During the State of the Union President Obama returned to his roots with impassioned talk about some core liberal policies. To no one's surprise, conservatives were not moved. Sean Hannity said the Obama administration "has exhibited an astounding level of tone deafness...and this State of the Union falls into that category". Glenn Beck suggested the president's speech was nothing but a cash grab - "all he’s doing is just raising money for the campaign". And Rush Limbaugh didn't even need to watch the State of the Union to determine that he hated everything the president had to say.
Of course these three hardly represent the intellectual wing of the conservative pundit class. Unfortunately even some of the more respected conservative media members still managed to dumb down the conversation. For example, while discussing the presidents statements regarding climate change on Real Time this weekend Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens used two seemingly logical but errant arguments in an attempt to reframe the debate.
A recent survey of peer reviewed articles on climate change showed that only 2 out of 10855 articles believe that humans aren't causing global warming. In response to this Stephens said "consensus should not rule science" because "we think of great scientific discovery as proceeding from people who are willing to break with consensus and that's why we honor people like Galileo". Obviously part of the reason Stephens uses Galileo as an example of a contrarian who revolutionized science is that technology of today makes it very easy to determine that the Earth is round and that the planets rotate around the sun. As such, modern history no longer includes these sorts of great discoveries.
Another problem for Stephens is that fact when there are scientific breakthroughs that gain scientific consensus they are not subsequently disproven. The initial theories on excess CO2 included both global cooling and global warming. What followed was years of scientific research that determined the affects of CO2 on the Earth were indeed an increase in temperature over time and a consensus that humans were responsible for some of this increase. The reality is we are getting close to consensus on climate change not further despite increased spending on research by climate deniers.
Pretending that a few holdouts with no new evidence are on the precipice of a scientific breakthrough simply because it suits you agenda can have dangerous results. Just ask the parents who refused to have their kids vaccinated because one "scientist" claimed to find a link to autism.
Scientific consensus has no political bias. It represents the research and results of hundreds or thousands of scientist which is why even studies like the one mainly funded by the Koch bothers have concluded that climate change is real and caused by humans.
Given that the science and the history of scientific discovery so obviously disputes his thesis Stephens decided if he couldn't shoot holes in climate change using science he would use economics instead. He referenced an economic model put together by some of the worlds brightest minds, known as the Copenhagen Consensus, which ranks the "bang for the buck" of a number of issues facing the international community. The point which Stephens attempts to make is that climate change ranks very low on using this measure.
While it is true that this economic analysis does show reaching the 2 centigrade target is a poor investment, it also indicates that spending on Energy Technology RD&D is a fairly good use of our money. The results suggest we should refocus our efforts to combat climate change on research and development not that we should forgo combating climate change all together.
Having said that, if Stephens supports using return on investment as a basis for political policy he should be prepared to swallow a big helping of medicine that will taste very bad going down for he and many other conservatives.
Behind free trade the number one item on Copenhagen Consensus list is "Women's Access to Reproductive Health". When discussing what this means the reports points out that the "empowerment to control their own fertility is an important pre-condition to achieve all the other targets in this paper". The idea of women being in control of their own fertility has certainly had many conservative detractors in recent years.
Second on the list is making beneficial ownership information public. While this should eliminate some money laundering schemes that conservative may like it would also reduce privacy for individuals and entities and add some government regulations both of which have drawn the ire of Republicans over the past few years.
Third on the list is increasing migration which they have defined in part as reducing the barriers to migration "between low and middle-income countries and high-income countries". Clearly this is something few conservatives have supported since Obama took office.
Of course other organization have done similar economic based political analysis and found that ideas championed by Republicans (Bush income tax cuts, Capital gains tax cuts, and Corporate tax cuts) have a much lower ROI than items like Food Stamps, Unemployment benefits, and Infrastructure Spending.
If Stephens believes that political policy should be dictated by economic analysis it seems many liberals would be more than happy with such a change even if that meant a decreased focus on certain environmental targets since this sort of study bolsters that case for a myriad of other liberal policies.
