Good education policy is more than just total spending

If you're the kind of person that likes to read Michigan based conservative media sources, which being on the Detroit News website suggests you do, you have seen a trend recently of these sites claiming that under Rick Snyder education spending is on the rise. Some like my colleague Darren Littell, the MIGOP Communications Director, do so because they have skin the game and need Governor Rick Snyder to look like a champion of the people. Other sources like Michigan Capital Confidential and the Mackinac Center make this argument because they realize the public believes education spending is important and they want Republicans in as many positions of power as possible.

The problem in reading these slanted opinions on Michigan's education spending is that these people really don't believe in education spending. For example one author has an article touting that under Rick Snyder "Funding has indisputably increased" only to turn around two days later and publish an article titled 'States Spending Less Money On K-12 Education Get Better Results'.

If more funding for education is a bad thing then why argue that Rick Snyder, the Republican in the governor’s race, has increased spending? Shouldn't conservatives stick to their core beliefs regardless of the party designation of the guy doing the spending? One doubts that if the roles were reversed these conservatives would write this many glowing articles defending a Democratic governor that increased education spending.

Having said that, it is tough to understand who these authors are trying to convince with these articles. Republicans really don't want to spend more on education and the number gymnastics necessary to claim that funding has indisputably increased are completely lost on Democrats who are well aware of the reality that since the turn of the century inflation adjusted state education spending in Michigan has fallen by 24%. While these authors are more than happy to ignore inflation to manipulate low information voters it seems unlikely they would have such a positive view of nominal value if it were their wages that had experienced a real 24% drop.

Most people also understand that in order to make the numbers work for Rick Snyder's supposed per pupil increase you have to include the additional money going into the pension system for educators. A fact that many conservatives latch on to in order to advocate for cutting teachers wages even further.

Yet this too is a completely disingenuous position considering that a portion of the money the governor claims as "new spending" comes from an increase in pension contributions by teachers. This robbing Peter to pay Paul situation hardly qualifies as the concerted devotion to improving education by the governor that many conservatives pretend it does.

Of course the governor and his Republican cohorts are partly to blame for this sudden need for pension funding since their putative cost cutting reform measures like charter schools and early retirement have increased the number of retiree’s collection pensions while simultaneously decreasing the number of educators contributing to the fund.

Not only have these decisions resulted in less money ending up in the classroom they have also lead to a near 7% drop in teachers employed in Michigan on the governors watch. Odd that a group so interest in increasing education spending and creating jobs has so little concern over the loss of more than 4,000 teaching jobs.

So while some conservative voters who would typically oppose increased government spending contort their beliefs in the hopes of retaining power for their party, most voters recognize that in terms of real dollars Rick Snyder is committing less state funds currently to education than at any point under the previous administration. And while clever manipulation of per pupil funding allows the governor to claim a spending increase, the amount of money flowing to classrooms has indisputably declined. Obfuscation won't change these facts.

Having said that if you're the kind of person that likes to read Michigan based conservative media sources, this reality is unlikely to change your mind. But for those who put the educational outcomes of Michigan's children above their political affiliation, this bizarre obsession with a total spending statistic that is nothing more than an immaterial election year ploy is deeply disheartening.

Don't let Michigan Republicans fool you again.

The Michigan legislature has been tilting left recently and the conservative media has taken notice. Some have lamented this shift towards typically liberal policies as turning away from the roots of Republican ideology while others have claimed this change proves Republican lawmakers are working across the aisle.

The reality is that Michigan legislators are no different than any other legislators - their number one goal is to stay in power and with the elections fast approaching Michigan's Republican officeholders are looking for ways to remove the extremist stench they doused themselves in shortly after the 2012 election cycle ended.

So while Republican legislators have shown interest recently in things like raising the minimum wage, increasing education funding, blocking an expansion of the Education Achievement Authority (EAA), increasing taxes to address crumbling roads, and using public funds to save the DIA and help pensioners, their record suggests the sudden interest in portraying themselves as pragmatic moderates has far more to do with getting re-elected than some sort of magnanimous bipartisanship.

