Tom McClintock for House of Representatives

Continuing the education theme, California State Senator Tom McClintock is running for national office, U.S. Representative for California’s 4th District. He handily defeated the well-financed campaign of former Congressman Doug Ose 54%-39% in last Tuesday’s primary by running against earmarks. Good for him. McClintock also ran for Governor during the recall election that saw Arnold Schwarzenegger attain the office. Too bad he couldn’t have won that one.

But the reason I’m writing this post is to republish something he wrote in 2005:

A Modest Proposal for Saving Our Schools

The multi-million dollar campaign paid by starving teachers’ unions has finally placed our sadly neglected schools at the center of the budget debate.

Across California, children are bringing home notes warning of dire consequences if Gov. Schwarzenegger’s scorched earth budget is approved – a budget that slashes Proposition 98 public school spending from $42.2 billion this year all the way down to $44.7 billion next year. That should be proof enough that our math programs are suffering.

As a public school parent, I have given this crisis a great deal of thought and have a modest suggestion to help weather these dark days.

Maybe – as a temporary measure only – we should spend our school dollars on our schools. I realize that this is a radical departure from current practice, but desperate times require desperate measures.

The Governor proposed spending $10,084 per student from all sources. Devoting all of this money to the classroom would require turning tens of thousands of school bureaucrats, consultants, advisors and specialists onto the streets with no means of support or marketable job skills, something that no enlightened social democracy should allow.

So I will begin by excluding from this discussion the entire budget of the State Department of Education, as well as the pension system, debt service, special education, child care, nutrition programs and adult education. I also propose setting aside $3 billion to pay an additional 30,000 school bureaucrats $100,000-per-year (roughly the population of Monterey) with the proviso that they stay away from the classroom and pay their own hotel bills at conferences.

This leaves a mere $6,937 per student, which, for the duration of the funding crisis, I propose devoting to the classroom.

To illustrate how we might scrape by at this subsistence level, let’s use a hypothetical school of 180 students with only $1.2 million to get through the year.

We have all seen the pictures of filthy bathrooms, leaky roofs, peeling paint and crumbling plaster to which our children have been condemned. I propose that we rescue them from this squalor by leasing out luxury commercial office space. Our school will need 4,800 square feet for five classrooms (the sixth class is gym). At $33 per foot, an annual lease will cost $158,400.

This will provide executive washrooms, around-the-clock janitorial service, wall-to-wall carpeting, utilities and music in the elevators. We’ll also need new desks to preserve the professional ambiance.

Next, we’ll need to hire five teachers – but not just any teachers. I propose hiring only associate professors from the California State University at their level of pay. Since university professors generally assign more reading, we’ll need 12 of the latest edition, hardcover books for each student at an average $75 per book, plus an extra $5 to have the student’s name engraved in gold leaf on the cover.

Since our conventional gym classes haven’t stemmed the childhood obesity epidemic, I propose replacing them with an annual membership at a private health club for $39.95 per month. This would provide our children with a trained and courteous staff of nutrition and fitness counselors, aerobics classes and the latest in cardiovascular training technology.

Finally, we’ll hire an $80,000 administrator with a $40,000 secretary because – well, I don’t know exactly why, but we always have.

Our bare-bones budget comes to this:

5 classrooms $158,400
150 Desks @ $130 $19,500
180 annual health club memberships @ $480 $86,400
2,160 textbooks @ $80 $172,800
5 C.S.U. Associate Professors @ $67,093 $335,465
1 Administrator $80,000
1 Secretary $40,000
24% faculty and staff benefits $109,312
Offices, expenses and insurance $30,000
TOTAL $1,031,877

This budget leaves a razor-thin reserve of just $216,703 or $1,204 per pupil, which can pay for necessities like paper, pencils, personal computers and extra-curricular travel. After all, what’s the point of taking four years of French if you can’t see Paris in the spring?

The school I have just described is the school we’re paying for. Maybe it’s time to ask why it’s not the school we’re getting.

Other, wiser, governors have made the prudent decision not to ask such embarrassing questions of the education-industrial complex because it makes them very angry. Apparently the unions believe that with enough of a beating, Gov. Schwarzenegger will see things the same way.