Perhaps the current solutions to fight climate change aren't very efficient and this money could be allocated better but it is difficult to take this sort of advice seriously from people whose denial of science is second only to that of the Flat Earth Society.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Political pundits don't understand free speech
The attack on the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo has ignited a number of conversations about free speech. Unfortunately most of the media people who talk about free speech either don't understand it or intentionally mislead their viewers.
In the U.S. the right for a publication to print satire of a public figure has been guaranteed. This means that any U.S. entity that chooses to mock the prophet Muhammad has the right to do so. The question becomes what is in good taste. Would Americans be as accepting of the free speech rights of Charlie Hebdo if they portrayed Jesus Christ as a pedophile or if they mocked the victims of the 9/11 attacks? While satirist are legally able to do these things it would probably be considered offensive by some Americans and any publication that chose to distribute such satire would likely be boycotted - which is covered by the first amendment - or threatened with violence - which is typically not covered.
Clearly free speech is a basic tenant of American life and the attack on the Charlie Hebdo office offers a unique opportunity to discuss its value. Unfortunately many like Eric Bolling of Fox News decided to use this attack to push a biased political ideology. During a January 9th of 'The Five' Bolling went off the deep end of an already crowded pool. Bolling said "The people who at Brandeis University, Rutgers, Harvard, Berkeley, this year alone, who have killed free speech, who have actually had people disinvited to speeches .... align more closely with the terrorists in Paris than they do with the people from Charlie Hebdo."
The reality is that none of the speakers were actually disinvited as Bolling suggests. Some decided to pull out rather than face protesters while others gave their commencement speeches in spite of the uproar. Of course to some extent Fox News has only themselves to blame for the continued protests. Instead of covering every gathering of students that objects to a conservative hero's presence on campus, giving them a platform to be heard, Fox News could simply ignore them. It should also be noted that Fox News had no such issue with Notre Dame students protesting President Obama's commencement speech in 2009.
Regardless of the political affiliation of the speaker the argument that their statements or actions were out of step with the values of the University are the same.
More concerning however, is that Bolling doesn't recognize that protesting these speakers isn't actually a restriction on their freedom of speech in any way. Even if these speakers had actually been uninvited it still would not represent a restriction of free speech. Condoleezza Rice could have given the exact same speech at a sight off campus instead of being forced to endure the confines of a commencement speech. IMF head Christine Lagarde could have posted her commencement speech on social media sites for millions of people to read instead of limiting it to just Smith College graduates and their families. James Franco could have done a talk show tour sharing his thoughts instead of being subject to protesters at UCLA.
It could also be argued that by protesting, these students are actually increasing the speaker’s free speech since various news outlets will cover the controversy and undoubtedly spread the speakers words to a new audience.
Of course if simply deciding not to allow an individual a bully pulpit is an attack on the freedom of speech then Fox News could be cited for impeding the president's rights when they chose not to air his speech regarding the impending executive action on immigration. They could also be sanctioned for allowing a guest to make statements of fact that were untrue since such errant assertions are not covered by the first amendment.
This misunderstanding or misuse of free speech isn't exclusive to conservative pundits. Bill Maher was also the target of protests over his comments on Muslims and the Islamic faith. In defending himself Bill took a page out of the Fox News play book and suggested that any person who attempts to get Rush Limbaugh removed from the airwaves is "just a baby who can't stand to live in a world where you here things that upset you." On this point Maher couldn't be more wrong.
Maher has made a career out of skewering people he disagrees with. He may not have caused celebrities like Lance Armstrong, Paula Deen, and Tiger Woods to lose sponsors but he certainly participated in heightening the profile of their indiscretions making it more likely they would be a target of increased scrutiny which may or may not cost them money. Intentional or not the results could be the same.
The average citizen doesn't have an HBO show with a team of writers where they can finely craft and air their grievances. To make up for this lack of audience these people band together and exercise their own right to free speech by shining a light on people who they find offensive.
