No on 3A & 3B, Creek & Jeffco

Editor: Suppose the education lobby asked to put a tollbooth at your front door where they would charge you 50 cents every day except Sunday, just to leave home. You'd want to know that before saying yes or no, wouldn't you? Well, that's the tariff on an average homeowner in Cherry Creek Schools if the twin tax and bond measures on this year's ballot are approved, though you'd have no idea of it from the fancy mailers going out, and you'd get only half the truth from supporters' press releases.

So we asked a district parent and experienced financial analyst, appearing here as Number Cruncher, to run the figures for several different housing sizes. Here's his report:

============================

Caveat Voter: 3A and 3B are Expensive!

The Cherry Creek Schools Board of Education and the citizens asking voters to vote for 3A and 3B have only discussed the cost of 3B, but have not disclosed or discussed the annual cost of 3A and the total annual cost of both measures to our District’s taxpayers.

Measure 3A, the $18,000,000 annual operating override costs an additional 3.964 mills per year and Measure 3B (the $203,500,000 bond question) costs an additional 2.172 mills per year. The total tax increase will be 5.136 mills per year. Wow!

Below you can see what the annual property tax increase will be for you depending upon the assessable value of your home.

The cost is high in these strained economic times. I am very displeased at the district’s failure to inform taxpayers of the cost, and I encourage people to take this into account when voting on these measures.

Assessable......3AAdditional......3BAdditional......Total Additional Home Value.....Annual Cost.......Annual Cost......Annual Property Tax

$250,000........$79..................$43.................$142

$336,000........$106.................$58.................$164 = Average Home

$500,000........$158.................$86.................$244

$750,000........$237.................$130...............$367

$1,000,000......$316.................$173..............$489

$1,500,000......$473.................$259..............$732

(Some differences due to rounding)

============================

Editor: Jefferson County Schools have their own 3A and 3B, seeking to raise almost twice as much money as Cherry Creek, and taxpayers should also look skeptically on those big tax increases in the current economic climate. Our friend Tom Graham has Jeffco and the daily papers in a tizzy with his wicked satire on "reasons to vote yes" in that election.

Meanwhile back in Cherry Creek, The Villager, principal newspaper serving the area, carried in its 10/2/08 edition an article and a letter from the Board of Education, both discussing ballot measures 3A and 3B. for Cherry Creek Schools. (Not available on their website at VillagerPublishing.com.)

The article discussed the cost of the bond issue (3B) for the average priced home, but did not mention the annual cost of the $18,000,000 override (3A) to the average homeowner. The school board's letter suggested the combined cost of the two measures is only $58 per year, which is inconsistent with the information in the article and with the mill levy increase required to generate an additional $18 million annually.

The article said the assessable taxable value for the average home (presumably including single family homes, condominiums and townhomes) is $336,620. As the above table by Number Cruncher shows, the combined added cost of 3A and 3B for a taxpayer owning an average priced home of $336,000 will be about $164 per year.

Our imaginary tollbooth figure is calculated by taking a year of 365 days, subtracting 52 Sundays, and dividing the remaining 313 days into that $164 annual tax increase, for a daily charge of just over 53 cents.

The real Ayers threat

I've been researching a piece on the Ayers connection, so was glad when Palin started focusing on Obama's relationship with this "unrepentant domestic terrorist", and have, like many in the conservative blogosphere focused my own blog often on Obama's work with Ayers at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. I'm glad that the mainstream media is finally being forced into addressing the issue -- even as they continue to whitewash the issue in their determination to make Obama president. But in looking deeper into the Ayers connection, I realize that part of the story has not been effectively told -- and that is the practical impact that Ayers will have on the education policy of an Obama presidency. The most significant aspect is a focus on "education debt" -- essentially paying reparations to minorities for the "history of oppression" perpetrated by Whites. This is a cornerstone of Bill Ayers' education reform program, and is also a key element in the race-based education philosophy of Linda Darling-Hammond -- a Professor of Education at Stanford, Obama's primary education adviser and prospective Secretary of Education in an Obama administration.

