NJ senators proposal to cut urban pre-schools should be dropped on a cutting room floor

This weekend I read in my local Trenton Times that New Jersey Senate Republicans have proposed that pre-school funding dedicated to urban areas be cut by half--reducing pre-school programs from a full-day to a half day--then returning this money, a total of $300 million, to suburban and rural districts that have lost their state aid in Governor Chris Christie's most recent budget cuts.

Also, under this proposal, districts would qualify for more state funding if they bus students greater distances or have large populations of senior citizens, There would also be two grant programs: one, totaling $30 million would be used to promote accountability in urban schools, while the other, totaling $50 million, would be reserved for schools that demonstrate the most efficiency.

To date, Governor Christie has made no comments on this proposal, though he plans to change the state's school funding formula. In town hall meetings Christie has said that it's crazy that nearly 60 percent of all state aid goes to 31 (urban) districts.

This is one of the most ignorant and insensitive ideas that has come from state lawmakers in my lifetime. My comment may not be politically correct, but there is nothing correct about this.

Pre-school programs have been studied for more than half a century. Full-day programs, especially those combined with parental involvement in learning, have been proven to reduce the early achievement gap between students from low income families and those from modest and wealthier homes. Pre-schools are a more documented success than charter schools; if for nothing else, there has been more time to learn what works and what does not.

More relevant, unlike most public programs, pre-school programs have been examined under longitudinal studies, meaning that the benefits among the education population have been collected and documented over many years--even up to age 40.

For example, nearly seven years ago, the HighScope Educational Foundation based in Ypsilanti, Michigan reported that adults at age 40 who participated in a preschool program in that community in their early years--beginning at the ages of three and four--have higher earnings, are more likely to hold a job, have committed fewer crimes, and are more likely to have graduated from high school. There was a return to society of more than $16 for every tax dollar invested in the early care and education program.

The results of this study, known as the Perry Pre-School Study, in the early years, during the 1960s, helped lead to the establishment of the national HeadStart program, one of the few Great Society initiatives with a budget that was actually increased by the conservative Reagan and Bush administrations.

Pre-school education is an important component of programs such as Geoffrey Canada's Children's Zone in Harlem. Governor Christie praised a similar new initiative in Paterson, one of the poorer communities in the Garden State. President Obama has supported the creation of many as twenty other Children's Zones across the country.

Which leads me to an earlier thought: use monies collected through the state's Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ) program to fund pre-school instead of Opportunity Scholarships to send students to private and parochial schools.

Here are some reasons why:

+ This would provide a direct benefit to resident workers, mothers and fathers, who are employed by businesses in the UEZ; it makes it easier for them to work and save without incurring costs for day care. The original purpose of the UEZ legislation was to use lower sales taxes to help create new jobs, particularly for people who lived in the communities where they are based. Shouldn't a portion of the revenues be returned to provide a benefit to people who live and work in that community?

+ The cost per student for pre-school is lower than it would be to provide tuition to a K-8 school or high school.

+ Increasing funding for pre-school would have no impact on funding for public schools. Pre-school programs are usually operated outside of the public schools, more likely by teachers who are not members of the state teacher's union.

+ The major attributes for success for pre-school programs, as documented through the academic studies, are teacher quality and parental involvement. Both can be measured more easily than the "performance" of public schools. Quality programs can attract funding more easily, while weaker programs can be closed more easily.

As I read this story, I don't know what bothers me more--the idea or the comments. This story attracted far more than the usual, mostly along the vein of "I pay enough taxes now." or "we spend too much on those schools already, and get nothing in return." Yet states with more conservative politics than New Jersey, like Florida, North Carolina and Oklahoma, have backed universal pre-school--because the investment helps state governments save money later.

I've got news for the naysayers. They're attacking the wrong program.

If they want urban school systems to be more accountable for the money they spend, fine, I do, too. I agree that urban school systems do not need large central office bureaucracies and that bad teachers should be let go.

If they want to see public money go to more responsible people, I agree, too. There are proven programs, and there are less proven ones. Priority should be given to educational techniques that work.

If they want urban residents to share pain, they already are. Their elected leaders have imposed more unpleasant news on their voters than anyone who lives in a working class suburb would tolerate.

If they oppose pre-school so much, I hope they're around to vote on the next prison bond issue. I'll bet I read the same arguments again.

How are New Jersey's elementary-middle charter schools really doing?

Since New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is such a fan of charter schools I decided to take a look at the most recent Report Cards for them, as recorded by the state's Department of Education. These were compiled into a School Improvement Status Summary, which was very difficult to find.

This winter, the department has approved 23 applications for new charter schools, while 59 operated in the Garden State as of the conclusion of the 2009-2010 school year, the latest for which data is available.

Of the 59 charter schools, thirty six or 61 percent cover the elementary and middle grades. Four cover elementary school, middle school and high school. Four are exclusively high schools, eight are exclusively elementary schools and only two are exclusively middle schools. Three cover middle school and high school.

The state Report Cards report whether a school has met proficiency levels for Language Arts and Mathematics by elementary grades, middle grades and for the high school. Each year the state raises the bar; the percentage of students considered to be no less than Proficient must rise, regardless of whether the school met the standards set for the previous year. Those schools that meet or exceed the percentages set by the state are deemed to have met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

The advantage of raising the bar each year is that schools are forced to make more students proficient. The disadvantage is that not all of them will succeed, especially when teachers and budgets are cut. Then the list of "failing" schools gets longer, which is unpopular with constituencies too numerous to list.

I was curious to see how the charter schools fare under these policies, since our governor perceives them to be "better" public schools. Are they meeting the challenges the state sets when it raises the bar on proficiency? One way to look at this is to look further into the charters that have both the elementary and middle grades.

The typical charter school starts as a single grade. Students are promoted to the next grade level, which is added by the school, or they leave. As the school grows it adds the higher grades. However, a school with more resources may add lower grades as well.

Of the 36 charters that educate students in the elementary and middle grades, fourteen or 39% are meeting AYP for both. The fourteen schools could be perceived as "good" since each class meets higher standards as the students are promoted. Nine charters, or 25%, have too few students in either the elementary or middle grades to be factored into calculations for AYP. These schools might have only recently added a grade level, so the jury is still out on them.

This leaves thirteen schools or 36% that failed to meet AYP in either their elementary grades, their middle grades, or both. Of these, seven failed to meet AYP in the middle school, three failed in both. That's seventy seven percent that failed overall or possibly failed as their students advanced in grade.

This is a serious concern as charters, like any other schools, want to retain students and want them to succeed as they get promoted. However, Governor Christie's expectations for charters are higher than they are for traditional public schools, which is one reason why he would like to see more of them.

Ironically, the percentage of failing charters that have elementary and middle grades is higher than the percentage of failing schools, also known as Schools in Need of Improvement, for all of the public schools in the state. In November of 2010 the state Department of Education reported that nearly 30 percent of all public schools failed to meet AYP.

I don't like the idea of using "high stakes" test results to determine the success or failure of a school, but the governor has suggested that these results be part of teacher evaluations. If he wants to use them to determine the success or failure of teachers, it is realistic for him to impose the same standard on schools. And if several are failing by the governor's own standards, that's news worth reporting.

NJ Legislature keeps trying to put the kibosh on nepotism in school board hiring

Two days ago I wrote a post about the blessings of big government. But that didn't mean big government as in lots of small governments. I live in New Jersey, a state with more school districts--588--than municipalities--566--and therefore too many governments. Journalists Bob Ingle and Sandy McClure, authors of The Soprano State, write that one of every six New Jersey citizens are employed by state, county or local government.

In a state with so many local governments, and I have not thrown in our 21 counties and their education offices, it is highly likely that local politicians will attempt to find jobs for close friends and relatives. In some cases, the hire is qualified. In others, it's harmless; for instance, hiring a town council member's son or daughter who plays sports to work with children in a summer camp. But in most other cases, nepotism is dangerous, because it favors family members for positions where more qualified people are needed.

Three years ago, our state legislature passed the School Funding Reform Act, which which requires districts to have anti-nepotism policies that prohibit districts from hiring staff related to the district’s superintendent or a school board member, according to Mike Yaple, spokesman for the New Jersey School Boards Association.

Both houses of our legislature are considering bills to extend anti-nepotism policies to prohibit the state’s charter schools and 588 school districts from hiring staff who are related to the superintendent, a board member, personnel director, business administrator or the school district’s attorney. The new legislation defines a relative as a person’s child, sibling, parent, extended family, in-law, half- or stepchild, domestic partner, and anyone else related to the individual or their spouse "by blood, marriage or adoption."

