that’s accountable for its performance. This will create incentives for entrepreneurs to create high-performing and productive schools.

What would be wrong with letting students escape these failing district schools and reducing the bill to taxpayers? True accountability and improvement can only be achieved when parents have the right to choose the best school for their children. If Wal-Mart can offer money-back guarantees, why can’t our schools?

A Simple Solution to the 78 Percent Failure Rate

2007-08-27T17:29:00.001-07:00

When was the last time you spent $8,690 on a product that failed to work 78 percent of the time? The State Department of Education reported that Meridian School District charged taxpayers $8,690 per student to attend their schools last year. Now we learn that 34 of the district’s 46 schools (78 percent) failed to make adequate progress.

So what are your choices if your child is attending one of these 34 failing public schools? Schools that fall short two years in a row are supposed to offer to pay for additional tutoring for students. Superintendent Linda Clark said, “The district will put as many resources as it can into helping improve performance of students who didn’t meet expectations on statewide achievement exams.” You may want to contact Linda Clark at 855-4500 to find out how much money the district is going to provide you with to help tutor your student.

Here is better suggestion: Why doesn’t the Meridian School District simply give the parents of students attending the 34 failing schools the option of accepting a $5,000 voucher that can be used to attend a private school that better fits their children’s needs? The district wins, the student wins, the parents win, and the taxpayers win.

Tom Luna’s new Idaho Department of Education website states, “We at the State Department of Education are determined to create a customer-driven education system that meets the needs of every student in Idaho and prepares them to live, work and succeed in the 21st century.” Obviously if 78 percent of the schools are failing then every student in Idaho will not be prepared to live, work and succeed in the 21st century. Clearly the current system of granting monopolies to districts has failed Idaho’s students and taxpayers.

It’s time for Mr. Luna to get serious about his determination to create a “customer-driven” education system. He can begin by supporting education tax credits and vouchers where parents can choose the best school for their children. This will create incentives for entrepreneurs and parents to create high-performing and productive schools.

The free market typically offers money-back guarantees for its products and services. Isn’t there something deeply immoral about the government forcing you to send your children to a failing school? Imagine a school that guaranteed results or gave your money back. It’s time for Tom and Linda to get real about solving our public education problem instead of more empty rhetoric. Stop holding students hostage in failing schools.

Spending More and Getting Less: Idaho K-12 Public School Productivity Declines by 17 Percent

2007-03-29T13:39:00.001-07:00

Productivity is the ratio of output to input. In education output is achievement growth and input is cost. Assessment tests measure output, while budgets measure input. One way to measure productivity is to look at the Direct Math Assessment and the state’s K-12 budget.

According to recently released data from the Idaho State Department of Education the 2006-07 Direct Math Assessment showed a 12 percent drop from 2005-06. Students performing at or above proficiency dropped from 65 percent to 57 percent.

In the mean time, the state K-12 budget has been increased almost 6 percent.

We are getting 12 percent less and spending 6 percent more. What this indicates is an overall drop in productivity of 17 percent in one year. We are effectively getting 83 percent as much for the same dollar relative to the previous year.

Contrast the 17 drop is productivity to the 4 percent increase in output per hour in the U.S. manufacturing sector as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Unfortunately this drop in productivity in public education is not a one-time event but part of a 30-year trend of spending more and getting less.

Fortunately we have a solution for this productivity problem. The only proven method to reverse this trend is free markets and parental choice. Competition always improves quality and reduces costs. Of course, the entrenched cartel of big unions, administrators, and school board associations vigorously oppose any form of accountability through choice. But parents and taxpayers must demand that the legislature offer real incentives to reverse this collapse in productivity. Incentives include tax credits and education scholarships.

We spent $8,279 per student in 2005-06. Offering a tax credit or scholarship of $5,000 per student would be a great start. Imagine the great schools that an open and free market could create for Idaho, not to mention the relief to taxpayers.