Even if this campaign against Rush Limbaugh succeeded, all it will have done is remove some of the monetary value of his speech. It will have done nothing to impact his constitutional right to continue to say the same ignorant or hateful things. Both Rush Limbaugh and his detractors who work to silence him are using the right to free speech. One or both of them may be acting like babies but that has no bearing on the constitutionality of their actions.
Through the years the courts have heard hours upon hours of arguments and decided numerous cases that have defined the right to free speech. At no point has the legal system, entrusted with interpreting the constitution, ever ruled that protesting a commencement speech, calling those with differing views terrorist, or boycotting a political pundit infringes upon anyone's right to free speech. Luckily for these talking heads this faulty vigilantism is protected by the constitution regardless of what you might have heard on TV.
In the U.S. the right for a publication to print satire of a public figure has been guaranteed. This means that any U.S. entity that chooses to mock the prophet Muhammad has the right to do so. The question becomes what is in good taste. Would Americans be as accepting of the free speech rights of Charlie Hebdo if they portrayed Jesus Christ as a pedophile or if they mocked the victims of the 9/11 attacks? While satirist are legally able to do these things it would probably be considered offensive by some Americans and any publication that chose to distribute such satire would likely be boycotted - which is covered by the first amendment - or threatened with violence - which is typically not covered.
Clearly free speech is a basic tenant of American life and the attack on the Charlie Hebdo office offers a unique opportunity to discuss its value. Unfortunately many like Eric Bolling of Fox News decided to use this attack to push a biased political ideology. During a January 9th of 'The Five' Bolling went off the deep end of an already crowded pool. Bolling said "The people who at Brandeis University, Rutgers, Harvard, Berkeley, this year alone, who have killed free speech, who have actually had people disinvited to speeches .... align more closely with the terrorists in Paris than they do with the people from Charlie Hebdo."
The reality is that none of the speakers were actually disinvited as Bolling suggests. Some decided to pull out rather than face protesters while others gave their commencement speeches in spite of the uproar. Of course to some extent Fox News has only themselves to blame for the continued protests. Instead of covering every gathering of students that objects to a conservative hero's presence on campus, giving them a platform to be heard, Fox News could simply ignore them. It should also be noted that Fox News had no such issue with Notre Dame students protesting President Obama's commencement speech in 2009.
Regardless of the political affiliation of the speaker the argument that their statements or actions were out of step with the values of the University are the same.
More concerning however, is that Bolling doesn't recognize that protesting these speakers isn't actually a restriction on their freedom of speech in any way. Even if these speakers had actually been uninvited it still would not represent a restriction of free speech. Condoleezza Rice could have given the exact same speech at a sight off campus instead of being forced to endure the confines of a commencement speech. IMF head Christine Lagarde could have posted her commencement speech on social media sites for millions of people to read instead of limiting it to just Smith College graduates and their families. James Franco could have done a talk show tour sharing his thoughts instead of being subject to protesters at UCLA.
It could also be argued that by protesting, these students are actually increasing the speaker’s free speech since various news outlets will cover the controversy and undoubtedly spread the speakers words to a new audience.
Of course if simply deciding not to allow an individual a bully pulpit is an attack on the freedom of speech then Fox News could be cited for impeding the president's rights when they chose not to air his speech regarding the impending executive action on immigration. They could also be sanctioned for allowing a guest to make statements of fact that were untrue since such errant assertions are not covered by the first amendment.
This misunderstanding or misuse of free speech isn't exclusive to conservative pundits. Bill Maher was also the target of protests over his comments on Muslims and the Islamic faith. In defending himself Bill took a page out of the Fox News play book and suggested that any person who attempts to get Rush Limbaugh removed from the airwaves is "just a baby who can't stand to live in a world where you here things that upset you." On this point Maher couldn't be more wrong.