The Education Committee of our state Assembly has already approved the most recent proposal, with amendments that permit charter schools and school districts to employ relatives if they are the only qualified candidate available after receiving approval from the county superintendent.

The new legislation is a positive step to curtail a long-standing practice that has put many unqualified people into public sector jobs. The next positive step would be for the smaller districts to either consolidate or eliminate the non-educational positions in their central office and grant their schools more autonomy. But in politics you always take baby steps before you hit your stride.

Book Review--A Chance to Make History; What Works and What Doesn't in Providing an Excellent Education for All by Wendy Kopp

Sometimes books about education success stories would be better placed in the public affairs section rather than the education section of the bookstore. That way non-educators who are interested in education would be more likely to read them. That is the case with this book.

Wendy Kopp, founder of Teach for America, has divided this book into two parts. The first essentially covers what, from her experience, makes an effective teacher in an urban or impoverished rural public school. The second goes through a brief summary of education reforms that have been proposed over the past two three decades, with the author sharing her own opinions as to whether these reforms work or not.

Kopp uses examples from Teach for America teachers to illustrate the "teacher-leader" model that her organization has used for two decades. While she does not go into much detail to explain the model, developed by a former McKinsey consultant, she does a very good job in telling success stories. From reading this part of the book, you can see that a young Teach for America teacher must be determined, energetic and optimistic, not to mention patient. Kopp adds that effective teachers periodically assess their students to know who is and who is not keeping up with the material. Her teachers put in the extra hours to help; their work schedule is not constrained by the work rules of a union contract.

These teachers are often asked to replace permanent substitutes, and the expectations for them are very high. The burden of lifting an entire school's standardized test results is placed upon their shoulders. It takes a very special person to succeed in such a setting, especially if they have had no prior student teaching experience and a crash course in pedagogy. However, they were excellent students in college who survived a more rigorous selection process than teachers who have graduated with education degrees.

Over the past twenty years Teach for America has had over 25,000 alumni; sixty percent remain in education after fulfilling their two-year commitment. The organization has also produced the founders of the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools who have built a national network of schools. The typical career path of the teachers who finish their commitment and remain in education is to teach an additional year, move on to graduate school, or an advocacy organization then assume a leadership role in a charter school.

While Teach for America has churned out a generation of fine professionals, and has become one of the few non-profits that has become an employer of choice for entry level jobs, it has also spawn teachers who are more likely to be impatient miscasts in a traditional public school system.

Maybe it is because some of them teach with the knowledge that they are not trying to "go along" in the drive to become tenured. Or maybe it is because the alumni network is so well-developed that most of them know that they are likely to attain a leadership position in less time.

The best public and private schools succeed not because they have effective principals but also because they try to recruit and retain a strong faculty. Teach for America alumni who are offered leadership positions are understandably more likely to go back to the well when they need teachers, so they can build excellent schools.

But the traditional schools they left remain a place where teachers continue to come and go; they do not end up with a cohesive and collegial faculty, let alone become "good" schools over the long term.

In covering the various reforms: school choice, vouchers, charter schools, smaller schools, among others, Kopp touches on positives and negatives. She comments that elected officials are too quick to take a model that has been successful in one place and assume that it will succeed in another place where student achievement is lacking.

Kopp's magic bullet is that schools become better when they have better trained teachers and principals who are more effective leaders. Given her position, no one should be surprised. Not to mention Kopp must be careful not to overly criticize the school systems that hire her teachers every year.

This book is worthwhile for educators as well as people interested in education policy. It is also worth the investment for any student who is interested in applying to Teach for America. This year, according to CollegeGrad.com, Teach for America is projected to hire 4,500 new graduates. But I recommend that prospective teachers read this book in conjunction with Relentless Pursuit, by reporter Donna Foote. Foote followed a year with four first-year Teach for America teachers who were placed at Locke High School in Los Angeles. Kopp follows through on the progress of these teachers in her book.

Kopp admits that Teach for America cannot produce all of the new teachers for all of the urban and rural schools where student achievement is lacking, and I agree. It's too difficult to scale up while maintaining high quality.

Yet I'm left to wonder why the Teach for America model has not been taught to all teacher candidates in colleges as well as younger teachers in the field. It appears to be an effective way to whittle down the weakest people while bringing out the best in the strongest.

I also wonder what will happen in K-12 education as more Teach for America alumni bump into the more common traditions of education politics. One, Michelle Rhee, has already paid a price. She resigned a schools chancellorship when the mayor who backed her lost his bid for re-election. Will more follow her?

Sometimes we need big government--a reaction to the State of the Union

I just finished reading the transcripts of President Obama's State of the Union address as well as the televised responses by Rep. Paul Ryan (R. Wis) and Rep Michelle Bachmann (R. Minn). Both attacks on the president come under the headline: bigger government increases debt while giving next to nothing in return.

As I've gotten older I realize that Congress does not always need to conduct hearings, create new programs or establish new agencies every time there is a problem to be solved. More often then not we can trust businesses and people to take care of themselves and resolve their differences privately or at local and state levels.

But there are some things that we need a federal government to do; the costs are too high, the tasks are too large, or our laws, including the Constitution, put the power with a branch of the federal government, whether it be executive, legislative or judicial. By and large, the nation has done a good job working under a Constitution that is going to be 224 years old. It is remarkable that our Constitution has been amended only 27 times; the last amendment which, oddly enough, deals with the compensation of Senators and Representatives, was ratified in 1992.

The most ardent conservatives say that they follow the Constitution; recently, those elected to Congress wanted the document read on the House floor. But there is no way that our forefathers could have predicted the economic rise of other nations they were unaware of during the 18th century nor advances in science and technology. They could not have predicted the future impacts of westward expansion; the nation's independence had come at a price, which included debts to allies. In 1803, sixteen years after the original Constitution was ratified, Napoleon offered the Louisiana Territory to President Thomas Jefferson for $15 million. Jefferson accepted, though he also pared down the national debt.

When foreign relations, the size and diversity of a country, and advances in science and technology come about, a federal government must manage change. In some cases, it must lead. Private institutions and states have neither the capital nor the authority. And we must weight the benefits of advancements from new government spending with the risks of new debt. Quite often the benefits are greater than the costs.

By expanding its boundaries, a federal government opened new opportunities for entrepreneurship as well as resettlement. Ambitious businessmen could be rich if they could tame the frontier. No one should deny that a federal government leveraged their risks.

The federal government has a history of building networks whether they be the postal service and land grant colleges and their agricultural extensions, to railroads, highways and commercial air travel to radio, television and the Internet. Sometimes government made direct investment to start these networks; in the case of the Internet, the military operated the network before it expanded to commercial use. Aircraft designs from the last half-century came out of our experiences with troop and materiel transport during World War II. Again, government leveraged risk, because the government considered communications and mobility essential to freedom and prosperity.

The federal government has a history of coming to aid of distressed and discriminated persons, though many times it has acted later than many would like. Sometimes those persons were citizens, other times they were citizens of other countries. Families and economies had to be rebuilt. Again, the federal government leveraged risk and provided policies that provided a greater assurance of freedom and civil liberties. Only a strong federal government, through its three branches as well as the military, can protect freedom and civil liberties. Private citizens cannot take those matters into their own hands.

The federal government has a history of subsidizing goods and services for people in need and those subsidies beyond the limits of private charity. Those least capable of working,the elderly, children and disabled, get priority. While conservatives like to ramble about the "bureaucrats" who handle the day-to-day work of running these programs, I do not see them becoming equally frustrated with the actions of private providers--banks, health care providers and insurance companies, for example--that also have so-called bureaucrats.

The differences between the bureaucrats who work for the private provider and those who work for the public one are not only about revenues and profits--they are also about control.

Citizens have little recourse over the actions of a bank or insurance company, though they may also have considerable frustration. However, they have the opportunity to speak out and vote for or against their President, Governor and legislators. As we have seen through the results of the last mid-term elections as well as the speeches given today, rejection of public policies does bring about proposals for change.

Pell Grants, Work-Study should be spared from budget cuts while 'gainful employment' should be scrapped

Today the Chronicle of Higher Education ran a story on Rep. Virginia Foxx's address to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Rep. Foxx (R.NC), chair of the House Subcommittee on Higher Education, has said that no federal financial aid program, including Pell Grants, should be immune from budget cuts. As slnachbar writing in the comments, I respectfully disagreed.