Stop Being Insane

2007-03-27T14:05:00.001-07:00

Test scores from the recent Direct Math Assessment show a drop in the number of students who scored proficient or above compared to 2005-06. State Superintendent Tom Luna is asking for more tax money to address the problem. Wrong answer Tom. If more money would solve our math proficiency problem, then Idaho’s students should all be Einsteins. What the empirical data actually suggest is more money results in lower test scores. Since 1970, spending on public education has more than doubled while math achievement languished.

We don’t have a money problem, we have a monopoly problem. Einstein said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It would be insane to continue to subsidize a system that has failed to produce results for three decades.

Why not let parents and a free market in education solve this problem? Imagine a system where parents could choose the best school for their children instead of bureaucrats in Boise. There is something deeply immoral about forcing parents to send their children to failing schools. By denying parents real choice in public education, we deprive children of the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

Imagine a system where local small business owners, motivated teachers, entrepreneurs and innovative companies like Apple or FedEx or Hewlett Packard could create new schools and provide more choices. Markets can add tremendous value to the public education system by creating specialized and personalized programs to meet individual student needs and learning styles.

If Mr. Luna wants to reverse this trend of declining achievement scores and increasing costs to the taxpayers before his next election, he needs to immediately offer a simple, no-hassle, opportunity scholarship to all families to help improve academic achievement. This would truly revitalize public education and incentivize the system with a focus on results not rhetoric. Real accountability can only be achieved through choice. If we expect progress based on common sense experience, we have to first stop being insane.

Meridian School District’s New Math: 2 + 2 = 2

2007-02-24T09:25:00.001-08:00

In reaction to competition from public charter schools, Meridian School District recently mass-mailed a full color brochure highlighting their efforts to expand education choice. Unfortunately, the brochure is disingenuous in comparing funding between the district’s magnet schools and public charter schools. The table on page 4 reports that North Star costs taxpayers $383 more than the Christine Donnell School of the Arts. This is true only if Superintendent Linda Clark pretends that there is no such thing as property taxes.

Unlike the Meridian School District, public charter schools don’t get any property tax funding. Property taxes generally add another $2,500 to the cost per student. So why does Linda Clark always forget to add property taxes when comparing costs between the district and charter schools?

Any charter school would be happy to trade $383 in state funding for $2,500 in property tax funding the district gets. Does the superintendent really feel than $383 is more than $2,500? Given this kind of “new” math by the district, its no wonder that the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) reported only that only 30% of Idaho’s 8th graders are “proficient” in math. Before Meridian School District does their next mass-mailing, it might be a good idea to have a first-grader at a charter school check their arithmetic.

What is also interesting about the table is that the charter school the Meridian School District operates is 46 percent more expensive than North Star. This is before any costs for the district’s building or site are considered.

To illustrate the cost difference between charters and districts, look at building costs. According to the recent bond election literature the Galileo magnet school cost $20,000 per seat to build. North Star was built for less than $5,000 per seat. Why the huge difference? Since North Star had no property tax funding it had to be much more frugal and cost-conscience.

Linda Clark routinely mischaracterizes charter schools because they have proven that new public schools can be built without increasing property taxes. The fact is Idaho’s charter schools are creating more choices and lowering taxes. And this is bad for business, especially if you want to continue to raise property taxes.

Linda Chooses Black

2007-02-24T08:15:00.001-08:00

The Meridian School District recently mass-mailed a full color brochure highlighting their efforts to expand education choice. They are to be applauded. It’s obvious that competition from charter schools is creating more choices in public education.

However, there is something very strange about the district’s new mantra of “school choice.” Superintendent Clark used the word “choice” no less than ten times in her column in the brochure. Unfortunately she sounds an awful lot like Henry Ford when it comes to “choice.” Ford is notoriously remembered for saying, “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants, so long as it is black.” The superintendent is essentially saying, “Parents can choose any school they want, so long as it is one the Meridian School District owns and operates.” In other words, “Choice is good, so long as I am the only one that chooses.” George Orwell would surely laugh at her definition. Meridian School District’s idea of choice is like the choice the post office gives you when it allows you to pick which kind of 39-cent stamp you like.