This legislative window dressing should help quell the fears of some independents about the radical agenda many Republicans across the nation have been pursuing however it is important to remember that these compromises only represent a small portion of the legislative actions with which these individuals should be judged by.

One of the first acts of Rick Snyder and the Republican majority was to cut taxes for corporations and offset the loss of revenue by taxing the elderly. A move that the governor claimed would create jobs yet Michigan still trails most states in growth.

This corporate giveaway also came at the expense of Michigan's burgeoning film industry since incentives that were drawing an increasing number of film studios to the area were slashed to put a few bucks in the hands of important donors.

The legislature has made a point to increasing funding to education recently yet data shows that since 2007 inflation adjusted education spending in Michigan is short some $1.5 billion. It also true that a portion of the money that Republicans claim they added came directly out of teachers paychecks. Cutting teacher’s wages to claim spending is up does not show Republicans are as dedicated to improving education as they would like you to believe.

In December of last year the legislature passed a bill requiring women to buy additional insurance coverage for removing a collection of cells. To make matters worse the Republican legislature enacted this attack on women's rights without the consent of the voters or the governor as both were bypassed in this process.

Shortly after voters decided they didn't want the government to have the power to void local election results and force an emergency manager on struggling cities, Republicans ignored the will of the people and passed a new emergency manager law that thanks to subversive legislative trick could no longer be put up for a vote of the people.

The legislature also decided to take local control of education away from a most Detroit parents and hand it over to a corporate entity which has been losing students at an alarming rate.

In retaliation for a union effort to secure the rights of workers to organize and collectively bargain, the governor signed "right to work" legislation that allows individuals to opt out of the democratic process while restricting unions from enjoying this same freedom of choice. This legislation was yet another win Republicans handed to their big corporate donors and a loss for Michigan since reports show that 7 of the 9 slowest growing state economies are in RTW states.

When discussing legislation to restrict women right to decide what she can and cannot do with her own body Republicans banned Representative Lisa Brown for using the word vagina. Apparently free speech has its limits.

Governor Rick Snyder used Indiana as the model for reviving the Michigan economy yet data shows the tax cutting policies the governor has championed are far less effective than the tax and spend policies of states like Minnesota.

The Republican legislature attempted to make absentee voting in Michigan more difficult to quell their unsubstantiated voter fraud fears.

Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette is fighting to keep same sex couples from their dream of marriage equality even though the courts have determined his position to be unconstitutional.

So while Republicans have spent the last few months putting lipstick on the pig that is their legislative priorities, it is important for voters to remember that the softened positions these individuals are taking now don't represent a true Republican agenda. If it did the conservative media won't spend so much time pointing out how recent legislation represents a departure from core Republican values.

As George W. Bush once said "Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!” If Michigan voters forget the litany of grotesquely sectarian legislation Republicans crammed into the last lame duck session and give them another unfettered opportunity they shouldn't be surprised when many of these same legislators abandon their new found love of compromise and force more hyper partisan laws on Michigan residents.

Un-armed survivor is better than a dead hero

Gun rights advocates often assert that discussing solutions for gun violence shortly after a mass shooting is a bad idea. Given the propensity for gun violence in the US such rhetoric serves as convenient cover to any meaningful change. Ironically while these people feel waiting to discuss the role of guns in mass murders is a good thing, asking individuals to wait even one day to purchase a gun is borderline unconstitutional.

Of course this is only one of many parlor tricks groups like the NRA use in an attempt to defend their increasingly fringe positions. The current favorite misdirection tactic comes from NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre who said after 20 children and 6 adults were gunned down at school in Newtown Connecticut "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".

Unfortunately far too many people believe this statement instead of see it for what it is - a desperate attempt to discourage any reasonable gun restrictions that might save lives.

Data shows that of the 62 mass murders over the past 30 years zero of the attackers in a mass shooting were stopped by a good guy with a gun. Is it possible that a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun? Sure. But do you really want to bet your life on that possibility? There are a number of examples of how this NRA manufactured meme is more fiction than fact but one recent attack in Las Vegas offers a realistic picture of the dangers of an army of armed "good guys".