In addition to her comments about Pell Grants, Foxx said that the proposed "gainful employment" regulations to be imposed on for-profit schools should also be imposed on public and non-profit schools. In prior posts on gainful employment, I reported that I saw this coming.

While well-intentioned, gainful employment cannot be determined through a reliable methodology. Labor markets cannot be successfully predicted for ten years in advance, neither can the employment decisions of graduates. Not all students accept jobs that are directly related to their major, nor do they remain in the same field for the duration of the time required to repay their loans. I also added that an overzealous effort to go after for-profit schools would lead to a backlash that would impact public and non-profit education. Rep. Foxx's comments proved me right.

This week, Princeton University announced that there would be a one percent tuition increase for the 2011-2012 school year, with a two percent increase for room and board. This was the lowest increase since 1966, when the university did not raise tuition. The university's president reported that gains in the endowment, as well as a successful fundraising campaign, made this possible. Princeton also has a unique grant program to help students graduate without taking on excessive debt.

I have no doubt that other colleges and universities of more modest means will be looking to benchmark Princeton's model. At the very least they will be more careful managing the money they can collect. That requires little to no government intervention.

SATs/ACTs have meaning when choosing a short list of colleges

Since I often write about college admissions parents often ask me how to help choose a short list of colleges for their children. These days college-bound seniors apply to twenty or more schools, many of which are not close to being their first choice. This is expensive for families and unfair to the admissions officers at the colleges. While colleges love to boast about their selectivity, and their admissions officers do their best not to discourage applicants, they also prefer to have the students who not only meet their standards, but also consider their school their top choice.

I am not a guidance counselor nor have I been an admissions officer, but I have a thought that has worked for friends and acquaintances. While the standardized tests have been questioned as valid predictors of college success, the test results can be used to help determine a short list of schools before the start of a senior year.

Here's how my idea works.

+ Purchase a U.S. News College Guide for the current year. This costs approximately ten dollars plus tax.

+ Take the applicant's highest or most recent SAT or ACT scores and look at the medium score range for the 25th to 75th percentiles for the schools of interest.

+ If he plans to take the SATs again, add fifty points for possible improvement in the scores. If he plans to take the ACT again, add three to five points.

+ If these scores fall closer to the 75th percentile, the applicant's GPA is the median for the school or better, and he would go to the school if he got the opportunity, REGARDLESS OF FINANCIAL NEED, then apply to the school. If the school requires SAT II subject area tests, then take them.

+ If all of the above are true, and the school is the applicant's first choice, but the school does not require the SAT II tests, then do not bother taking them to apply to other schools. There is no point devoting extra time to take tests if you can get into your first choice school without them. This is especially true if the first choice school is also one of the lowest priced schools on your list.

+ If the scores do not fall closer to the 75th, the applicant's GPA is the median for the school or better, and he would go to the school if he got the opportunity, REGARDLESS OF FINANCIAL NEED, then apply to the school, but be prepared to take SAT II Subject Tests to provide the school with additional supporting information.

+ If neither the scores nor the GPA meet the criteria, do not apply to the school, unless a compelling case can be made through an audition or portfolio.

I put myself through this process when I considered schools more than thirty years ago. I had very good grades in college-prep courses, but I was nowhere close to being valedictorian. The opportunities for advanced placement were not what they are now, so I had no AP courses. However, I did not do exceptionally well on standardized tests, which were used to determine not only admission, but also scholarships to the private schools that I was interested in.

My first choice schools prior to taking the SATs were Cornell, U.Va and UNC-Chapel Hill. I crossed off each and every one of them after I got my results. I also liked Syracuse, William and Mary and USC. I had the SATs to get in any of these schools, though my scores were too low for me to believe that I would get a large scholarship. These schools also required the extra tests. So, I crossed off them off, too. I liked Rutgers and Wisconsin, where my test scores fell in the middle, and applied to both. No extra tests were required. I chose Rutgers on price and the possibility that I could transfer to Wisconsin later. If I were applying to schools today, I'd follow the same process, only I might add Ramapo College of NJ and The College of NJ to my list, so I had a choice of good local schools.

I realize that guidance counselors recommend that students have a "dream" school that might be a slight reach, schools that are a good fit, and "safe" schools that they are sure to get in. But applying to safe schools is a waste of time if you do your homework first. It is better to identify a small number of schools that you really like that are also likely to like you.

I reply back to a faculty union report on quality higher education

Today's Inside Higher Education ran this story: Restoring the Faculty Voice based on a report issued by faculty members from the unions of public colleges from 21 states. I comment that public college faculty must be different for different types of public schools and that affordability, academic rigor and student success would be my priorities if I led a non-flagship public school.

Montclair NJ board must make tough decisions to preserve public school choice

Today I comment on a Wall Street Journal Online story about school choice, fiscal problems and tough decisions for the Montclair, New Jersey Board of Education. The district is a national model for diversity and magnet schools. Read this story and you'll see that we always get the public services we are willing to pay for.

Remembering Ronald Reagan

This week is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan. No doubt conservatives consider him their patron saint but I'll simply call him a transformational president, as President Obama did.

Reagan transformed the way people believed in their government in good ways and bad. He restored faith in our armed forces, yet he did not believe that government was capable of solving domestic problems. However, I credit him with forcing innovators to sprout up to develop new ideas for providing public services in the wake of less government. It is no surprise that public-private programs in education and economic development were developed in this era. Teach for America, for example, was a Princeton bachelor's degree thesis that turned into a public-private partnership several months after Reagan left office.

Only two years into his first term, President Reagan took the U.S. Postal Service off the federal dole; it became a private corporation. It survives, though its leaders now ask if we would consider doing away with Saturday mail delivery. That's not Reagan's fault. Technology has made many forms of "snail mail" irrelevant.

Al Gore has been jokingly referred to as the "inventor" of the modern Internet. However the earliest ideas for scientists to communicate military research in a secure setting began as early as 1963. Twenty years later, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) adopted Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) as the standard for military computer networking. This later became the standard for the modern social/commercial Internet. Reagan, who increased DARPA funding throughout his presidency, could be considered a "family maker" of the Internet.

Reagan also proposed a New Federalism. Early in his first term, he proposed a trade. The Federal Government would take over control of Medicaid, the federal and state supported health care program in exchange for transferring responsibility of several grant programs, including Aid to Families with Dependent Children (also known as welfare) and public transportation, among others to the states. Over time the federal government would reduce expenditures to those programs and the states could decide whether they wanted to maintain or eliminate them. Maybe we should have listened better to Reagan on this trade, given that the cost of health care have risen faster than the cost of running those other programs, and that Medicaid is considered one of the three largest fiscal burdens to the states along with public pensions and education.

But as a president, Reagan was not kind to education. He cut Federal financial aid programs, saying that college was the responsibility of the family. He gradually eliminated Social Security benefits to students who were dependents of deceased parents. He ignored the recommendations of his education commission, which produced a popularly received report called A Nation At Risk, which helped define the "achievement gap" that lead to later policies by state governments and the second Bush administration. But while he had campaigned that he would eliminate the Department of Education, he left the agency in place; the report's popularity led him to say, a year later, that the federal government was doing its part.

Most important, Reagan was president in an era when there was more civility. He appointed a bi-partisan commission to study Social Security and quickly embraced its recommendations, which improved the fiscal health of the system for another 25 years. He took back some of his original tax cut when it failed to prime the economy. While he campaigned as a conservative on social issues such as school prayer or a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion, he backed away when he saw that he did not have the votes. Lastly, while Cold War tensions rang through his administration, he kept the country at peace for eight years. That alone is a remarkable accomplishment.

What are the true numbers behind NJ's voucher bill?

Today on Politicker NJ, I challenged the posted numbers on Governor Christie's voucher bill. If you proffer to offer choice, you must offer it to everyone. This bill and charter schools do not.

Should a state's top education official be elected or appointed?

Today on Education Week, I weigh in on this question using New Jersey as an example.

A former community college president will lead the GOP on higher education policy--but how will she lead?

This past week I've been trying to learn more about Rep. Virginia Foxx (R. NC), the new chair of the Higher Education Subcommittee in Congress. Foxx also serves on the House Workforce and the Workforce Committee; she has done so since she first came to Washington.