School choice means much more than just parents choosing from a limited menu from one monopoly provider. Real choice means that entrepreneurs can choose to enter the market and create innovative and specialized new schools for parents. One of the great values of real school choice is that it lowers the cost of public education by eliminating inefficient monopolies.

Meridian School District should look to Utah for ideas on improving public education productivity. Utah spends far less per student and gets much higher academic achievement growth than almost all other states. The Utah Legislature recently created a voucher program that allows parents to pick the best school for their children. The Beehive State has realized that harnessing the power of American entrepreneurship improves quality and lowers the costs of public education. The early Mormon settlers made the Utah desert bloom. With vouchers, they now have a chance to bring life and productivity to their public education system.

While the state has a legitimate role in funding public education, it does not follow that the state must also be the monopoly provider as well. After all, the government provides significant funding to college students who then freely choose from a variety of public and private colleges and universities. This kind of healthy choice and competition has made America’s higher education system the best in the world.

If the Meridian School District really believes in “school choice” then it should offer vouchers of $4,500 to parents so they can make their own school choices. This makes sense since parents are in the best position to know what is best for their children. Another benefit is that vouchers would reduce the pressure to impose higher property taxes to pay for new buildings. Charter schools have proven that new public schools can be built without increasing property taxes.

The next time Linda wants to increase your property taxes by $100 million for new school buildings, ask her why she doesn’t believe in the proven benefits of “real choice” in public education. Our public education system desperately needs more colors than just a few shades of black. Time for real choice and diversity.

Tips for Tom: What Luna Must Do to Save Idaho’s Public Education System

2007-01-29T09:16:00.000-08:00

During the last eight years of Marilyn Howard's reign as Superintendent of Public Education student enrollment increased 4.8%. At the same time the cost per student increased 48% or ten times faster. If Idaho’s public schools had simply stayed as productive as they were eight years ago, taxpayers would have saved over $2.2 billion dollars. Can Tom Luna do a Reagan and turn this money-inhaling dinosaur around? Here are five things the Gipper would do:

1. Stop Confusing Spending with Productivity

BYU-Idaho President and former Dean of Harvard Business School Kim B. Clark outlined three "imperatives" in his inaugural speech: raise quality, serve more students, and lower relative costs. President Clark has clarified a major issue in education as being one of raising productivity.

Do you know of any industry, besides public education, that boasts about how high their costs are? Dozens of studies have concluded that there is no correlation between money and achievement growth. Yet we are constantly reminded that we don’t spend enough on public education. It's like arguing that if we paid more for gas, our mileage would increase.

2. Report Real Numbers Promptly

Define productivity as achievement growth divided by cost. Then measure and report it by individual teacher in June of each year so we all know who is creating value and who isn’t. The SEC requires quarterly accounting reports from corporations. Why can’t our public school system be held to the same standard?

3. Don’t Hire Inbreds

Forget about hiring “experienced” educrats. FedEx didn’t go to the post office to create their innovative management team. Nor did Apple go to IBM to create their culture of creativity. Put Professor Caroline Hoxby from Harvard on retainer. She has the brains and the research and isn’t protecting her assets.

4. Create Opportunities

Taxpayers are currently billed $8,000 per student per year. Seeking opportunity means designing vouchers and tax credits that give parents and entrepreneurs incentives to improve quality and reduce costs. Begin the 2007-2008 school year by offering $5,000 vouchers and tax credits. If 20 percent of Idaho’s 250,000 public school students used this program, taxpayers would save $150 million a year. This program could also dramatically reduce property tax increases in fast growing districts like Meridian.

5. Eliminate the State Department of Education

This is maybe the best idea of all. Remember you’re in the business of educating students, not building an empire. New Zealand eliminated all of the Boards of Education in the country. Every single school came under the control of a board of trustees elected by the parents of the children at that school, and by nobody else. Talk about your local control! They funded schools based on the number of students that went to them, with no strings attached and no Byzantine formulas. Most importantly, they told the parents that they had an absolute right to choose where their children would go to school. The country’s 4,500 schools were converted to this new system all on the same day. They also made it possible for privately owned schools to be funded in exactly the same way as publicly owned schools, giving parents the ability to spend their education dollars at the school best-suited to their children’s needs. New Zealanders learned that competition drives quality to the highest common denominator, while monopolies drive it to the lowest.