Here's part of what I found -- excerpted from my piece entitled "Reading, Writing and Radicalism": The radical orientation of Ayers as an “educational reformist” should be well known, as he has written more than a dozen books on the subject and has been a leading educational scholar and advisor in Chicago for the past two decades. Ayers was recently elected vice-president for curriculum for the 25,000-member American Educational Research Association -- the nation's largest organization of education-school professors and researchers. His work with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has been highly emphasized by the Obama campaign as a form of “legitimization”, and Daley was recently quoted in the New York Times as saying “People make mistakes. You judge people by their whole life”. Daley’s view is likely based on a politician’s appreciation for Ayers’ role in doling out $100 million in grants within the city during the 1990s rather than any deep analysis of Ayers’ political or educational views – none of which have changed since the 1960s. Ayers continues to describe himself as a “radical, leftist, small ‘c’ communist”, and has written that he believes “teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression”. He sees teaching as a natural extension of the quest for social justice – which he feels requires a revolution in the capitalist economic, political and education system. In a speech given in November, 2006 before Hugo Chavez and the World Education Forum in Caracas, Venezuela, Ayers said the following:

As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion! It is in this context that the Obama-Ayers relationship should be viewed. While the Ayers’ terrorist connections are significant retrospectively, his education goals that were actively endorsed and sponsored by Barack Obama are prospectively even more important.

And this is where things get interesting. While it is obvious that Ayers will not have a formal role in an Obama administration, it is equally obvious that Obama’s experience with Ayers and the CAC will animate his education policy as president. The Obama Campaign’s primary education adviser is Linda Darling-Hammond, a Professor of Education at Stanford University, and well-known expert in school design and teacher training. Hammond has been mentioned as a possible Secretary of Education in an Obama administration, has been a vocal supporter of traditional teacher certification programs, current union control of public education and opposes charter school programs. She also has been a vocal critic of the implementation of the current No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. More importantly, she is an advocate of a race-based paradigm for education that fully embraces the concept of “education debt” – a form of reparations for generations of racial bias perpetrated by White America. Hammond argued forcefully last year in the liberal magazine The Nation, for example, the importance of “pay(ing) off the educational debt to disadvantaged students that has accrued over centuries of unequal access to quality education.” The concept of education debt is an idea laid out in 2006 by Professor Gloria Ladson-Billings of the University of Wisconsin, the then-president of the American Education Research Association and actively supported by Ayers. Ayers wrote himself in January of 2008 on his website the following:

The dominant narrative in contemporary school reform is once again focused on exclusion and disadvantage, race and class, black and white…the monster in the room: white supremacy. Gloria Ladson-Billings upends all of this with an elegant reversal: there is no achievement gap, she argues, but actually a glancing reflection of something deeper and more profound—America has a profound education debt. The educational inequities that began with the annihilation of native peoples and the enslavement of Africans…transformed into apartheid education, something anemic, inferior, inadequate, and oppressive. Over decades and centuries the debt has accumulated and is passed from generation to generation, and it continues to grow and pile up. Further, the long-standing professional relationship between Ayers, Darling-Hammond and Ladson-Billings – and thus Barack Obama -- is well established. As legal analyst Steve Diamond writes at No Quarter, a chapter called “Education for Democracy” by Darling-Hammond appeared in a volume co-edited by Ayers called “A Light in Dark Times”. In addition, a chapter co-authored by Ladson-Billings on “racing justice” appeared in a book co-edited by Ayers called “Teaching for Social Justice: A Democracy and Education Reader”. Ladson-Billings wrote the foreword to Ayers’ book “To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher” and Ayers and Ladson-Billings are co-editors of “City Kids, City Schools: More Reports from the Front Row” just published. All have been consistent in support of a radical education reform program.

Linda Darling-Hammond’s piece in The Nation is an excellent illumination of what may underscore education policy under a President Obama. She makes abundantly clear that she supports the notion of education reparations and that this should be paid in part by a wholesale revamping of NCLB to focus on more on investment and less on testing – modifications that the Obama Campaign’s education platform also supports . She calls for a “New paradigm for national education policy…guided by dual commitments to support meaningful learning on the part of students, teachers and schools; and to pay off the educational debt, making it possible for all students to benefit from more productive schools.” This is education code-speak for vast sums of money to be poured into minority schools and community programs to atone for past sins.