A former state senator, Foxx has also been president of a community college. From 1987 through 1994, she led, then served as a consultant to Mayland Community College in her home state. This past year, Mayland ranked fourth in among top community colleges by Washington Monthly, a publication reputed to be among the more moderate to liberal media.

However, Foxx is no liberal; she is one of the returning Republicans in Congress who has scored a 100 percent approval rating from the American Conservative Union. The National Journal has named her as the most conservative member of the North Carolina delegation.

On her Web site, Foxx touts her votes as a fiscal conservative. She also cites that she raised over $1 million in private funds for an on-campus, state-of-the-art child development center built by prison inmates as a major accomplishment while she was a community college president.

During the previous Congress, Foxx sponsored a bill to strike President Obama's American Graduation Initiative that had provided $2 billion in assistance to community college. She asked that the savings be applied to deficit reduction. The then-Democratic Congress voted it down 126 - 301.

Upon accepting her subcommittee chair position, Foxx questioned President Obama's call for five million community college diploma or certificate holders by 2020. She commented that degree completion is not a fair measure of the effectiveness of a community college. She has a point: nationally, less than one-fifth of all community college students go on to earn an associates degree. She is also on-record as opposing Education Secretary Arne Duncan's proposed "gainful-employment" policies towards the use of federal funds to pay for degrees from for-profit schools. She also opposed the switch from a bank-run student loan program to direct lending by the colleges.

On the surface, Foxx has good reason to question the benefits of the federal funds for community colleges as well as Secretary Duncan's proposal. Unlike other members of the House she has led a school. My concern is that she will follow fellow conservatives based on their ideological views, rather than making judgment as an educator who has run a publicly supported institution.

If Foxx is sincere about cutting costs and red tape as well as providing affordable access to higher education, she can take one positive step that might benefit current and incoming college students: consolidated the low-interest Perkins Loan program into the Pell Grant program--turn small (less than $2,000) loans into grants that students would not need to repay. Currently this program, which charges lower interest rates than other federal loans, is used to aid the neediest of student borrowers, who should not be taking out loans.

In addition, this money could be used to assist more community college students, who tend to avoid student loans. It could also be used as a "match" with state and local grant programs. That would be consistent with past Republican policies which turned federally reviewed grant programs into block grants which are managed by state governments instead of a federal agency.

Another area where Foxx should lead the charge is college work-study. These federal funds are typically used to provide on-campus jobs; essentially this is free labor for the schools since they do not pay student salaries. Work-study awards per student are capped, meaning that individual students cannot earn more than the total amount stated on their financial aid letter. This encourages students to refuse the award, since other employers may offer opportunities to earn more money, especially during breaks and summers.

Work study is a good program in a bad economy; it provides employment when on-campus employers cannot hire. But it is a bad program in a good economy, when students can earn more elsewhere. Foxx could lead in effort to build more flexibility into the program. Legislation could make it easier for schools to uncap the awards in good times, to make work-study jobs more attractive to students. The budget for the program could be increased in bad times to help students pay for their education without forcing them to assume more debt.

Foxx, according to the news coverage, has been perceived as more of a friend to the for-profit education community than the Democratic legislators have been. But that does not mean she should let these schools off the hook in terms of their responsibility to their students. It is not necessary to over-regulate the marketing practices of these schools, but there should be some form of penalty, a loss of eligibility of federal funds, for misrepresenting themselves to students.

There also needs to be a mechanism to assist the students who were misled by the school. A judgment against a for-profit college could leading to school closings. Students would be left with a worthless credential or credits that cannot be transferred, and they would still need the proper education. Encouraging a public-private compensation pool or tax credits to for-profits to offer scholarships to these misled students are conservative ideas worth investigation.

It will be interesting to follow the news about Foxx, her ideas and her leadership as the 112th Congress picks up their business. If the Republican leadership wants to present a serious challenger to President Obama, it must come up with ideas to solve the same problems that the Democrats tried to solve. I have not seen such leadership on the health care front, so I have little idea of what to expect from them on higher education, except cuts and more cuts.

New Jersey lawmakers put numbers to voucher bill

Today I read on New Jersey Spotlight that Governor Chris Christie's proposed Opportunity Scholarship Program aka private school vouchers, is going to be under consideration by our state senate's Budget Committee.

The major case for the Opportunity Scholarship is this: tuition will be paid by corporate donors who will receive tax credits for their contributions, so no public dollars are involved. However, corporate tax revenues go down at a time when the state cannot afford to lose them.

This time there are more numbers attached to the bill. The reporter mentions at the top of the story that the voucher bill will impact students in 166 schools in 13 public school districts. If I have read the story right the bill will affect only 82,000 of the approximately 167,500 students enrolled in these schools.

In either case, I don't know if anyone has conducted a study to find out if each and every one of these 82,000 students, let alone the 167,500 enrolled in the districts, can be relocated from their "failing" school into another school, whether it be a charter school or another public school that is "passing" or a private or parochial school that is reputed to offer a better education and accept the Opportunity Scholarship as full tuition. The latest version of this bill raised the limits for the Opportunity Scholarship from $6,000 to $8,000 for students in grades K through 8, and from $9,000 to $11,000 for high school students.

Those who believe in school choice talk about choice as an option for the parents more than the students. Some parents will be more vocal than others; they will pursue any choice that is presented to them. Others will prefer that their children be educated in their neighborhood public school.

However, more charter schools and vouchers will not accommodate all of the parents demanding choice. This is why charter schools have been set up to have lotteries. Most are still start-up ventures; even the more sustainable charters established by the national non-profits such as the Knowledge is Power Program start small when they open a new school. The parochial school community has not assured citizens that they can take every student, and this bill does not prevent them from discriminating against applicants on the basis of religion. At the same time, not all private and parochial schools are in the financial position where they can accept the Opportunity Scholarship as full tuition. Nor are we assured that they are "better" schools.

In addition, if I read this story correctly, the bill will exclude students in these districts who attend "passing" schools, those that perform above the state's standards for math and language arts proficiency. However, those schools may not necessarily be in safer neighborhoods or offer a better academic experience than "failing" schools. Is the intention to limit or restrict choice to people who, for example, attend some district schools but not others? That is hardly choice for all.

Lastly, the bill is making its way through the legislature at the same time Governor Christie has called for more charter schools. He would like to speed the approval process by designating educators employed by colleges as authorizing agents. This might speed the process, but it also takes the Governor and his appointed education commissioner off the hook should a charter school prove to be a failure.

However, the advancing of the voucher bill leads to another question: what if a failing school targeted by future versions of this bill--and there will be several if it passes--is a charter school? Nationally, according to the documentary Waiting for Superman, only one-fifth of all charters schools produce test results that are better than state averages. Do we give the failing charter school a chance to succeed, especially if it is a new venture, or do we pull all of the students out quickly?

I am all for school choice, but these policies are not the best way to achieve it. They do not provide choice for every student. The traditional public school is handicapped when teachers, parents and the principals are given little to no authority to set a direction while charter schools and private schools can. Many parochial schools face the same administrative and financial problems as traditional public schools; their leaders answer to a central office that has control over their resources.

The best way to accomplish choice is to make all schools, public and private, more autonomous, like colleges that must sell themselves to students and their families. Advocates for these policies say that they make other options--private schools, parochial schools, charters and home schooling--make a competitive market for schools. In New Jersey calls for charters and vouchers have been combined with calls for teacher pay freezes and two-percent limits on raises.

If you want to unleash market forces you cannot restrict one part of the market--the traditional public schools--for the benefit of the others. You cannot beat up on the problems of some participants in the marketplace while turning a blind eye to the problems of others. And lastly, you must offer choice for all students if you sincerely believe in choice.

Graduate and Professional School Clips for Laughs

These YouTube clips come from a free video movie package on Xtranormal.com. The messages are idealistic and cynical, but there is plenty of room for laughs about the post-college educational life.

Don't rush new charters at the expense of safety and special needs

It was interesting that our hometown Trenton Times ran the story I discussed in the previous post along with an announcement that 23 new charter schools have been approved by our state department of education. Governor Chris Christie also announced that he would like to ease the approval process so that more charters can open their doors.

One thought mentioned in this announcement is to allow approval without requiring that the school identify a site. This is a big mistake. The teachers will need to know where they are going to work and parents would want to know where their children are going to school. At the very least a school administration should determine a safe place for instruction, whether it be in partnership with the local public school system, a local college, or in a building that can be designed to be safe and secure. The majority of charters are for students in the elementary grades, so safety and safe access are paramount considerations.