Republicans are out of power nationally because they forgot Reagan’s principles of entrepreneurial conservatism. By replacing politics and bureaucrats with free markets and entrepreneurs, Mr. Luna has the opportunity to win one for the Gipper.

K-12 Public Education Needs a University of Phoenix

2006-11-30T21:17:00.000-08:00

This year’s college football national championship game will be played in Glendale, Arizona at the University of Phoenix Stadium. What is ironic is University of Phoenix doesn’t have a football team. In fact, this university has no sports programs at all. Founded in 1976, the University of Phoenix is a for-profit, private company and has grown considerably, producing more than 171,000 alumni. In 1989 it was the first university to offer course work online. As of October 2006 is has an estimated 280,000 students, or “customers” as founder John Sperling delights in calling them.

In September 2006, University of Phoenix agreed to pay $154.5 million over 20 years for the right to put its name on the Arizona Cardinals' new NFL stadium, previously named Cardinals Stadium. University of Phoenix graduates include the NBA’s Shaquille O'Neal who earned an online MBA in 2005 and Mary Peters the U.S. Secretary of Transportation.

What would our government-managed K-12 education system look like if it were open to choice and competition like colleges and universities? We would expect costs to go down and quality would go up. The major reason the government-managed K-12 education system is so costly is that there is no profit. This sounds paradoxical yet makes perfect sense when looking at the reality of what actually occurs in bureaucracies versus private enterprises. It comes down to incentives.

Profit is what increases quality and reduces costs. On the other hand, government protected monopolies increase costs and ignore quality. The former Soviet Union provides the most obvious example of what to expect when bureaucrats outnumber entrepreneurs.

As a general rule when private enterprise replaces government monopolies, costs drop by around 40 percent. If we expect any real improvement in public education productivity, we must replace bureaucrats and politics with entrepreneurs and open markets. This could be accomplished by giving parents vouchers and tax credits.

According to the Idaho State Department of Education the taxpayers are charged over $8,000 per student per year under the current monopoly system. Why not offer a $4,000 voucher or tax credit and see what American creativity and entrepreneurship could do to provide taxpayers with a much better value.

Remember, if public education was as productive as the computer industry in terms of improving quality and reducing costs over the last three decades, the cost of providing 12 years of education would be less than one cent instead of over $100,000. Furthermore, it would take less than one second to provide.

We hope to see Boise State play for the national championship some day, maybe in the University of Phoenix Stadium. In the mean time, enjoy what capitalism has done to improve higher education, produce satisfied customers, and create wealth.

Investigate The Real Cartel

2006-09-19T10:15:00.000-07:00

Idaho’s Attorney General Lawrence Wasden ordered five oil companies to explain why they sold their products in Idaho at “extraordinarily high prices.” While gas prices dipped in below $2.50 in some parts of the country, people in Idaho are still paying around $3.00 a gallon.

If the Attorney General really wants to investigate a price-fixing cartel, he ought to be looking at Idaho’s public school monopoly. According to the Idaho State Department of Education, taxpayers are charged over $8,000 per student per year. In contrast, Idaho’s private schools are providing the service for around $4,000 a year. Given that K-12 public education is a $2 billion dollar a year industry, it looks like Idaho taxpayers are being overcharged $1 billion dollars a year. Idaho has around 470,000 households. If taxpayers could keep this billion dollars, each household would have an extra $2,127 to spend each year.

So what is the real cartel problem: being overcharged 50 cents on a gallon of gas, or $4,000 on tuition? Fortunately, gas prices are subject to competitive markets and reflect relative supply and demand. Unfortunately for taxpayers, public schools are protected from economic or political pressure. This is why spending increased 48 percent while enrollment increased only 4.8 percent over the past eight years.

If the Attorney General really cares about protecting Idahoans from price gouging, he should let the market take care of gas prices and focus his attention and taxpayer resources on eliminating the public school cartel.

Where Did $2.2 Billion Dollars Go?