The Ayers-Hammond approach to education debt has been essentially supported by Barack Obama on the campaign trail. In fact, Obama has spoken repeatedly about the need for reparations to make amends for the past oppression of minorities. On “Meet the Press” in July he said:

The biggest problem that we have in terms of race relations, I think, is dealing with the legacy of past discrimination which has resulted in extreme disparities in terms of poverty, in terms of wealth and in terms of income…And that involves investing in early childhood education, fixing the schools in those communities, being willing to work in terms of job retraining. And those are serious investments.Obama’s education platform as outlined at his campaign website is full of community-focused programs that will be ripe targets for massive “reparation” investments in a reformulated NCLB. His K-12 Education Fact Sheet discusses at length the expansion of Head Start programs, universal preschool and includes “enlisting parents and communities to support teaching and learning”, including “school-family contracts” and a massive school redesign project that includes increased funding for teacher recruitment and retention. It is a blueprint taken almost whole-cloth from one written by Darling-Hammond that calls for a “Marshall Plan” for teaching and the institution of a more authoritarian structure for driving curriculum development, testing and investment. Like Ayers’ own admiration of Venezuela’s centralized educational dictatorship, Darling-Hammond has expressed support for countries such as Singapore that have instituted highly structured systems that are the antithesis of school choice – signaling what will certainly be a strong emphasis on the unionized public education system in the U.S. under an Obama administration.

The real impact of the Obama-Ayers relationship is not in Ayers’ radical past but rather in his radical present. The influence that Ayers’ has had on Obama’s view of education during his time at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge can be seen in his appointment of Linda Darling-Hammond as his primary education advisor, and signals what is certain to be radical reform at the core of Obama’s education policy as president. This will include more investment into the current public school monopoly at the expense of free market solutions like vouchers and charter schools, and a more aggressive social change agenda that will result in greater control by unions and community organizations – all orthodox elements of the William Ayers radical agenda.

Only markets can rescue schools

Editor: If you thought the government schools only turned out collectivist-minded clones, think again. Contributor Jimmy Sengenberger of Centennial, Colorado, a 2008 honors graduate of Grandview High School who's now at Regis University and a national leader in the Liberty Day national movement, proves otherwise in this diagnosis of the educratic system he recently escaped from. A Lesson Plan for American Education

The United States of America is in the midst of a dire situation. Across the country public schools are failing, and attempts by the federal government to remedy the situation only serve to worsen it.

A 2004 study orchestrated by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research found that only 32 percent of high school graduates had the qualifications to attend a four-year college.

The knee-jerk reaction when it comes to education is to either throw more money at it or cede more power to the federal government. But throwing money at the problem has proved itself never to be the solution. According to ABC News' John Stossel, increases in education spending have surpassed a rate of 100 percent since 1971, yet graduation rates and achievement scores have remained stagnant.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) expanded the range of the federal government in matters of education to record-breaking levels. However, the federal government failed to fund the mandates, or new requirements that the states had to meet, of its own program. This consequently resulted in increased strain on the states, which had to reach into their own pockets to fund the federal program.

The role of the federal government, however, is not to run a national school board. Nowhere in the Constitution is it granted authority over education or does the word education even appear. The Department of Education (DE) itself was not established until 1979, and since then its power has expanded to epic proportions.

Time and again micromanagement of education proves to cause problems, not solve them. The farther away the decision-makers are from those that are actually affected by education, the worse the system is. Education needs to be tailored to fit the needs of the students and the wishes of the parents, not government bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

Education requires fundamental reform, starting with the repeal of NCLB and a substantial shrinkage in the mandates and power of the DE. The federal government should play a minimal role in the system, doing little more than ensuring that when a student changes states his or her grade level is the same, establishing the most basic of standards and providing grants to the states to aid them in enacting their own plans.

When a monopoly exists, competition and innovation are stifled, and the quality of the product or service goes down. American education is a government monopoly; each state should take a lesson from the free-market playbook that has made America the economic powerhouse that it is and enact reforms which spur competition.

As a result of a lack of contrariety between schools, the quality of the service is bound to go down, and innovative styles of education are less likely to emerge. Therefore, it is essential that competition become the foundation of our nation's education system.

Instead of funds being allocated to the schools based upon the number of students they have, the money should be attached to each individual student, a policy successfully instituted in Belgium. Whatever school a student goes to, the money follows. Schools will then have to provide higher-quality services in order to remain competitive, as with a university, or else they will no longer attract students and consequently be unable to sustain themselves.

Many argue, however, that such a free-market system would expand the disparity between schools of higher and lower quality, like the gap between the rich and poor, further destabilizing the parity of education.