The approved charter schools include a school for autistic children in Newark, one in Salem County for children in foster care, two Hebrew-language immersion programs in Englewood and Teaneck, and a regional high school serving East Orange, Irvington and Newark that offers supplemental music instruction in class and online.

The use of charter schools to serve special needs students as well as those with special talents is a good idea, as long as the students and their parents are not subject to lottery. Schools that focus on special talents should have admission by competitions such as an audition or open examination while those that are meant to help fulfill special needs should be capable of serving all of those needs within their surrounding neighborhood. These issues should be considered as new policies are developed.

Don't mislead the public about charter schools

Today I read a story in the local Trenton Times that reported that the charter schools in Mercer, my home county, were doing well. They were outperforming other schools in their districts, though--and I cough here--they rarely eclipse the state average on New Jersey standardized tests.

The story next went on to praise the test results from the Princeton Charter School. The "lead person" for the school commented that there is "more structured instruction in both math and language arts. Each subject is taught at the charter school for one hour a day."

If that were the "magic bullet" to improving test results then it would be very easy for other schools to duplicate the practice. Princeton Charter could host a teacher's workshop and explain how they use the hour. Then again, it's still very difficult to believe that an extra fifteen to twenty minutes mattered so much. The quality of their students--and the Princeton public schools are highly regarded--might have had something to do with it. Their parents might have lent a helping hand, too.

Then the story summarizes the results from the Trenton charter schools.

+ Third graders at the three elementary schools out performed the district average, but not the state average.
+ Two of the three charter schools that have a fourth grade posted better results than the district average in fourth grade math, and only one posted better results in language arts. None did better than the state average.
+ Two of the charters that have a fifth grade did better than the district average on the fifth grade tests, but not better than the state average.
+ One of the charters that has a sixth and seventh grade performed close to state average on the math tests for those grades. The principal from his school said taht students get two hours of homework every day and they are given assessments every six to eight weeks. Those practices appear easy to duplicate as well.
+ One of the two charter high schools outperforms the district, which has one traditional high school, on the state examinations, but the other one does not.

Hamilton Township, a diverse suburb, has one K-3 charter school. Their third graders best the state average on the math tests, but they did not outperform the district or the state in language arts.

This is hardly a story worth a headline like: ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION SCORES BIG. Unless you kept the discussion to Princeton's results.

I have never been one for "grading" schools based on standardized test results, but I have never seen a greater effort by a reporter to stretch the truth in a headline. The charter schools might be doing better than other local schools, but we really don't know why. Do they spend more time teaching to a test, which is not really learning? If that were true, the practice could be duplicated in other schools and we would not need charters.

Seven Ways Your College Students Can Avoid the Freshman 15, guest post by Elizabeth Cutten

Elizabeth Cutten blogs on college life at FindCollegeCards.com. This post has been reprinted with her permission and edited for parents.

If you’re not familiar with the Freshman 15, it’s basically means that when a freshman comes onto campus, he/she gains up to 15 pounds. But if your son or daughter follows a few tips below, with your help, he/she will avoid the "weight gain."

Tip #1 Don't buy your child a car – Most college campuses are near a little town of some sort with restaurants, shops, and more, within walking distance from campus. Some larger schools are cities within themselves. There is no need for him/her to drive where they can walk.

Tip #2 Help him/her make healthy choices – If your son or daughter has a meal plan, make sure that he/she tries to eat healthy things on a daily basis such as soups, salads and more.

Tip #3 Encourage him/her to advantage of the college gym – Most colleges out there have a gym that is free to students. Your son or daughter should take advantage of this perk and set aside at least 3-4 times a week to work out.

Tip #4 Discourage late night snacking – Tell your son or daughter to kill off the eating before 8PM and not go to bed with a full stomach.

Tip #5 Encourage your child to try work out options – If your son or daughter does not want to be seen in the college gym, or maybe there isn’t a gym on campus, there are other options. These include free YouTube work out videos, as well as theNintendo Wii Fiit, which is like a personal virtual trainer.

Tip #6 Tell him/her to steer clear of wacky diets – Healthy eating is not difficult. It is certainly less difficult than starvation or fad diets.

Tip #7 Strictly guide your children to go easy on alcoholic drinks – While drinking here and there isn’t bad, your son or daughter should not drink to excess.

Losing weight, as well as preventing excessive weight gain isn’t that hard. As long as your sons or daughters have the motivation, make the right choices, and follow the tips above, they should easily avoid the curse of the Freshman 15.

Cutting back on football may not necessarily improve the fiscal picture of a state university

On Sunday the New York Times ran an interesting story about fundraising efforts by New York area public universities, including my alma mater, Rutgers, which launched a $1 billion capital campaign this fall.

More interesting were the comments following the story, including many about college football. Several alumni who commented about the story said that they would not give to their alma mater unless it de-emphasized the sport and decided not to pay seven figure salaries to their head football coach.

The story mentions how schools, including Rutgers, used marketing consultants to determine their donor base and strategies for approaching alumni at various age and income levels.

After reading the story and comments together, I wondered if a)the Rutgers consultants surveyed alumni and b)if they did, would contributions go up so significantly if the university put fewer dollars into football?

My guess is a) they did and b) they would not. Otherwise they would not be in the midst of a billion dollar campaign. To the university's credit, their fundraising team prepared an excellent color brochure that explained where the money would be spent on scholarships, faculty hiring, facilities and research programs. Intercollegiate sports were not mentioned in the material.

No matter, as far as the flagship campus is concerned; the university has built excellent facilities for baseball, soccer, lacrosse and intramural athletics, as well as football.

Rutgers is probably the only U.S. public university that has had an organized student-alumni-faculty group, the Rutgers 1000, organized to oppose the major investment in college football on the main campus. The university administration has also been criticized by Governor Chris Christie for allowing a stadium expansion to go forward under the then promise that ticket sales and a fundraising campaign would cover the costs. Now, following a 4-8 season, the naysayers have come out of the woodwork again.

Rutgers invested in a stadium expansion, so it's too late for them to turn back on college football. But what if, back in the early 90s, alumni stood fervently opposed to playing major college football and insisted that the stadium be left at 21,000 seats, which it was before Rutgers entered the Big East?

In the ten years before the team entered that conference in 1991, the Knights had 43 wins and 62 losses with four ties. If there was a time to quit and commit to a lower level of play, that was it. Rutgers fans had enough time to see and feel the affects of losing to major conference teams. If they wanted a schedule loaded with schools like Colgate and Lafayette, here was the chance.

If Rutgers had decided enough was enough and kept football at the lower level, what is to say that it would have a) cost significantly less and b) won more consistently? I won't even try to answer the second part.

The major differences between the Bowl subdivision and the next lowest level are the number of scholarships and coaches salaries. Playoffs would have meant travel to additional games, unless Rutgers became so dominant they would host in the lower rounds.

The team would still need to travel, eat training meals, comply with NCAA regulations and stay healthy. Medical staff would be needed to treat injuries, stadium staff (though fewer) would be needed to sell and serve food, take tickets and provide security.

I doubt that Rutgers would have completely dropped scholarship football. If it did, it would be one of only two flagship state schools--Vermont, which does not play football, is the other--without a scholarship-supported team.

Rutgers could have dropped to the Playoff Subdivision (I hate this term!) level and been a good fit with teams in the Colonial Athletic Association. There they would have played Delaware, James Madison, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Richmond, Towson, Villanova and William and Mary. Prior to playoffs these teams play an 11 game schedule, as Rutgers did through 2005. The lone out-of-conference game might have been against Colgate, a long-time Rutgers rival that also plays scholarship football at this level, an Ivy (they still play scholarship granting football schools) or maybe a regional Bowl Subdivision team such as Army, Boston College, Navy, Syracuse, U-Conn or U.Va.

So, it's possible the university would have saved travel costs by playing at this level; the furthest south they'd play would be Virginia instead of Florida.

They would have saved on coaches salaries. In 2010, Rutgers coach Greg Schiano earned approximately $2 million, highest in the Big East. The lowest paid coach, based on salary and bonus, was Louisiana-Monroe's Todd Berry, who could earn up to $277,000 in salary plus bonus.

But the cost of living in New Jersey is higher than the cost of living in Louisiana, so I would guess that Rutgers would pay more. Delaware coach K.C. Keeler earned a compensation package of approximately $310,000 in 2009. So let's say that a fair compensation package for the Rutgers head coach in the same conference would be approximately $400,000, which is, oddly enough, about the same salary the university pays their president.