Maher has made a career out of skewering people he disagrees with. He may not have caused celebrities like Lance Armstrong, Paula Deen, and Tiger Woods to lose sponsors but he certainly participated in heightening the profile of their indiscretions making it more likely they would be a target of increased scrutiny which may or may not cost them money. Intentional or not the results could be the same.
The average citizen doesn't have an HBO show with a team of writers where they can finely craft and air their grievances. To make up for this lack of audience these people band together and exercise their own right to free speech by shining a light on people who they find offensive.
Even if this campaign against Rush Limbaugh succeeded, all it will have done is remove some of the monetary value of his speech. It will have done nothing to impact his constitutional right to continue to say the same ignorant or hateful things. Both Rush Limbaugh and his detractors who work to silence him are using the right to free speech. One or both of them may be acting like babies but that has no bearing on the constitutionality of their actions.
Through the years the courts have heard hours upon hours of arguments and decided numerous cases that have defined the right to free speech. At no point has the legal system, entrusted with interpreting the constitution, ever ruled that protesting a commencement speech, calling those with differing views terrorist, or boycotting a political pundit infringes upon anyone's right to free speech. Luckily for these talking heads this faulty vigilantism is protected by the constitution regardless of what you might have heard on TV.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Murdering more Muslims won't stop Islamic terrorist
Since the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo office that left twelve people dead there has been a considerable amount of coverage by U.S. media. Unfortunately the bulk of this media attention has been errant fear mongering. For example a number of Fox News on air personalities have suggested that Muslims were "silent" regarding condemnation of this attack. Given the volume of Muslim repudiation such ignorant statements say far more about those who make them than those they are attempting to admonish. There are also those like Matt Drudge who brought out the oft used "Obama hesitates to call murders terrorism" meme.
But perhaps the most surprising of the narratives to come out of this senseless violence is the one that people like Greg Gutfeld are making. These people believe that somehow the liberal media are to blame for all Islamic aggression. If only the media had the gravitas to promote reasoned statements like Jeanine Pirro who said "We need to kill them all." Surely radical Muslims would hear such declarations from the media in a country they are at war with and back down.
The reason the liberal media continues to call for tolerance isn't because they think there aren't Muslims that want to kill Americans. It's because the conservative media and the uninformed over react to every attack and condemn Islam as being evil. This fear mongering leads to radicals like Wade Michael Page who killed six innocent Sikh devotees. It leads to arson attempts at an Islamic Center in Tennessee. And it leads to around 160 reported hate crimes against Muslims in America each year.
The liberal media continues to preach understanding because America has a long an inglorious history of violence and unnecessary restrictions against people who aren't like us. Afraid that Japanese Americans would turn on the U.S. the government sanctioned internment camps. Faced with concerns over the potential spread of Communism a government sponsored witch hunt resulted in the imprisonment of a number of Americans. For hundreds of years black Americans have been subjected to both government backed as well as citizen supported mistreatment, attacks and murders. Members the LGBT community have been abused and treated as a threat to so called traditional values for decades. And now Muslims are seen by some as evil, miscreants who are hell bend on spreading sharia law.
Obviously the Islam practiced by radicals is not something the vast majority of Americans - liberal or conservative - are interested in seeing. But to the extent that liberals "defend" Islam it has far more to do with quelling the irrational fear of easily radicalized Americans than it does a support of Islamic ideals.
Of course Islam is hardly the first or only religion to have murderous followers. History is full of religious violence from nearly all faiths. Few if any have a moral high ground to stand on. In Sri Lanka Buddhists have attacked Christian and Muslim minorities. In Central Africa Christian Militias have forced tens of thousands of Muslims to flee. And in the Gaza strip over a thousand Muslim civilians have been killed by Jews in the name of self defense.
Perhaps the biggest problem here is this eye for an eye mentality. When taking claim for the 9/11 attacks Osama Bin Laden said this was in retaliation for the U.S. support for attacks against Muslims in Somalia, the U.S. support for Russian attacks against Muslims in Chechnya, as well as other aggressions against Muslims. It was not an attempt to spread sharia law or destroy Christianity. The same is also true of other terrorist attacks like the Boston bombing, the Fort Hood shooting, the New York car bombing, the underwear bomber, and the Little Rock Recruiting office shooting.