Perhaps. But there’s an old saying that you can’t fill a broken bucket by pouring more water into it. Maybe it’s time to fix the bucket.

How can you NOT want this guy in Congress? And if you liked that piece, read this one he wrote in 2001.

Still, we’re talking about California, the place that keeps electing Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi. Yes, there are pockets of sanity in the state, but overall?

Think “Berkley.” I wish him all the luck in the world. He’s going to need it.

A Teacher Responds

In a comment to The George Orwell Daycare Center, one Ray De La Torre responds:

I am a teacher of history and civics. I have taught for well over 20 years in both private and public schools. I have to say that this essay hits the mark dead on.

I’m afraid that the situation may be worse than you believe. The general direction public education seems to be heading is to insure no student fails. This is surely reflective of the “fairness” doctrine as well as the notion that all must be equal. What is occuring(sic) in schools is the further erroding(sic) of student responsibility and accountability. My take on this is that eventually we will have to do their work, write their essays, and take their exams to ensure their success.

Those of us who still demand excellence from our students are few, and becoming fewer. The consequences for failure do not fall on the students as they are moved along regardless of how many courses are passed or failed. Rather, the consequences fall on those of us who expect students to learn before moving on to the next level. The stories of meeting after meeting with administrators are legion.

Unfortunately, the young teachers entering the profession are as you describe. Most are filled with good intentions and the desire to help children. Most are woefully ignorant of the subjects they teach. Far too many rely on textbooks and materials that espouse socialist ideals. Most are unaware of this simple fact.

We few will continue to fight the good fight and try to reach as many students as possible.

As I said in I Must’ve Struck a Nerve, I know it is still possible to get a decent education out of many, possibly most school systems in this country – if you want one. This is due to those teachers who really do know their subjects and how to teach them, and students willing to do the work necessary to learn them. Both still exist. But it does appear that the ratio of such teachers and students to the general population is getting continually smaller.

And Where Are They Going to iCome From?

As a follow-on to the previous education pieces, something interesting came up during my last listen to Barack The Education Candidate Obama’s audiobook The Audacity of Hope. About seven minutes into section 4 we get this:

Over the last three decades, Federal funding for the physical, mathematical, and engineering sciences has declined as a percentage of GDP, just at the time when other countries are substantially increasing their own R&D budgets. And, as Dr. (Robert) Langer points out, the declining support for basic research has a direct impact on the number of young people going into math, science, and engineering – which helps explain why China is graduating eight times as many engineers as the U.S. every year.

If we want an innovation economy, one that generates more Googles each year, then we have to invest in our future innovators, by doubling federal funding of basic research over the next five years. Training 100,000 more engineers and scientists over the next four years. Or providing new research grants to the most outstanding early career researchers in the country. We can afford to do what needs to be done. What’s missing is not money, but a national sense of urgency.

The entire six minutes and 59 seconds prior to this he spends discussing the defects of our school systems, and suggesting solutions. For example, at about 3:24 he says:

If we’re serious about building a 21st Century school system, it means paying teachers what they’re worth. There’s no reason why an experienced, highly qualified and effective teacher shouldn’t earn as much as a lawyer at the peak of his or her career.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

In May 2006, the median annual earnings of all wage-and-salaried lawyers were $102,470. The middle half of the occupation earned between $69,910 and $145,600. Median annual earnings in the industries employing the largest numbers of lawyers in May 2006 were:

Management of companies and enterprises $128,610
Federal Government 119,240
Legal services 108,100
Local government 78,810
State government 75,840

So is Barack Deep Pockets Obama suggesting we pay experienced, highly qualified and effective teachers $102,470 a year, or $78,810? Or more? That’s already quite a spread. But remember, what’s missing isn’t money, it’s a sense of national urgency. Republicans, you see, care only about the Benjamins and not about the quality of education their kids are getting. What’s a doubling of your property taxes if it means paying teachers what they’re worth? (Of course, school administrators will have to get raises too. Can’t have the hired help outearning the supervision!)