So, we have a savings of $1.6 million from the head coach's salary. In 2007, the only year for which I could find information, Coach Schiano's nine assistants earned between $115,000 and $185,000 plus a car allowance. They also got a month's salary as bonus for winning the Texas Bowl.

Let's say we leave the assistant coaches salaries the same, since the head coach would be earning more than twice the salary of his highest paid assistant. There is a savings in the difference in compensation over the past four years. I'll estimate that to be $500,000 spread across nine coaches.

Then there's football scholarships. A NCAA Bowl Subdivision team is allowed to award up to 85 scholarships. A Playoff Subdivision school is allowed up to 63. Take away twenty-two scholarships at an average of $30,000 each per year and you have a savings of $660,000.

Then take away the guarantee game against the patsy opponent Rutgers knows they can beat, and the opponent knows it, too. That will save between $200,000 and $250,000.

So, the savings from staying "down" at the play-off level would be slightly more $3 to million plus travel and stadium maintenance expenses. Sounds good? Now let's look at the revenue side.

At the end of the 2008-2009 school year, Rutgers earned approximately $20 million from its football program; we'll assume 2010 was a down year because of the team's losing record. Supposedly, the program broke even. So, if Rutgers cut $3 million in coach's salaries and scholarships, as well as other expenses, does the university post a profit?

Not necessarily, because those revenues are based not only on ticket sales but on the university's shares of the proceeds as a visiting team, television revenues, participation in a bowl game, the St. Petersburg Bowl, that had a $1 million payout and licensing income. Ticket prices for non-students are $50 per game in a stadium with over 50,000 seats and you pay $20 to park.

If Rutgers stuck with a 20,000 seat facility, and that's the conference norm when they would be the visiting team, all revenues go down. As one example, Villanova charges $20 per game for seats between the 20 yard lines and $15 for the rest of the seats not sold to students. Rutgers would not be able to charge more; they play against the same level of competition. There would be less interest from television stations--most likely it would be local cable, such as Comcast, not ESPN. There would also be less income from licensing and parking.

Last season Rutgers also received $2.5 million for moving the Army game to the New Meadowlands. Rutgers might still play Army if the team played at the lower level but the state Sports and Exposition Authority would not be as interested in hosting the game.

Rutgers might have saved money on football, but the school would have likely faced an annual deficit unless it consistently fielded a playoff-bound team.

This past year, direct operating aid from New Jersey to Rutgers was cut by approximately $46 million. A less expensive football program would not make up much of the difference.

Could Martin Luther King Jr. have served as a successful college president?

Last year I read and reviewed a book, The Unlikely Disciple, a story of a Brown University student, Kevin Roose, who transferred to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. Falwell has since passed away, though his school lives on and continues to prosper. At 73, Falwell was not only the president of a university;he had also been a spiritual and political leader for Christian conservatives.

After I read that book, I wondered if Martin Luther King might have followed the same path, had he not been assassinated when he was only 39. King would be 82 this year, quite likely in retirement, but more honored for his accomplishments. King, along with Ronald Reagan, were among the first movement leaders to advance their agendas through television. Falwell took some of the characteristics of both men to advance his.

Falwell had skillfully television to turn a local church into a national mega-church and a very small college into a national university. He remained the pastor of his expanding church while he led conservative causes.

King resigned pastoral leadership in Montgomery, Alabama to devote full-time to civil rights activism. As he got older, he could have returned to a leadership position as the president of a historically black school or a more liberal religiously affiliated institution.

King graduated from Morehouse College, an all-male historically black college in Atlanta, in 1948. At the time, Benjamin Mays had been president of the college for eight years. He would remain president until 1967, while King's popularity was at its height. Only 46 when he became president of the college, Mays, like King, was a spiritual leader. He had earned his doctorate from the University of Chicago and he had been the dean of the School of Religion at Howard University. King called Mays his "intellectual father" and "spiritual mentor."

Is it possible that King could have succeeded Mays as President of Morehouse?

King might have been a popular choice among Morehouse alumni, though another alumnus, Hugh Gloster, was chosen to succeed Mays. Dr. Gloster would remain president for 20 years. In 1986, he was selected by his peers as one of the 100 most effective college presidents in the country. Gloster also had a extremely distinguished academic resume. He had also raised over $21 million as an administrator at the Hampton Institute, another historically black school. A scholar of American literature, Dr. Gloster penned Negro Voices in American Fiction which has been in print since 1948.

King might have been the more prominent name, but Gloster was more qualified to lead King's alma mater. And Morehouse prospered under his leadership.

No doubt King could have used his oratorical gifts to similar advantage on behalf of higher education. He had a significant presence on television at a time when the three major networks dominated the news coverage. He had also won a Nobel Prize; that would have given him considerable intellectual credibility.

But King would have had to improve his reputation among "establishment" politicians. While highly sought as an ally on civil rights issues, King publicly opposed to the Vietnam War. His extramarital affairs had also been closely monitored by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, while under the administrations of politically moderate presidents who had supported civil rights legislation.

King has been accused posthumously of plagiarism in the writing of his undergraduate seminary thesis and his doctoral dissertation from Boston University. Had those accusations surfaced during a presidential search, he would have been removed from consideration. Had they come about after King had been appointed to a presidency, the reverend would have probably been asked to resign, even if he had been a dynamic leader and an effective fundraiser.

Had a college board of trustees ignored the accusations, they would have placed themselves under a cloud of suspicion if King faltered later in his presidency. Other prominent black educators who had attained leadership positions might have feared investigations in their credentials, too.

Martin Luther King had the academic credentials and he certainly had the charisma to be perceived as an effective leader of a college. But he did not have the academic resume that most schools would have wanted from a president. Morehouse prospered because Benjamin Mays and Hugh Gloster did.

New Jersey Supreme Court decision--whatever it may be--will be no win for the public schools

This afternoon I've read that the New Jersey Supreme Court has appointed a special master, an assignment judge on the state's Superior Court, to determine by the end of March if the state's public schools can continue to deliver a "thorough and efficient" education in the aftermath of close to $1 billion in cuts. Governor Chris Christie cut state aid to all school systems, zeroing out the wealthier ones, while cutting needier districts by up to five percent.

No matter what the verdict will be, it will be a "no-win scenario for New Jersey citizens. Why?

+ The special master may side with the state, validating the cuts. His decision may be used to justify future cuts, too.

+ The special master may order Governor Christie to restore the funds. While this will put $1 billion back into the schools, it will also leave the state with a $1 billion hole to plug. Christie has refused to consider tax increases, so something else will need to be cut.

+ The special master may rule that funds should be restored for the neediest districts, but not the rest. Previous court decisions focused on thirty one districts in the state; these could be the only ones made whole. New Jersey voters are quite likely to resent forced the redistribution of property tax dollars.

It's very easy to blame the governor or the courts for the past actions that led New Jersey to a fiscal crisis, but pointing fingers will not solve the problems. Ideally, the governor should hold the neediest districts more accountable than others; they've received nearly sixty percent of state aid to schools.

Count on the governor to try to save face by demanding an extensive, high-profile audit of the systems that receive the most money. I would also count on the audit to find irregularities that the governor will use to justify change. But the changes cannot be limited to those proposals--for example, charter schools and vouchers--that he has advocated all along.

A look back to another fatal shooting of a politician--George Wallace

Last night as I read the transcript of President Obama's speech I thought about the incident in Tuscan on a more personal level. I have volunteered to work political campaigns; most recently, I helped my brother in his attempts to win a state assembly seat, and I have friends who hold office or have helped candidates get elected. As I've watched the stories about the Giffords shooting unfold, I realize that it could have just as easily been someone I know--and that's scary.

When my brother was thinking about running, I asked him what he liked about campaigning. Did he like the chance to have a free exchange of ideas with an opponent or to talk directly to voters in the places where they gathered. He said he liked both. That's what makes someone a politician, regardless of their party. They don't forget who sent them to office. Gabrielle Giffords certainly didn't. From what I've learned about her she was also well-liked on both sides of the aisle in her district.

John Boehner, the incoming Speaker of the House, is right: an attack on one member of a legislative body is an attack on everyone who is part of it. Rep. Giffords and each and every one of her colleagues are representatives. Whether they come home or receive constituents in their offices in Washington, constituent relations are the most important part of the job. The same is true for state legislators in their work in their districts and at their state capital.