2006-09-06T15:15:00.000-07:00

Over the past eight years, public school K-12 spending has grown ten-times faster than student enrollment. While student enrollment increased 4.8 percent, spending grew 48 percent.

If Idaho’s public schools had simply stayed as productive as they were eight years ago, taxpayers would have saved over $2.2 billion dollars. What justifies this additional cost? Academic achievement has not improved. If present trends continue for another eight years, Idaho taxpayers will be spending around $11,000 per student ADA per year. If this increase were paid for with sales taxes, the rate would have to be increased to around 12 percent.

Who’s in favor of this increase? Idaho must face the very real problem of productivity in public education. We continue to spend more and get less. Our best hope is to implement proven reforms that create incentives to be productive.

These reforms include offering vouchers and tax credits, recognizing the right of parents to choose the best school for their children, and inviting the private sector to participate. These reforms have proven to improve academic achievement and reduce costs wherever they have been implemented.

Otherwise, Idahoans better get ready to pay a lot more in taxes.

A Simple Solution to School Overcrowding

2006-09-06T11:52:00.000-07:00

Many Treasure Valley Schools are experiencing significant growth in student enrollment. Although Idaho reported average cost per student ADA in 2004-2005 at $8,071, the marginal cost, or cost to add a new student was $26,815! In financial terms, the Districts are suffering huge diseconomies of scale. The Districts have responded to this new growth by levying enormous new property tax bonds.

The good news for taxpayers and parents is that there are many excellent private schools that charge less than $4,000 per year in tuition. Idaho could do what has been done in Florida and other states and give parents vouchers to attend these other schools and not increase property taxes at all.

Overcrowded school districts could make room by simply offering vouchers to current and new students and let parents choose what school is best for their children. The Districts could keep raising the value of the voucher until the classrooms are at their target levels. This kind of economizing is frequently done in the airline and other industries.

Wouldn’t the fiscally responsible choice be to save taxpayers $22,815 per student by offering vouchers? It’s time to give school choice a chance at improving public education and lowering taxes.

More Productivity… Not More Taxes

2006-08-01T16:53:00.000-07:00

When thinking about public education its not how much we spend,
but what we get for the money that counts.

If Idaho’s district schools were as productive as North Star Public Charter School in Eagle or Thomas Jefferson Charter School in Caldwell, we could completely eliminate sales taxes and have a $114 million dollar surplus.

The 2004-2005 K-12 public education budget was almost $2 billion dollars. Sales tax revenue in 2004 was reported at around $886 million.

Idaho had 256,004 students attending public schools last year. Average daily attendance (ADA) was 241,291 students. For the 2004-2005 school year total expenditures per ADA were reported at $8,071.

But this only tells part of the story. On the average, only about 60% of Idaho’s students are meeting expected annual achievement growth. This means that it really costs $13,452 to produce a student that is considered proficient.

Progress is based on increasing productivity. This can only be accomplished in two ways: reduce inputs or increase outputs. In education this means reducing costs or increasing achievement growth rates.

Public charter schools have demonstrated remarkable improvements in productivity. These schools are spending less and producing more achievement.

While district schools are spending around $13,452 to produce a student meeting achievement growth targets, North Star did it for less than half, or around $6,355. The Eagle school spent $4,500 per student and reported 71% of their students meeting achievement growth targets. Thomas Jefferson costs per proficient student was $6,926. The Caldwell school spent $5,754 and reported 83% of their students meeting achievement growth targets.

The average between the two schools was $6,640 per student. This represents an astonishing 51% savings compared to district schools.

If this savings were applied to the K-12 public education budget, taxpayers could cut spending in half and save over a billion dollars at year in taxes.

Opening public education to more choice and competition will further improve productivity by lowering costs and increasing achievement growth. So why are we thinking about raising sales taxes to support a bloated monopoly when we really ought to consider eliminating sales taxes altogether by opening public education to parental choice and competition?