I want to know where more good teachers are going to come from. It certainly isn’t going to be out of the present system that churns ’em out. Walter Williams has some unkind things to say about that:

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has proposed an $18 billion increase in federal education programs. That’s the typical knee-jerk response — more money. Let’s delve a bit, asking whether higher educational expenditures explain why secondary school students in 32 industrialized countries are better at math and science than ours. In 2004, the U.S. spent about $9,938 per secondary school student. More money might explain why Swiss and Norwegian students do better than ours because they, respectively, spent $12,176 and $11,109 per student. But what about Finland ($7,441) and South Korea ($6,761), which scored first and second in math literacy? What about the Slovak Republic ($2,744) and Hungary ($3,692), as well as other nations whose education expenditures are a fraction of ours and whose students have greater math and science literacy than ours?

American education will never be improved until we address one of the problems seen as too delicate to discuss. That problem is the overall quality of people teaching our children. Students who have chosen education as their major have the lowest SAT scores of any other major. Students who have graduated with an education degree earn lower scores than any other major on graduate school admissions tests such as the GRE, MCAT or LSAT. Schools of education, either graduate or undergraduate, represent the academic slums of most any university. As such, they are home to the least able students and professors with the lowest academic respect. Were we serious about efforts to improve public education, one of the first things we would do is eliminate schools of education.

RTWT.

Still, the part of Obama’s plan that really floored me was this:

Training 100,000 more engineers and scientists over the next four years.

Where the hell does he think they’re going to come from? Is some government bureaucrat going to be dispatched to each high school in America, go through the academic records of each student, and then one day a letter will arrive in the mail: “Greetings: You are hereby directed to present yourself to (insert college or university here) to begin your education in:

  • Aerospace (Aeronautical) engineering
  • Agricultural engineering
  • Architectural engineering
  • Automotive engineering
  • Biological engineering
  • Biological systems engineering
  • Biomedical engineering
  • Biomaterials engineering
  • Chemical engineering
  • Civil engineering
  • Communications system engineering
  • Computer engineering
  • Control systems engineering
  • Electrical engineering
  • Electronics engineering
  • Engineering physics
  • Environmental engineering
  • Genetic engineering
  • Industrial engineering
  • Instrumentation engineering
  • Marine engineering
  • Materials engineering
  • Mechanical engineering
  • Manufacturing engineering
  • Military engineering
  • Minerals process engineering
  • Mining engineering
  • Nanoengineering
  • Nuclear engineering
  • Optical engineering
  • Petroleum engineering
  • Plastics engineering
  • Polymer engineering
  • Power engineering
  • Process engineering
  • Quality engineering
  • Reliability engineering
  • Safety engineering
  • Sanitation engineering
  • Software engineering
  • Structural engineering
  • Systems engineering
  • Thermodynamic engineering
  • Transportation engineering
  • Physics
  • Organic Chemistry
  • Inorganic Chemistry
  • Astronomy
  • Physical Anthropology
  • Cultural Anthropology
  • Geology
  • Hydrology
  • Biology
  • Biochemistry
  • Psychology
  • Mathematics

With the appropriate box checked?

Sorry, ladies and gentlemen, you don’t make engineers or scientists, and waving a magic wand of government funding isn’t going to produce 100,000 new ones in four or even five years if the raw material isn’t there to start with.

And as far as I can determine, it’s not. Engineers and scientists have to be able to do math. Remember this quote?

My best friend is a lawyer, bright, gifted, … PhD in law; bored with his job, he decided to study engineering. After his first quarter, he came to me and said that the two “C”s he’d achieved in Engineering Calculus 101 and Engineering Physics 101 were the first two non-A grades he’d ever gotten in college, and that he had had to study harder for them than for any other dozen classes he’d had. “I now understand”, he said, “why engineers and their like are so hard to examine, whether on the stand or in a deposition. When they say a thing is possible, they KNOW it is possible, and when they say a thing is not possible, they KNOW it is not. Most people don’t understand ‘know’ in that way; what they ‘know’ is what we can persuade them to believe. You engineers live in the same world as the rest of us, but you understand that world in a way we never will.”

I don’t think that you have to love math to be an engineer, but you are going to have to learn it. That means that you’re going to have to do the homework, correctly. Mistakes and “close enough” are the ways to build bridges that fail.