In this instance Jerad and Amanda Miller shoot two police officers at a restaurant and then headed to a nearby Wal-Mart where Jerad Miller was confronted by Joseph Wilcox, who had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Unfortunately for Wilcox he was unaware that there was a second armed assailant, and it cost him his life. Perhaps more people would have died were it not for the heroic act of Joseph Wilcox or perhaps the couple would have left the customers unharmed.

The problem is that a good guy with a gun has a completely different goal than the bad guy with a gun. The goal of the bad guy is often to harm as many people as possible and they are typically willing to die for their cause. The goal of the good guy is to save as many lives as possible including that of the bad guy, while not getting shot themselves. The good guy also has the distinct disadvantage of being in a rational state of mind. For the good guy taking the life of another human being is, as it should be, the last resort. For the bad guy this is likely their sole purpose.

The reality is that a good guy is restricted by rules. Even if this Wal-Mart had a guard posted at the entrance, that guard wouldn't be allowed to shoot and kill any customer they deemed a threat without that threat being crystal clear. The bad guy on the other hand has no such restrictions. They will shoot those with guns first and take hostages to shield themselves from armed vigilantes.

Of course Joseph Wilcox probably had no formal training on how to handle this sort of situation. He also had no way of knowing that the individual he was confronting had already killed two cops. Police officers have made being prepared to engage and subdue criminals their job/life mission yet many are still caught off guard. Do we really think simply owning a gun or taking a couple classes makes an individual qualified to properly assess the scene and determine the best course of action when faced with an armed aggressor?

Without this training very few people will be able to determine if the individual walking into their local Chipotle carrying an assault rifle is a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun. Of all the mass murders over the past three decades about 3/4 of the guns owned by the assailants were purchased legally. They may have very well been a good guy with a gun until something happened that turned them into a bad guy with a gun.

But perhaps the worst part of Wayne LaPierre's statement is the "only" portion of it. Are we really supposed to believe that ending gun violence requires every American to carry a gun? Some countries with the lowest gun ownership numbers also happen to be the countries with the lowest gun violence rates. Perhaps what we should focus on is finding ways to keep guns from ending up in the hands of bad guys instead of creating a country full of trained assassins. Polls show that 90% of the population supports mandatory background checks including closing the gun show loophole that allows felons to purchase guns without determining that person's criminal history or mental state. You don't have to support a repeal of the 2nd amendment to recognize that in most states you are required to present more information to vote or own a car than you need to purchase a gun.

Unfortunately for the NRA and gun diehards their 2nd amendment rights are an all or nothing proposition. What may be common sense changes to gun laws for the vast majority of the country are seen as a communist affront to freedom by gun rights advocates. The problem is that if you are the type of person that believes even the slightest restriction on guns is a full frontal assault on your most basic rights then you might just be one straw on the camel short of becoming the bad guy with a gun we keep hearing so much about.

Ending tenure could cause more problems than it solves

For supporters of education reform a recent decision by California Judge Rolf Treu ruling teacher tenure unconstitutional was transformational. Now schools can freely fire bad teachers and put the US back on top as the best educational system in the world.

Of course very few legal battles end after one court decision and this case will be no different. As if often a complaint in controversial court cases some see this as an activist judge letting his political views get in the way of a reasoned decision.

For example by concluding that the due process protections afforded to educators under tenure denied students "equal opportunity to achieve a quality education" Judge Treu seems to ignore the fact that correlation does not prove causation. If tenure unfairly protects teachers then there should be a considerably higher number of teachers fired per year at schools where tenure is not available. Data shows that is not the case. Believing tenure is to blame for low termination rates and proving that tenure keeps bad teachers in the classroom are two very different things.

Additionally if Judge Treu believes that tenure results in the retention of bad teachers which leads to an unequal opportunity for students to achieve then he must believe that the counterfactual is true. This means Judge Treu feels that hiring new teachers will lead to equal opportunity for all students because if it doesn't then the correlation between tenure and student achievement is anecdotal. Unfortunately data shows that new hires are less effective than their more experienced counterparts. Given that 46% of teachers leave the profession in the first five years it should come as no surprise that those individuals that administrators have observed, mentored and granted tenure are more skilled than those fresh out of college.