How to Make an F an A

2006-03-06T11:25:00.000-08:00

I discovered in 3rd grade how to convert an F into A with a little bit of creative penmanship. I can’t tell you how impressed my mom was with my academic progress when she saw my next report card. It now looks like the Idaho Department of Education (IDOE) is using the same technique to inflate student academic growth reports. According to the February 27, 2006 issue of the Wall Street Journal, the IDOE reported that 82% of eighth graders were deemed “proficient” in reading. At the same time, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) reported only 32%. How is this possible?

Idaho responded to the accountability requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act by creating the Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT). States were allowed to come up with their own tests and grading system. The temptation to dumb down tests and inflate grades is irresistible. When politicians make up and grade a test, you can expect everybody to get an A.

States are required to take part in NAEP reading and math tests in grades four and eight. An independent, bipartisan board sets NAEP’s standards and policies. The NAEP is a federally funded testing program that began in 1969 and functions as an indispensable external and honest auditor.

According to the Chester Finn and Diane Ravitch, the authors of the WSJ article, NAEP has three standards “basic,” “proficient,” and “advanced.” “Basic” denoted “partial mastery of knowledge and skills.” “Advanced” signified “superior performance beyond grade-level mastery.” “Proficient,” though, was the key. It is “the central level,” representing “solid academic performance for each grade tested” and “a consensus that students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter and are well prepared for the next level of schooling.”

How difficult is “proficient” for fourth grade math? “Fourth graders performing at the proficient level should be able to use whole numbers to estimate, compute, and determine whether results are reasonable. They should have a conceptual understanding of fractions and decimals; be able to solve real-world problems in all NAEP content areas; and use four-function calculators, rulers and geometric shapes appropriately.” Is this too much to expect? Hardly. America's great education problem is that for years we settled for “basic skills” rather than true proficiency. We can be certain that China and India don’t consider the ISAT to be the standard for their students.

If we want to assure our students and our country a secure future in the highly competitive global economy, we don’t need sugarcoated statistics, we need the truth, even if it is painful.

Fortunately for me, my mom and my 3rd grade teacher didn’t worry too much about my self-esteem. After a visit with the “board” of education, I discontinued enhancing my report card and went to work memorizing my multiplication tables. Real self-esteem is the result of achievement, not pretension. Thanks Mom and Mrs. Coffman for truth and accountability.

Should Math and Science Teachers Demand a Refund from the Teachers Union?

2006-02-24T14:59:00.000-08:00

Am I the only one that finds it ironic that the Idaho Education Association is opposed to giving math and science teachers an increase in salary? I guess I was confused, I thought unions were supposed to increase wages.

Based on IEA recommendations, Idaho senators rejected a proposal 21-13 to give math and science teachers a 3.75 percent pay raise. So much for all those union dues. It seems that most Senators either don’t understand the basic laws of economics, or pretend they don’t apply to public education. ”This opens the door to warfare in the school,” cried Sen. Denton Darrington, a former social studies teacher. Darrington didn’t explain why schools were currently so peaceful given the fact that teacher salaries range from $27,500 to over $65,000 a year. What doesn’t make sense is to pay a P.E. or social studies teacher $65,000 and a physics or trigonometry teacher $27,500.

This huge differential in teacher salary has nothing to do with productivity or the relative importance of calisthenics versus calculus. Under the present salary schedule, when a teacher has a birthday, or takes a summer class, a pay raise is automatic. Only a union would design such a system. Oh, I forgot, the IEA did design the system.

Sen. John Andreason, who voted against the proposal, said, “Those who are closest to the process really know how to run the process…I'm talking about the state boards, the school boards in our local districts, the superintendents, the principals ...”  Wait a second Senator, I thought paying math and science teachers more was the State Board’s idea?

Social studies teacher Sen. Edgar Malepeai said that teaching is a team project and individuals should not be singled out for higher pay. He didn’t mention the current $27,500 to $65,000 pay range nor did he propose one salary for all teachers regardless of years of service or subject taught. “No one person is responsible for the overall development of the student,” he said. “This bill, ladies and gentlemen, is going to cause a disruption. This is not good for the organization.” Precisely. The IEA and Senator Malepeai are deeply opposed to disrupting their monopoly with any kind of teacher accountability or pay schedules that recognize and reward highly productive teachers. If we applied Malepeai’s logic across the board, janitors would be paid the same as neurosurgeons. Marx and Mao would surely vote for Edgar’s logic. Fortunately for the workers of the world, Gorbachev ultimately realized that equality of salaries insured lowest common denominator quality. By rejecting market-based salaries, the Idaho Senate continues its relentless pursuit of mediocrity for public education.