The free-market itself, however, does not create this discrepancy; it is, rather, the result of when a given business provides a higher-quality service at a lower cost that beats out the competition. If a school establishes itself as a source of higher-caliber learning, it is only a positive measure of the success of its programs. There will naturally be a progression in favor of those schools superior to the others, but that is the point: opening up the system to spur an increase in quality. And there can always be flexibility in the system to give further aid to those still-failing public schools.

Education is a drastically important issue which requires fundamental reform to improve. Without a good education, a child's future has the potential for ruin. First returning power to the states and then spurring competition between schools is the path to a better system.

Constitution Day event for teens

This Saturday, Sept. 20, the Liberty Day organization invites teenagers to its 2008 Constitution Celebration at CU-Denver. A nonpartisan organization dedicated to educating youth about the contents of the U.S. Constitution, Liberty Day held its very first high school “Constitution Celebration” at same location one year ago. The conference was both a success and an enjoyable experience for all involved.

Information and registration for this year's event are at CelebrationAmerica.org.

"As a parent I am always looking for ways to increase my daughter's knowledge of our country, its history and form of government. This conference was a great way to expose her to many important issues without boring her!" praised Mary Ehlers, a 2007 participant’s parent.

Nearly sixty high school students from across the state were in attendance. Several presenters, including Secretary of State Mike Coffman, Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon and former Senate President John Andrews, spoke, debated or led breakout sessions at this event, which was generally hailed as “a great way to learn about our government and meet new people.”

"Attending the event gave me my first real taste of American democracy,” said Matt Baatz, a 2007 participant who is now a freshman at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs. “The speakers were people I had seen before either on television or working at the Capitol. The fact that they were there and speaking on such a personal level made the government and Constitution very real.”

Liberty Day has since launched its successor program, Celebration America, as a premier program for high school and college students with the express purpose of informing students about the Constitution, inspiring them to action and involving them in the political process in a fun, interactive and engaging manner.

Saturday's event will feature two exciting debates showing how the Constitution is applied in day-to-day life. Students will participate in engaging breakout sessions with people who are involved in government and politics. Prominent presenters like outgoing Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff and Solicitor General Dan Domenico will be in attendance.

“This is a great opportunity to work with local high school students in advancing their understanding and appreciation of the U.S. Constitution,” said Dr. Frank Sanchez, UCD Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.

The conference begins at 10:15 a.m. and will end at approximately 4:00 p.m. Lunch is provided free of charge at the Celebration America “Constitution Lunch Party.” Participants will get the chance to visit and eat lunch with elected officials of all stripes. They will also test out actual voting machines and learn about different political organizations in the state.

Jimmy Sengenberger is the National Director for Liberty Day’s Celebration America program. A 2008 honors graduate of Grandview High School in Centennial, Colorado, he is now a freshman at Regis University.

Counsel for a college freshman

A young friend of mine started at Hillsdale College this week, and his dad, with whom I attend church, gave the new freshman a unique gift. The father asked a couple dozen people whom he respects to email our thoughts on two questions, for inclusion in a virtual scrapbook that will accompany the Class of 2012 entrant to campus. Those questions, and my answers to each, were as follows: 1. What is one thing that you did (or wished you had done) to make your college experience great?

My years at a Midwest liberal arts college with high ideals and a small student body, picturesque rural campus (much like Hillsdale in all those ways), were golden in part because I was led to (a) take the smaller, more challenging classes where I could get full benefit of personal tutoring from the professor and (b) participate to the fullest in many extracurricular activities, which often provided me better learning experiences and more lifelong friendships than the academic side of college.

2. What is one "truth" (adage or scripture or quote) that was important to you back then or today?

Very early in college I came across the Latin motto, "Navigare necesse est, vivere non necesse est." It was the by-word of explorers setting out from Europe into distant unknown oceans centuries ago. The translation is roughly, "To sail is imperative, to live or merely survive is not." In other words, risk it! Aim high, go beyond your limits, follow your star. That served me well as a undergrad and ever since.

Endnote: If you want to feel ancient, try confronting the fact that it's been 46 years since you were in this young guy's shoes, diving into college with all the excitement and trepidation that includes. For me that meant August 1962, heading off to my parents' alma mater, Principia College in Elsah, Illinois. The dad's question about "what made your college experience great" was on target in my case; those turned out to be four of the best years of my life. Two decades later, as it happened, I had another great four years working as a vice president at Hillsdale, to which I must regretfully give the edge over my beloved Principia in terms of conservative principles and fidelity to biblical truth.