These incidents suggest that the spread of radical Islam has far more to do with the violent nature of the U.S. than how the media handles these attacks. In fact the U.S. is responsible for the deaths of more Muslim civilians than all of the terrorist attacks combined. It should also be noted that since the U.S. that declared a "War on Terror" the prevalence of Islamic terrorist groups has expanded not decreased. It may make us feel better to see the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims as defending democracy against evil however this is a dangerously ethnocentric way of looking at things.
Imagine if another country bombed your town, killing many of your friends and family, in an effort to protect themselves from extremist leaders they claim live near you. Would you be willing to accept the deaths of those you love as collateral damage for the greater good or would it radicalize you to respond in kind?
Eliminating radical Islam doesn't always require the U.S. to use military might. Instead we should look to leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. who used peaceful methods during the civil rights movement to enact change. The U.S. could support the efforts of Muslims like Malala Yousafzai who is working to destroy radical Islam from the inside by empowering women to get an education so they can think for themselves. After all the Qur'an is a book so being able to read it might go a long way to solving the misinterpretations that act as the basis for many of these terrorist organizations.
Obviously pretending that the benevolent nature of liberals is to blame is far easier than accepting that these attacks could be the response to the U.S. blood lust but the reality is that this eye for an eye mentality hasn't stopped terrorism from spreading. Moving forward we should recognize that we don't let a group like the Westboro Baptist Church serve as the standard bearer for all Christians nor do we accept the KKK or the Black Panthers as prototypical representatives of white and black Americans. With this in mind we shouldn't let Muslim zealots color our view of all Muslims, because how we got to this point is far less important than figuring out a responsible path from here.
But perhaps the most surprising of the narratives to come out of this senseless violence is the one that people like Greg Gutfeld are making. These people believe that somehow the liberal media are to blame for all Islamic aggression. If only the media had the gravitas to promote reasoned statements like Jeanine Pirro who said "We need to kill them all." Surely radical Muslims would hear such declarations from the media in a country they are at war with and back down.
The reason the liberal media continues to call for tolerance isn't because they think there aren't Muslims that want to kill Americans. It's because the conservative media and the uninformed over react to every attack and condemn Islam as being evil. This fear mongering leads to radicals like Wade Michael Page who killed six innocent Sikh devotees. It leads to arson attempts at an Islamic Center in Tennessee. And it leads to around 160 reported hate crimes against Muslims in America each year.
The liberal media continues to preach understanding because America has a long an inglorious history of violence and unnecessary restrictions against people who aren't like us. Afraid that Japanese Americans would turn on the U.S. the government sanctioned internment camps. Faced with concerns over the potential spread of Communism a government sponsored witch hunt resulted in the imprisonment of a number of Americans. For hundreds of years black Americans have been subjected to both government backed as well as citizen supported mistreatment, attacks and murders. Members the LGBT community have been abused and treated as a threat to so called traditional values for decades. And now Muslims are seen by some as evil, miscreants who are hell bend on spreading sharia law.
Obviously the Islam practiced by radicals is not something the vast majority of Americans - liberal or conservative - are interested in seeing. But to the extent that liberals "defend" Islam it has far more to do with quelling the irrational fear of easily radicalized Americans than it does a support of Islamic ideals.
Of course Islam is hardly the first or only religion to have murderous followers. History is full of religious violence from nearly all faiths. Few if any have a moral high ground to stand on. In Sri Lanka Buddhists have attacked Christian and Muslim minorities. In Central Africa Christian Militias have forced tens of thousands of Muslims to flee. And in the Gaza strip over a thousand Muslim civilians have been killed by Jews in the name of self defense.