Ask a superintendent or principal if it is as easy to find chemistry teacher as a choir teacher. It isn’t that we “value” music any less than mathematics; it’s simply supply and demand. There are always lots more people lined up to teach social studies than statistics.

Most people value water more than gasoline. So why doesn’t it cost more to fill up your tub than your tank? Would it make you feel better about how you “value” water if you paid $10.00 a gallon instead of less than one cent a gallon? The price difference is not due to value but supply and demand. The same is true for teachers, and plumbers, and engineers, and cardiovascular surgeons. We pay people a lot who are good at doing things that are really hard.

We must stop pretending that teaching algebra is as easy as teaching history.
We need to toss out the union’s rigid pay scale and give superintendents and principals the flexibility to recruit talented and productive teachers and pay them according to the market. By refusing to recognize the need to pay teachers based upon their productivity in key subject areas, the U.S. will surrender it's technological leadership to China and India.

The only way to create a truly world-class education system is to harness the power of free-market competition and parental choice. This will never happen as long as Idaho’s politicians are in collusion with the IEA to prevent choice and avoid accountability. In the mean time, math and science teachers need to ask the IEA for a refund.

When Colleges Compete – Everybody Wins

2006-02-03T10:15:00.000-08:00

It’s too bad high school diplomas have lost so much of their value. It appears that some Idaho public high schools have been printing diplomas like North Korea has been printing $20 dollar bills. The current craze to fix problem high schools is to create community colleges. These “colleges” are designed to re-educate high school graduates that didn’t seem to learn much in high school. Maybe the State should require that high schools provide money-back guarantees on their diplomas. Given the fact that the cost to taxpayers to produce a high school graduate is $120,000, some kind of warranty should be expected.

BSU was all in favor of the idea of a new community college. More students equal more money. Fortunately for students and taxpayers, several other colleges want to get into this game as well. We strongly suspect that what BSU really wants is an exclusive monopoly. Now it has become a turf war. Both the College of Southern Idaho (CSI) and Treasure Valley Community College (TVCC) want to expand into the lucrative Boise market. In the case of TVCC, Oregon taxpayers want to subsidize the education of Idaho students. What could be better?

There are lots of choices when it comes to higher education in Boise. BSU, U of I, ISU, NNU, and Albertson College have been offering courses and degrees here for a long time. George Fox and University of Phoenix recently entered the market. There are also a number of on-line and executive education programs provide courses tailored to student needs and time schedules. Did you know that University of Phoenix was founded in 1976 and is the largest private university in the world with over 170 campuses in 33 states? How can a college grow that large and that fast if it wasn’t providing good value? The bottom line is that competition is making all of these colleges better.

The reason our public K-12 public education system is so lethargic and costly is there is no competition. Imagine what our public education system could be like if there was robust competition? The greatest obstacle to improving public education is monopoly, not competition. By granting territorial monopolies to school district bureaucracies, we have insured mediocrity and higher and higher costs.

The last thing the legislature should do is grant an exclusive monopoly to any organization to create a community college. If our legislature really wants to improve public education and lower costs, the first thing it should do is open K-12 to free markets and parental choice. A little bit of choice and competition can go along way. In the mean time, take the diploma printing press away from high schools by making them guarantee their product.

BYU-Idaho Gets It: Productivity Not Spending

2006-01-23T12:36:00.000-08:00

Kim B. Clark was recently appointed President of BYU-Idaho. He is the former Dean of Harvard Business School. In his inaugural speech he outlined three “imperatives” for the University: raise quality, serve more students, and lower relative costs. Idaho’s Governor and legislature would do well to apply all of these imperatives to public education, particularly the third. President Clark has clarified a major issue in education as being one of productivity not spending.