This country graduates a lot more lawyers than engineers or scientists.

And now, some bright boy at Berkley wants to dull even engineers down:

C. Judson King, director of the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California at Berkeley, and a professor emeritus of chemical engineering, wants to see a change in the way undergraduate engineers are educated.

He sees engineering as a discipline in renaissance, as engineers increasingly enter the public policy, business and law sectors, or at least work more closely with professionals in those fields.

“I would like to see people with an engineering education go into government,” King said. But King argues that the narrow, rigorous program required for an undergraduate engineering degree limits the amount of education engineering students get in other disciplines. King hopes to see the master’s degree, rather than the bachelor’s, become the true entry level degree for professional engineers.

In King’s view, the undergraduate engineering program — “pre-engineering,” he calls it, like pre-med or pre-law — should have a lighter engineering load so that students can get a broader liberal arts education. “The abilities of engineers to move into other areas … [is] limited by the narrowness and inward-looking nature of their education,” King says in a paper titled “Engineers Should Have a College Education,” on the Berkeley center’s Web site.

Apparently in his view engineers are still too closely connected to reality and aren’t receiving the full-on brainwashing effect that students receiving BA degrees get. We escape the indoctrination centers with far too much of our native ability to smell bullshit intact, and this should be Nipped. In. The. BUD!

Perhaps he can try his “pre-engineering” pablum on Barack 100,000 New Engineers Obama.

Today’s Must Read

Today’s Must Read…

…comes from Free Frank Warner. I will add only two more quotes for your consideration, one from Milton Friedman:

Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era.

History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition.

And one from Ayn Rand:

The truly and deliberately evil men are in a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser’s intellectual abdication that invites them to take over. When a culture’s dominant trend is geared to irrationality, the thugs win over the appeasers. When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, uninformed, vacillating characters of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

If the Dems had run one of their “political whore” candidates, maybe even the lovely and talented Hillary Clinton, I might have opted to vote Libertarian, where my heart is, rather than for a man I particularly dislike who champions a morally and ethically bankrupt political party of weasels and morons.

But that’s not what the Dems have done…they’ve played the scary card. – Michael Bane, Hunters vs. Shooters

RTWT.

Bumper Sticker Sales a Success

Bumper Sticker Sales a Success

The “McCain ’08” bumper sticker sales have been a roaring success. We cleared enough not only to cover Jed’s dental work, but also to donate $100 to Soldier’s Angels with a little left over for restocking. I’m currently down to two stickers left in inventory, but I can get more coming on very short notice.

From this point forward, any additional profits will go to Soldier’s Angels. Thank you for all of your support.

I Must’ve Struck a Nerve

As of 10:34 this evening, this site has received 1,598 visits and 1,908 page views for just today, Friday, June 6. That’s a lot for me, especially on a Friday. The overwhelming majority of them came from links to The George Orwell Daycare Center post, mostly from SayUncle and Tam, but there have been at least four other blog links to the piece today, from Armed Canadian, Ricketyclick, The Fourth Checkraise and Life, Love and the Pursuit of Sanity, plus Prester Scott’s Livejournal and all of his friends.

Thank you all very much. It is sometimes frustrating to put a huge amount of effort into a post to have it virtually (in all meanings of the term) ignored.

But I repeat: I must’ve struck a nerve.

I know it is still possible to get a decent education out of many, possibly most school systems in this country – if you want one. But even when I was going to high school if you didn’t want to work, nobody was going to force you, and many didn’t. They did just enough to pass on to the next grade, and that didn’t require much.

Now, it appears, in many school systems it requires nothing at all.

So is it as bad as it appears to be? IS there anything we can do about it?

Because I have another education post waiting in the wings (not an �überpost!), but I’d like to hold off a bit on it and let it stew, and the comments and ideas of my readers are often my best inspiration.

No Higher Praise

No Higher Praise

By the way, the blog itself is a pretty good read… I don’t visit as often as my husband, but I’ve never found something that’s not thought-provoking, even if I don’t agree. – “C” from “life, love, and the pursuit of sanity” in her post, Civic Literacy

(My emphasis.)

Now I’ve got a swelled head!