Perhaps the biggest problem here is this eye for an eye mentality. When taking claim for the 9/11 attacks Osama Bin Laden said this was in retaliation for the U.S. support for attacks against Muslims in Somalia, the U.S. support for Russian attacks against Muslims in Chechnya, as well as other aggressions against Muslims. It was not an attempt to spread sharia law or destroy Christianity. The same is also true of other terrorist attacks like the Boston bombing, the Fort Hood shooting, the New York car bombing, the underwear bomber, and the Little Rock Recruiting office shooting.
These incidents suggest that the spread of radical Islam has far more to do with the violent nature of the U.S. than how the media handles these attacks. In fact the U.S. is responsible for the deaths of more Muslim civilians than all of the terrorist attacks combined. It should also be noted that since the U.S. that declared a "War on Terror" the prevalence of Islamic terrorist groups has expanded not decreased. It may make us feel better to see the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims as defending democracy against evil however this is a dangerously ethnocentric way of looking at things.
Imagine if another country bombed your town, killing many of your friends and family, in an effort to protect themselves from extremist leaders they claim live near you. Would you be willing to accept the deaths of those you love as collateral damage for the greater good or would it radicalize you to respond in kind?
Eliminating radical Islam doesn't always require the U.S. to use military might. Instead we should look to leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. who used peaceful methods during the civil rights movement to enact change. The U.S. could support the efforts of Muslims like Malala Yousafzai who is working to destroy radical Islam from the inside by empowering women to get an education so they can think for themselves. After all the Qur'an is a book so being able to read it might go a long way to solving the misinterpretations that act as the basis for many of these terrorist organizations.
Obviously pretending that the benevolent nature of liberals is to blame is far easier than accepting that these attacks could be the response to the U.S. blood lust but the reality is that this eye for an eye mentality hasn't stopped terrorism from spreading. Moving forward we should recognize that we don't let a group like the Westboro Baptist Church serve as the standard bearer for all Christians nor do we accept the KKK or the Black Panthers as prototypical representatives of white and black Americans. With this in mind we shouldn't let Muslim zealots color our view of all Muslims, because how we got to this point is far less important than figuring out a responsible path from here.
Friday, January 9, 2015
Michigan Republicans need to stop lying about classroom funding
In response to my December 14th article discussing the impact of then Speaker of Michigan House Jase Bolger's plan to circumvent the voter approved constitutional amendment that required a certain percentage of the sales tax on fuel be used to fund education, now former Director of Communications for the Michigan House Republicans had this response.
“Total school funding has increased by more than $1 billion over the past four years. Citing one single item from the K-12 budget (per-pupil funding amounts) is an inaccurate way to measure funding, unless you want to deliberately mislead people. In addition, per-pupil funding is a very poor measure of how well a school district will perform. When the Highland Park schools collapsed due to horrible mismanagement, they were receiving more than $14,000 per pupil in state and federal funding.” ~ Ari B. Adler, Director of Communications, Michigan House Republicans.
Ironically this is not the first time Adler has used these talking points as a defense. In fact this is a near carbon copy of statements Adler made when disputing claims by the Michigan Education Association early last year.
Beyond the self plagiarism there are a number of other issues with Adler's comment that are well worth further investigation. For example it should be noted that he does not dispute the drop in the per pupil foundation allowance of $648 since Snyder took office. The reason he is forced to return to the same old $1 billion talking point Republicans have been milking for much of the past year is because that is one of the few manipulated numbers that work in their favor.
If they were being honest they would admit that less money is making its way to the classroom under Republican control. To claim more money is being spent on education they include the additional money that is being pumped into the teacher pension system. The problem is that part of that money they are claiming as additional spending is coming out of the pockets of teachers since the percent of their pay that is being funneled into the retirement system has increased over the past few years. It should also be noted that the early retirement, loss of per pupil funding leading to layoffs, and the expansion of charter schools that don't contribute funds all have resulted in more pensioners and fewer teachers contributing. The need for increased pension funding is the result of these Republican policies. Taking credit for fixing the problems you created is hardly something to brag about.