Productivity is simply output divided by input. In education, output is achievement growth and input is cost. When it comes to public education, elected officials and policymakers have confused spending with productivity. It’s like arguing that if I pay more for gas that you do, that my car must be getting better mileage than your car.

According to Harvard University economist Caroline M. Hoxby, productivity in the U.S. economy soared an impressive 60 percent between 1970 and 2000 in terms of output per hour, but productivity in U.S. public schools fell by 42 percent over the same period in terms of achievement per dollar spent.

If Idaho’s public schools were only as productive as they were in 1970, education spending would be 42% lower. With the Idaho State Department of Education reporting $1.872 billion spent on public education in 2003-2004, a 42 percent savings would total $786 million a year. This is around $1,550 per family. What could your family do with an extra $1,550 per year? If public education were as productive as the general U.S. economy over the past three decades, the average Idaho family would have almost $2,400 extra in tax savings each year. Many families could use this money to save for college, pay down the mortgage, or perhaps invest in a new business.

We wish President Clark luck in making progress towards all three of his imperatives at BYU-Idaho. We also hope the legislature can focus on improving productivity instead increasing spending. Remember it’s the mileage that counts, not the price of gas.

Time to Let Capitalism Solve the Public Education Crisis

2005-12-30T14:05:00.000-08:00

Imagine paying almost $8,000 a year for a product that didn’t work 40% of the time. Would you want your money back? Further imagine that the company selling the product not only refused to refund your money, but also asked the government to protect them from competition and require you to buy from them and only them. Who would tolerate this for a nanosecond?

Recent ISAT scores report that more than 40% of Idaho’s public school students failed to meet their expected academic growth. Last year taxpayers were billed $7,733 per student. Factoring in the failure rate, the real cost to produce a student that met expected growth was over $13,000. This is simply outrageous.

At the same time the average Idaho teacher is being paid an effective annualized rate of $35 per hour. Adding insult to injury, the teacher’s union wants to raise the sales tax rate by 20% to further enhance their salaries at taxpayer’s expense. Now the Idaho Supreme Court has jumped into the game by requiring the legislature to pay the cost to construct new school buildings for districts that overspend on employees.

The present government-funded and government-protected system is horribly dysfunctional. Of course the cartel will claim that if they just had more money, they could solve these problems. Forty years of history tells a different story. The more money that goes into this monopoly, the less it produces. The present system is holding taxpayers and students hostage.

The good news is that there is a solution. Capitalism has created the greatest wealth in history with a simple system of incentives. We can expect capitalism to do the same for public education. A little bit of competition can go a long way. Since private enterprise is directly accountable to customers who are paying the bill, it generally charges half of what a government bureaucracy costs. What would it be like if the public education system stood behind their products with money-back guarantees like private enterprise?

With district monopolies failing to provide quality services for 40% of our children, isn’t time to give someone else a chance to serve our students? What do we have to lose? The legislature must offer vouchers and tax credits to create a real market in public education. Idaho’s 114 district fiefdoms need competition. Competition will give our kids a quality education and taxpayers real value for their money. Competition has made America’s higher education system the envy of the world. Let’s use it to help K-12 education.

The present public education system has proven to be woefully inadequate in creating the human capital necessary to be successful in a global network economy. A voucher or tax credit of $3,500 could save taxpayers millions and dramatically improve quality. Imagine great companies like Apple Computer or Fed Ex or Hewlett Packard creating schools for our kids at half the current cost.

The idea of parents freely choosing which school is best for their children in an open market terrifies many of those who have grown comfortable enjoying the tremendous benefits of a government financed and protected monopoly. You can expect these beneficiaries to demonize anyone that threatens their cartel. They will claim that competition will destroy public schools. On the contrary, competition will save public education by destroying this cartel of fiscal abuse and incompetence. History has proven that we can trust freedom and capitalism over a unionized government monopoly. Ask the East Germans what they prefer. We have nothing to fear from capitalism in public education but lower taxes and better schools.

For more analysis: www.edexidaho.org