It should also be noted that in many parts of the country there is a shortage of quality educators waiting in the wings. Giving administrators additional tools to remove bad teachers only improves educational outcomes if the replacement teacher is more adept. A study of New York schools shows a school can hire as many as 11 teachers before finding one highly effective teacher which suggests students are likely to experience years of poor teaching and turnover before getting a better option. In this regard Judge Treu is like the football fan who wants to trade his starting QB because he believes anyone else would be an improvement when the reality is not every teacher is going to be the Peyton Manning of teachers and not every backup is magically superior to the starter. If the current system doesn't allow for equal opportunity making it unconstitutional then if the judge’s solution only exacerbates the problem would it not also be unconstitutional?

Judge Treu also mentioned the cost of removing a tenured teacher as reason to remove these protections, however such a concern is irrelevant to this conversation. The expenses involved in firing a teacher are the result of any number of free market exchanges which are extrinsic to the equal opportunity argument at the core of this discussion. Additionally the cost of due process should not be a reason to deny a person their due process. However if costs were important then the judge should also consider the costs associated with removing tenure protections.

A study of the costs of teacher turnover in Texas found the replacement cost to be over $56,000. It is also true that the documentation and mediation process of tenure helps schools avoid many wrongful termination lawsuits which can cost a school district millions in damages on top of the standard court costs associated with these sorts of cases.

Some technocrats have discovered that many "bad" teachers simply need additional training to improve their skill set. The cost of this instruction is likely far less than the expense of replacing these teachers while yielding quicker results. This suggests if Judge Treu's goal is to provide equal opportunity to all students he would spend more time focusing on what improves these opportunities than postulating about what doesn't.

If he took this tact he would notice that in Washington DC charter schools expel 72 of every 10,000 students while the public schools only expelled 1 per every 10,000. Bad students take up a considerable amount of a teacher’s time and energy leaving the other students in the classroom with fewer opportunities to learn. Perhaps the key to improving the student’s access to high quality teaching requires giving public schools the same flexibility charter schools have to remove "bad students". If this inequality between schools reduces the educational opportunities for students to learn then perhaps this legislative double standard, giving preference to charter schools, should be ruled unconstitutional as well.

Perhaps the problems are not with tenure but instead with the administrators that do the hiring. Chicago schools were given the green light to fire poor performing teachers however some 40% of schools fired zero teachers. If our urban schools are crawling with ineffective educators then why wouldn't these administrators seize this opportunity? Could it be that the whole "bad teachers" meme is a fallacy or is there a similar epidemic of "bad administrators"? Either way eliminating tenure will not have the desired effect reformers believe it will.

Of course supporters will find out such a change is not all sunshine and rainbows since it will have unintended consequences. For example this change will allow administrators to remove highly effective teachers for any number of non-performance based reasons. They could fire the most experienced teachers simply to cut costs. Such a situation would likely provide students with less opportunity not more. Teachers could also be fired for having a different set of political beliefs. Imagine the outrage from reformers when a teacher gets fired because of their views on abortion or religion? Would you want to be the teacher in charge of educating the principle or superintendents kids when reprimanding that student or giving them a poor grade could cost you your job?

If this ruling is upheld it will likely impact other sectors of education as much if not more than it does teachers. For instance in New Jersey this same equal opportunity argument was used to in a decision that stated schools with different funding levels due to property tax rates amounted to a discriminatory practice since all students were then not treated equal. While this might be good for all students it also smacks of the socialist redistribution policies that many reformers would not typically support.

While attempting to give all students access to a high quality of education is an admirable goal Judge Treu appears to be living in an information vacuum since the data on tenure and retention of bad teachers is hardly as definitive and causational as he seems to believe it is. Making matters worse it seems the real world impact of this decision could increase a school’s legal costs while making the equal opportunity for students to achieve less, not more likely.

In the end this "win" could end up being a huge loss for the people who need it the most.