Disrupting a legislator's ability to do that job could be considered "Un-American," not to mention disrespectful of the Constitution, when the disruption is hostile. It makes our country look ungovernable and unstable, hardly a face to show the world, especially given all of the media tools that are available cheaply at our disposal. Neither Democrats nor Republicans want our country seen in this light. That should be taken as a given.

I also thought back to the last time that a polarizing political figure was shot. In 1972, the late Alabama governor George Wallace was shot in Laurel, Maryland while campaigning for the Democratic nomination for president. Wallace survived the shooting though he was paralyzed for life and confined to a wheelchair. Also wounded were his personal body guard, Alabama State Trooper Capt. E. C. Dothard, hit in the stomach; Dora Thompson, a Wallace campaign volunteer, 5106 59th Ave., Rogers Heights, Md., and hit in the leg, a Secret Service agent, Nick Zarvos. Like Rep. Giffords, Wallace was shot in a parking lot.

Best noted for standing in the schoolhouse door in defense of segregation at the University of Alabama in 1963, Wallace ran in the Democratic primaries the following year, then he withdrew and endorsed the Republican nominee, Senator Barry Goldwater. In 1968, he ran for President as a third-party candidate, capturing nearly 14 percent of the popular vote, garnering 46 electoral votes and winning five states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. He captured nearly two-thirds of the votes in his home state. Since then, no other third party candidate has won electoral votes. Coincidentally, four of these five states--Arkansas was the exception--were four of the six states won by Goldwater in 1964!

In 1972, Wallace had won three primaries at the early stages of his campaign. He was on his way to winning the Maryland primary, where he had been campaigning, as well as the Michigan primary.

According to the Washington Post coverage of the time, Wallace's Democratic rivals, Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern, suspended their campaigns. Humphrey, Marvin Mandel, the Governor of Maryland, and Charles McC Mathias, the Republican U.S. Senator from Maryland, came to his bedside. President Nixon called the governor's wife, to offer comfort. He also dispatched the Presidential Physician, Dr. William Lukash, to Holy Cross Hospital, where Wallace was being treated.

Back then, no one had to look hard to find evidence that George Wallace was a segregationist--he publicly admitted it. During the 1972 campaign he received protection from Alabama state troopers, state and local police on his campaign stops, and the Secret Service. During his four-day swing through Maryland Wallace commented:

"It's a sad day in our country when you go to Washington, D.C., and can't go 100 feet from your hotel. It's not even safe in the shadow of the White House."

And here is one paragraph about the shooting that appeared that week in Time:


One of the first reactions to the Wallace attack was "Thank God it wasn't done by a black man." It is difficult to predict what racial vengeance that might have stirred. As it was, some blacks reacted to the news with satisfaction, or even bitter glee. A black Humphrey worker in Baltimore said after the shooting: "I'm celebrating tonight. As far as I'm concerned, that little cracker bastard was shot 52 years too late. If you live by disrespecting the law, you will die by it." Roy Innis, head of the Congress of Racial Equality, said: "You might say this was the chicken come home to roost. But that would be unkind." Most other blacks, however, remembering the assassinations of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr., simply deplored more violence. Said the Rev. Jesse Jackson: "Killing can no longer be justified, whether it is in Vietnam or Maryland or Memphis."

The harshest and most extreme reactions to the Wallace shooting in 1972 were no less foolish than the harshest and most extreme reactions to the Giffords shooting today. The thought of an American shot in a crowd, even a polarizing figure such as George Wallace, was just as frightening then as it is now. It is nothing for anyone to cheer about.

And, most sadly, the man who shot George Wallace, Arthur Herman Bremer, then 22 years old, was released from prison a little more than three years ago, after serving 35 years of a 53 year sentence. He earned his mandatory release through good behavior and by working in prison.

Chris Christie wants to abolish tenure, but does he have alternatives? A few suggestions

Yesterday in his State of the State address New Jersey governor Chris Christie called for a national discussion towards the end of teacher tenure. I'm no fan of Christie, but I have to admire his nerve, calling for such "reform" while he has to work with a legislature of the opposite party.

There are different ways to frame the tenure argument. The downside is that tenure prevents principals and school boards from firing bad teachers and provides guaranteed employment through retirement, which you cannot get in any other field, unless you happen to become a U.S. Supreme Court justice. The upside is that tenure is a protection for academic freedom--no teacher can be terminated because parents "don't like" the lessons being taught--and it is not lifetime employment, but an assurance of due process.

If teachers were paid in the same manner as private sector workers with the concept of a base salary and a respectable bonus, then I would agree that tenure was unnecessary. Then it's up to the teacher to find the work environment that best fits her talents and temperament. The opportunity for fair compensation goes hand-in-hand with professional mobility, which is lacking in K-12 education.

In addition to the lack of mobility, Governor Christie has combined the argument against tenure with the arguments to limit compensation and tie teacher performance to student test scores.

But in order to get a credible discussion on tenure, Christie will need to toss those prior arguments aside. Schools will become less effective workplaces if teachers are placed in situations where salary increases are limited and their performance is subject to factors--the students in their classes, the design of tests--beyond their control. People do not perform well when they're on pins and needles.

If you eliminate tenure, and you have a union environment, you will need to replace it with alternatives teachers can live with. Here are my suggestions:

+ Reduce the number of union contracts. In New Jersey there could be as few as two--one for teachers in Abbott districts, those in poorer communities which rely heavily on state funding, and the other for the rest of the schools, or as many as twenty two, twenty one at the county level, plus one for the Abbott districts.

+ Within the contract allow mobility in such a way that a teacher may move laterally from one school district to another within the same state or county. If a district is forced to layoff teachers, those teachers should be able to accept another position in the same state or county with no loss of salary.

+ Change the tenure review period from three years to five or six, making it more similar to colleges. While this will provide less security to younger teachers, the reality is that half of the new teachers hired leave the profession within five years. I would prefer to consider a more committed teacher.

+ Eliminate the guaranteed pay increase for teachers who receive master's degrees, and limit reimbursement, if it exists, to teachers who have worked five or more years. Again, it should go to the more committed professional.

+ Initiate a simpler review process for teachers who have committed acts of professional misconduct. My recommendation is that these reviews be conducted before a neutral panel of teachers and administrators. Acts of misconduct, for example, hitting a student, sexual harassment, poor attendance, clear lack of effort are so obvious that a complicated arbitration process is not needed. A teacher who has committed an obvious misdeed should not be allowed to remain on a payroll because of a backed up court or mediation calendar, or because of the legal expenses to the union and the school district.

+ Set up a bonus pool with bonuses worth earning. This would be a public-private match between the union, the state and possibly a private foundation. Ideally, if the bonus pool is managed by a reputable financial professional, the state should be able to reduce its participation over time. A panel of retired teachers and administrators could select the bonus eligible teachers statewide. This would be more effective than merit pay schemes which attempt to change the raise that is guaranteed in traditional union contracts to a merit raise.

+ Another option is to have school-based bonuses. A similar panel can recommend the best performing schools--based on several criteria accepted by educators and lawmakers. The principals and teachers at the winning schools could allocate the bonus money towards professional development, school resources or simply bonuses to teachers.

The thought of abolishing tenure with no alternative in its place is completely unrealistic in New Jersey. However, reforms and alternative actions that may save money, reduce labor costs, implement fairer wage policies, and better discipline bad teachers are quite possible. I just wonder how open any discussion involving Chris Christie would be.

What would Thomas Jefferson do about education today?

Lately I've read that some members of Congress want to take government back to the way things were in the past, way back to the times of our Founding Fathers, among them Thomas Jefferson.

In 1793, Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican Party. Three years later, he ran for President and lost to John Adams. The custom at the time was for the candidate with the second-most votes to be Vice President. However Jefferson and Adams never spoke during the eight years they served together. The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, which forced a President and a Vice President to be on the same ticker was passed in 1804, Jefferson's first term as President.

Today's conservatives would admire several of Jefferson's beliefs and accomplishments. He believed in the establishment of a "wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another." He also believed in states rights.

As president, Jefferson reduced the size of the federal bureaucracy as well as the size of the Army and Navy. He abolished the federal Direct Tax of 1798, which was set up to raise funds for a war chest for an impending military conflict with France. And while he financed the Louisiana Purchase, he also reduced the size of the national debt.

However, Jefferson also had several interesting visions for public education in a relatively new country and sought to follow through on them as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and as Governor of Virginia from 1777 through 1780.