If deliberately misleading people is an issue then Mr. Adler should concede that the $1 billion increase he offers has been just as debunked as the $1 billion cut to education funding that Democrats used.
Of course focusing on Highland Park's per pupil funding is also a very misleading statistic. As Adler stated "citing one single item for the K-12 budget is an inaccurate way to measure funding". Beyond the obvious double standard of then using Highland Park's $14,000 per pupil number as proof of anything, the financial data bulletin where this number comes from doesn't offer an analysis of student performance. If there were an easy correlation then you would expect a school district like Bloomfield Hills, which actually had higher total per pupil funding that Highland Park did, to fail as well. Instead Bloomfield Hills routinely ranks as one of Michigan's highest performing school districts
The truth is there is far more involved in why a district like Bloomfield Hills is successful while Highland Park school district failed than simply reviewing their total per pupil funding.
For instance reports show that wealthy students perform far better in school than poor students. Support from home also makes a big difference. But having good teachers can also have an impact on student outcomes and of the $14,000 per pupil that these school districts received Bloomfield Hills spent nearly $70,000 per teacher to hire the best and brightest while Highland Park spent just under $55,000 per teacher. Conversely Highland Park spends a far greater portion of its funding on things like "added needs" ($2,834 versus $1,250) and adult education ($1,910 versus $0).
The reality is Highland Park schools failed because the needs of their community meant that far few dollars found their way to the classroom than at other school districts. Pretending that the per pupil funding number I quote is deliberately misleading while the Highland Park per pupil number is concrete evidence of the failures of the public education system is an astonishingly hypocritical assertion.
Having said that the reason Adler brings up the Highland Park school district seems to be because he believes that the change from a public school to a charter school has improved student performance. Unfortunately the data show that while some charter schools outperform their public school counterparts a nearly equal amount perform worse. There is also the issue of the numerous charter schools that are doing a much better job of enriching owners and administrators than enriching students.
But perhaps Adler is less concerned about the mediocrity of the average charter school and believes the management team for the Highland Park academy is an exception to the rule. To this point, the Michigan top to bottom ranking does show that as a public institution Highland Park schools ranked in the 8th percentile, however after switching to the Highland Park academy student performance has rocketed all the way up to the 9th percentile. At this rate it should only take around 80 years for Highland Park academy to become one of the state’s best schools.
The truth is, in real dollars the Snyder administration and legislative Republicans have pulled money out of the classroom each of the last four years while reneging on the increases they promised many school districts during their budget deliberations. Highland Park schools was hit with a higher than average $1,000 drop in the per pupil foundation allowance that clearly affected their ability to meet their obligations. These reductions left many other schools scrambling at the start of the new school year to find cuts that would offset the unexpected underfunding.
In the end the fact that people like Ari Adler continue to push the narrative that Michigan Republicans are spending more money on education tells you all you need to know about how devastating this loss of hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the classroom are. Lansing maybe awash with politicians who have convinced themselves they are doing the right thing for education but the closed schools, layoffs, and increased classroom sizes suggest that the group most responsible for horribly mismanaging Michigan's education funding reside in the Michigan Capitol Building.
“Total school funding has increased by more than $1 billion over the past four years. Citing one single item from the K-12 budget (per-pupil funding amounts) is an inaccurate way to measure funding, unless you want to deliberately mislead people. In addition, per-pupil funding is a very poor measure of how well a school district will perform. When the Highland Park schools collapsed due to horrible mismanagement, they were receiving more than $14,000 per pupil in state and federal funding.” ~ Ari B. Adler, Director of Communications, Michigan House Republicans.
Ironically this is not the first time Adler has used these talking points as a defense. In fact this is a near carbon copy of statements Adler made when disputing claims by the Michigan Education Association early last year.