Republicans used to support "job killing" minimum wage increases

The public's opinion of a particular political action is often colored by that person's political affiliation. So even when the president adopts Republican strategies like he has done with education, immigration, health care reform, and military actions people will find fault with policies they previously supported.

Unfortunately this sort of blind opposition permeates current US politics and leads many to use their dislike for a person or party as the basis of their position.

For instance when discussing the topic of minimum wage recently many act as though there is a clear division of right and wrong where Republicans understand the impact of raising the minimum wage while most Democrats are just too dim to get it. However history shows that the two most recent increases enjoyed bi-partisan support. The 1997 increase was sponsored by Texas Republican Bill Archer and passed by a Republican controlled House and Senate before eventually being signed into law by Bill Clinton.

The same is true of the 2007 increase that garnered the support of Republicans in both the House and Senate before it reached the desk of George W. Bush. What could have possibly changed that makes minimum wage so terrible now?

Of course admitting you dislike something because the other side supports it is something almost no one is willing to do so that forces people to look for information to support their conclusion. For example conservatives have linked the increase in minimum wage to a loss of jobs for young people. The data to support such a claim seems to be mainly anecdotal however many topics like this become a matter of faith so definitive causation is not necessary for widespread acceptance. Having said that if all that is required for this debate is a casual correlation then it should be noted that youth unemployment in the US between 1997 and 2011 jumped 6% while the youth unemployment rate of the same time frame for Denmark, a country which has no minimum wage, increase by a nearly identical 5.9%. Perhaps the minimum wage increase is to blame for the 0.1% difference between the two countries over that 15 year span however it is hardly a smoking gun that proves the minimum wage kills jobs.

Additionally data shows that the number of youth choosing to participate in the workforce has been steadily declining for the last forty years. Are minimum wage increases to blame for the bulk of this drop or is it possible that other factors like the rise in elderly employees is affecting teen jobless rates?

If youth employment numbers are so critical to the success of the country then why did Republicans ever agree to a single increase in the minimum wage? Why not oppose all changes to wages and instead offer a litany of bills to address this apparent calamity? The complete vacuum of legislation from Republicans suggests their current concern over this rate is anything but genuine.

While feigning concern over youth employment has paid off well, part of the reason Republicans have never addressed the falling youth participation rate has to do with the fact that many teenagers are choosing to pass on menial jobs and instead focus on other more meaningful opportunities that address the same core themes of punctuality and responsibility. As such, it has been reported that while less teens are working, this generation crams more into a typical day than any previous generation.

It is also true that the current system is already set up to favor rich kids. Given that most Republican policies are geared towards placating the wealthy, expecting them to do anything that levels the playing field for the less privileged with no political gain would be a stretch.

Of course the anecdotal evidence doesn't stop there. To show just how awful the minimum wage is for the youth or the poor many point to low paying professions of the past and conclude that the reason they don't exist is the repressive minimum wage. My colleague Gary Wolfram even wrote a diatribe based on his personal experience with attempting to fuel his vehicle to suggest that were it not for wage requirements tens of thousands of youth would be employed at service stations across the US pumping gas. If this were true then countries without a minimum wage would be teaming with full service gas stations since the only possible reason to employ modern technology must be the minimum wage. Yet, data shows this to be a quixotic position since the prevalence of full service gas stations in countries without a minimum wage, like Denmark, are no different than the US.

The reality is US history is filled with inventions aimed at using less man power and speeding up production long before the first minimum wage came into effect. If it can be done faster and cheaper using a machine then a company is likely to automate. But beyond that do we really want people working for $2.00 an hour simply to claim we have a lower unemployment rate?

The goal should be to get as many people as possible good paying jobs that allow them to support a family without government assistance. If Republicans think the minimum wage is an awful way of accomplishing that goal then all they have to do is offer a different solution that encourages companies to give a slightly greater share of their profits to the hard working men and women who helped earn it instead of sitting on record amounts of cash and rewarding shareholders for their trivial participation. If Republicans believe in their job creation dogma anywhere near as much as their political ads suggest they do, advocating for policies that have proven to keep money out of the economy is exceedingly counterproductive. By why let reality get in the way of a politically motivated predetermined conclusion?