While he did not believe in gender equity, Jefferson advocated three years of primary education for all girls and boys; advanced studies for a select number of boys; and a state scholarship to the College of William and Mary for one boy from each district every two years. He also sponsored a bill for the establishment of a free state public library in Richmond, the capital city. In 1784, he advocated for the public education of slaves. And in 1809, immediately after he left the presidency, Jefferson founded and helped design the campus of the University of Virginia, including the Rotunda, the university's most symbolic building and the Academical Village, better known among students and alumni as "The Lawn."

Given all he advocated and accomplished, I wonder how Thomas Jefferson would react to the ideas of standardized testing, federal sanctions and dramatic budget cuts at state and local levels.







+ In 1778, he penned A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge

The Ownership Society Dates Back to Coolidge and Hoover

During his presidency George W. Bush touted his vision of America as an "Ownership Society" where people lived and worked as free from government as possible--while the benefits of home ownership would spread to as many citizens as possible. My representative in Congress, Rush Holt, called Bush's vision the "you're on your own-ership society." There are many college students as well as senior citizens living in our district so Holt's words resonated well.

But the Ownership Society did not begin with George W. Bush. It actually dates back to the Coolidge Administration of the early 1920's and its Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover.

In 1922, the Butterick Publishing Company, a household magazine publisher based in New York, formed Better Homes in America, an organization directed at responsible consumerism through home ownership, home maintenance and improvement, and home decoration. President Coolidge was honorary chairman of the organization's Advisory Council while Hoover was president of the Board of Directors.

Subsequently, the Better Homes in America headquarters moved to Washington, D.C. In addition to Secretary Hoover, members of the Advisory Council of Better Homes in America, which called itself "an educational organization," read like a "Who's Who" of national organizations and agencies. They included the U.S Departments of Agriculture, Interior and Labor; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Girl Scouts of America; the American Home Economics Association; the General Federation of Women's Clubs; the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs; the Garden Club of America; and the National Congress of Parents and Teachers.

The organization launched several public relations campaigns, including the distribution of copies of a book called How to Own Your Home, distributed through Secretary Hoover's office. The book was also distributed through lighting, hardware and fixture stores. This is nothing like Ameriquest or Quicken Loans buying naming rights to sports venues, but the campaign was significant for its time.

According to Alyssa Katz' book, Our Lot, a history of real estate mania in America, Hoover equated home ownership with family values and moral character. According to Katz, Hoover declared:

"It is mainly through the hope of enjoying the ownership of a home that the latent energy of any citizenry is called forth. Owning a home may change the very physical, mental and moral fibre of one's children."

Coolidge had called for increased home ownership when he served as Vice President under Warren G. Harding. Given today's politics as well as the over-aggressive mortgage sales practices that blew the housing bubble, these quotes from him are interesting:

"There are two shrines at which mankind has always worshipped, must always worship: the altar which represents religion, and the hearthstone which represents the home.

"We believe in the right to acquire, to hold, and transmit property. . . . It is of little avail to assert that there is an inherent right to own property unless there is an open opportunity that this right may be enjoyed in a fair degree by all. That which is referred to in such critical terms as capitalism cannot prevail unless it is adapted to the general requirements. . . ."

" It is time to demonstrate more effectively that property is of the people. It is time to transfer some of the approbation and effort that has gone into the building of public works to the building, ornamenting, and owning of private homes by the people at large. . . . Let them begin, however slender their means, the building and perfecting of the national character by the building and adorning of a home which shall be worthy of the habitation of an American family, calm in the assurance that the gods send thread for a web begun."

More interesting, the Better Home public relations campaigns took place at a time, when, according to Katz, real estate prices increased by fifty to seventy five percent per year. Borrowers had to put up down payments as much as fifty percent, and sometimes took out second mortgages with interest rates as high as twenty percent to finance their homes. Mortgages were typically no longer than three to five years. Borrowers were expected to refinance, and pay hefty fees for doing so. And, Katz adds, many loans were interest only. So only a privileged few built equity in their homes, much like borrowers at the later half of the 'Aughts. Only back then most borrowers had only one income and few investments.

However, during the Depression, and like today, home values plummeted. By 1933, according to Katz, there were a thousand foreclosures a day. It was just as easy to lose a home in those days of creative financing as it was to buy one. Just like it was in the later half of the 'Aughts. Only in 1933 the federal government created the Home Owners Loan Corporation to refinance more than a million mortgages to terms as long as thirty years, the Federal Housing Administration to insure them and the Federal National Mortgage Corporation (today known as Fannie Mae) to provide new capital, by purchasing the mortgages issued by the banks.

I've put this post up because lending decisions affect the make-up of communities which in turn affects the quality of public services, including the schools. The over-aggressive sales practices of companies like Ameriquest and Countrywide put mortgages in the hands of people who could not afford to repay them--and left abandonment in their wake.

Goes to show another example of how history repeats itself. Check out Katz' book for more details. You'll be more careful when you buy your next home. And you should worry when conservative roll out the home ownership flag the next time.

Terrelle Pryor is guilty of being an idiot

I've started reading the stories about Ohio State quarterback Terrelle Pryor, recently suspended for five games next season for selling some of his game memorabilia. According to the NCAA, Pryor must repay $2,500 that he received for his 2008 Big Ten championship ring, a 2009 Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award and his 2008 Gold Pants, given to players for beating Michigan. The money will be given to charity.

I've followed Pryor's career with some interest for the past three years. A native of Jeanette, Pennsylvania, Pryor was not only the top football prospect in the country in 2007, he was one of the best basketball players in the country, too. He led his football and basketball teams to state titles. Here he's about to sink the tie-breaking free throw in overtime in the 2008 Pennsylvania State Interscholastic Athletic Association championship game, and I was there.

During the state finals I sat court-side, as I was doing research for an upcoming novel. While my story is not about Pryor, he was the big story all weekend. He originally committed to the University of Pittsburgh as a junior to play basketball, but reconsidered and decided to play football instead, narrowing his choices to Michigan, Oregon, Penn State and Ohio State. Rumors spread as Prior played coy with the news media about his future plans.

That day, I asked around for stories about Pryor and got an interesting one. Apparently he signed autographs for fans before and after games, including news stories that had covered his games. He had refused to sign covers of the Sporting News because he did not like how they had written about him. Wow, a real treat, I thought, and he hasn't graduated high school. What will he be like in college?

Very much the same, it turns out. He sold his memories for money. I think the NCAA ruling was a little silly but as Tony Soprano says: "if you can quote the rules, you can obey them."

Ohio State cashes in on Pryor's fame by putting his picture on program covers, touting him for the Heisman, and by licensing and selling replicas of his jersey. It's not fair, I know, that a school can cash in on its best player while the player is on scholarship, but most players do not complain, especially when they know that a bigger payday awaits them.

Terrelle Pryor was wrong to sell his memorabilia, not only because it is against NCAA rules, but because he is a selfish idiot. He cashed out too early for too little gain.

At six-six, Pryor is tall for a quarterback, but he is also exceptionally mobile. He is capable of making the longer throws on the run, much like John Elway or Donovan McNabb in their prime. This past season Pryor came into his own throwing for 27 touchdowns. Auburn's Heisman Trophy winner Cam Newton and Stanford's Andrew Luck threw for 28. Prior has also rushed for more than 2,700 yards in his three seasons at Ohio State. It is safe to say, based on his statistics, that the man has lived up to his pre-college billing, though he has not led the Buckeyes to a national championship.

Before his suspension, Pryor had planned to return to Ohio State for his senior season. He still says that he plans to come back. Going back on his word has a downside as well. It shows that he is unworthy of a coach's trust and that he does not make mature decisions. No coach will want a quarterback, the man expected to lead his team, to be someone he will have to watch over. Nor do they expect him to be someone who will put himself ahead of his team and let his teammates down.

If Terrelle Pryor goes back on his word and declares for the NFL Draft he will not be taken in the first round; there are better quarterbacks ahead of him. And he will not be a first-round pick in next year's draft. It will not be because of his statistics after eight or nine games, instead of thirteen or fourteen. If he stays healthy and Ohio State plays him in the games that favor his skills, he will be productive. There will be plenty of game film for the coaches to watch. But there will also be YouTubes of his press conferences where he tried to account for his actions.

Since I've seen Pryor play basketball, I wonder if he was a bigger idiot to choose football. If he cared so much about the money he could have gone into the NBA after a year at less risk of injury.