Beyond the self plagiarism there are a number of other issues with Adler's comment that are well worth further investigation. For example it should be noted that he does not dispute the drop in the per pupil foundation allowance of $648 since Snyder took office. The reason he is forced to return to the same old $1 billion talking point Republicans have been milking for much of the past year is because that is one of the few manipulated numbers that work in their favor.
If they were being honest they would admit that less money is making its way to the classroom under Republican control. To claim more money is being spent on education they include the additional money that is being pumped into the teacher pension system. The problem is that part of that money they are claiming as additional spending is coming out of the pockets of teachers since the percent of their pay that is being funneled into the retirement system has increased over the past few years. It should also be noted that the early retirement, loss of per pupil funding leading to layoffs, and the expansion of charter schools that don't contribute funds all have resulted in more pensioners and fewer teachers contributing. The need for increased pension funding is the result of these Republican policies. Taking credit for fixing the problems you created is hardly something to brag about.
If deliberately misleading people is an issue then Mr. Adler should concede that the $1 billion increase he offers has been just as debunked as the $1 billion cut to education funding that Democrats used.
Of course focusing on Highland Park's per pupil funding is also a very misleading statistic. As Adler stated "citing one single item for the K-12 budget is an inaccurate way to measure funding". Beyond the obvious double standard of then using Highland Park's $14,000 per pupil number as proof of anything, the financial data bulletin where this number comes from doesn't offer an analysis of student performance. If there were an easy correlation then you would expect a school district like Bloomfield Hills, which actually had higher total per pupil funding that Highland Park did, to fail as well. Instead Bloomfield Hills routinely ranks as one of Michigan's highest performing school districts
The truth is there is far more involved in why a district like Bloomfield Hills is successful while Highland Park school district failed than simply reviewing their total per pupil funding.
For instance reports show that wealthy students perform far better in school than poor students. Support from home also makes a big difference. But having good teachers can also have an impact on student outcomes and of the $14,000 per pupil that these school districts received Bloomfield Hills spent nearly $70,000 per teacher to hire the best and brightest while Highland Park spent just under $55,000 per teacher. Conversely Highland Park spends a far greater portion of its funding on things like "added needs" ($2,834 versus $1,250) and adult education ($1,910 versus $0).
The reality is Highland Park schools failed because the needs of their community meant that far few dollars found their way to the classroom than at other school districts. Pretending that the per pupil funding number I quote is deliberately misleading while the Highland Park per pupil number is concrete evidence of the failures of the public education system is an astonishingly hypocritical assertion.
Having said that the reason Adler brings up the Highland Park school district seems to be because he believes that the change from a public school to a charter school has improved student performance. Unfortunately the data show that while some charter schools outperform their public school counterparts a nearly equal amount perform worse. There is also the issue of the numerous charter schools that are doing a much better job of enriching owners and administrators than enriching students.
But perhaps Adler is less concerned about the mediocrity of the average charter school and believes the management team for the Highland Park academy is an exception to the rule. To this point, the Michigan top to bottom ranking does show that as a public institution Highland Park schools ranked in the 8th percentile, however after switching to the Highland Park academy student performance has rocketed all the way up to the 9th percentile. At this rate it should only take around 80 years for Highland Park academy to become one of the state’s best schools.
The truth is, in real dollars the Snyder administration and legislative Republicans have pulled money out of the classroom each of the last four years while reneging on the increases they promised many school districts during their budget deliberations. Highland Park schools was hit with a higher than average $1,000 drop in the per pupil foundation allowance that clearly affected their ability to meet their obligations. These reductions left many other schools scrambling at the start of the new school year to find cuts that would offset the unexpected underfunding.
In the end the fact that people like Ari Adler continue to push the narrative that Michigan Republicans are spending more money on education tells you all you need to know about how devastating this loss of hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the classroom are. Lansing maybe awash with politicians who have convinced themselves they are doing the right thing for education but the closed schools, layoffs, and increased classroom sizes suggest that the group most responsible for horribly mismanaging Michigan's education funding reside in the Michigan Capitol Building.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
