From: bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 19:06:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.183747.29753@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.145241.5284@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.224214.19889@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>  Well, these stats were from a previous post.  I don't have any others
>on hand, but I do believe the increase was steady.  If you can prove 
>me wrong, feel free to do so.  Additionally, I see no problem
>with the money coming from the states.  After all, it all comes
>from the people one way or another anyway.  I think giving 
>control of the schools to the federal government is a big mistake.

My mistake here.  It is the state's responsiblity to handle elementary and
secondary school education.  The federal government jumps in  when it comes to
college.

>  The best successes we've seen in turning around schools have had
>less to do with money than to do with giving control of the school
>to less central powers. (Such as the Harlem example which also
>involved school choice.)

Can't some of this success also be attributed to relieving creative teachers
from stifling requirements?  My mother is a fifth grade teacher in Montgomery
County, Maryland and she has to touch on literally thousands of points every
year.  Moreover, she has to test for each one of these requirements 
specifically to validate her success in conveying the data.  This seems like
a good idea from the top, but imagine exhaustive testing like this for every
program you wrote!  Nothing would ever get out the door!

>
>  Anyway, here are the stats.  Sorry, but I lost the attribution
>of the original author.
>
>>>> Education expenditures per pupil, grades K-12, in 1991 dollars
>>>> 	1977-78:  $3,889			1991-92:  $5,578
>>>> 
>>>> Average teacher salary in 1991 dollars
>>>> 	1977-78:  $30,289			1991-92:  $34,413
>>>> 
>>>> Average SAT scores (combined math and verbal)
>>>> 	1977:  899					1991:  896
>>>> 
>>>> It's good to see that throwing money at education is helping.

Your point is well taken.  Money doesn't seem to help the issue.  All the
same, I can't understand why my mother has to use books 5-10 years out of
date because the school system can't afford more.  How is it possible that
with more money going in, class sizes are rising, schools are having to
consolidate and parents are having to pay for things like football programs?

>>
>>Beyond that general analysis, I have recently become aware of reductions in
>>the Head Start program and the Pell Grant program supported by the "education"
>>president, George Bush.
>
>  Head Start is incorrect.  Bush has been responsible for the largest
>_increase_ in the Head Start program.  

Again, you are right.  My point, however, was that Bush commited to fully
funding the Head Start program and only 39% of the eligible students are
seeing that funding.  Where is Bush's COMMITMENT?

>  Recently, Bush re-increased aid to college students.  So, he is back on
>the right track in this regard.  Although, I certainly wouldn't scream
>if you shouted "election action."

Sometimes it just helps to "do the right thing"

>  What I was referring to (and sorry for the confusion) is Clinton's
>support for choice among private and public schools.  I did not mean
>to imply that he directly supported America 2000.  He would never do
>that for political reasons.  He backed off of his support for choice
>among public and private schools after he was slapped on the wrist by
>the teachers' unions.

Let me clarify -- you mean Clinton does not support tax credits for private
school students, right?  I think that is the right way to go.  Just because
he listened to the well reasoned arguments presented by the teachers'
unions doesn't mean he is their pet.  Unions aren't wrong just because they
are unions (and therefore have a bias).

>  Note that all Clinton talks about above is funding.  Sounds like
>he is a mouthpiece for the status quo special interest to me.  They
>always cry for more funding, but little to no fundamental change.

Sometimes funding is the only way to measure the government's reaction.  If a
bill exists and it is not funded, it doesn't do much, right?  He has quite
a bit on fundamental change in the system rolled into the same speech.  It
is rather lengthy, so I don't want to post it here (unless you think it is
really important) but I will be happy to send you a copy or you can 
download it from world.std.com via anonymous ftp.

>  Do you know where he stands on testing?  He was adamantly for it.
>I wonder if he backed off of that too.

What kind of testing?  Teacher or student?  I'll check around and see what
I can find.

>  The _Fortune_ article said:
>
>  "Just how serious is the job drought? Serious.  Focus on the expansion
>of the 1980s and leave aside the past few recession-marred years,
>which would make the numbers look even worse."
>
> 
>   Now, this is (at best) just intellectually dishonest.  The study
>(for the most part) covers the years 1979-1989.  Now, this was a lot of
>how Krugman started the "poor got poorer" in the 80s bit.  By including
>the recession years of 1979-1982 (which were disastrous), it wholy
>biases the statistics.  And to think, _Fortune_ said that it wanted
>to "Focus on the expansion of the 1980s".  If it had really wanted
>to do so, its study would have included 1983-(mid) 1990.  Obviously,
>the article was more interested in making a point than providing
>legitimate analysis.  

You have a beef, but if you're talking about the 80's (admittedly ignoring
the past few recession-marred years), why is 1979-1989 unreasonable?  OK,
its easy to point out any small area where there will be a boom or bust
(just a little chaos theory), but shouldn't a 10 year period be a broad
enough range?  What about the 12 year period of the Reagan/Bush era (OK, OK
Reagan got stomped on by the economy Carter left, but isn't that about to
happen to Clinton via Bush?).

>  Issues don't matter in elections.  They may matter to you and I and
>may be worth discussing, but every study of elections I've seen points
>out that they are largely irrelevant.  'Tis sad.  If people voted on
>issues instead of whatever it is they normally vote on, candidates
>may be better and actually address them.

My take -- some issues make or break an election.  Peruse this list and
tell me what you think:

Nixon Pardon -- Ford
Inflation -- Carter
Trickle-Down Economics -- Reagan
Evil Empire -- Reagan
Infidelity -- Hart
Willy Horton -- Dukakis
"Read My Lips" -- Bush

>  As it stands, I think it is safe to say that I have no real idea of
>what Clinton will do on Education when he gets into office (besides
>spend more and probably not alienate the teachers' unions.)  We have
>a better idea of what Bush would like to do, but no idea of how hard
>he will really push for it.  If issues matter, both of these two would
>really have been pinned down on this by now.

Like I said, I have a speech which details Clinton's plans.  As for Bush,
we have an idea of where he is headed (America 2000 has lots of goals, but
not much on how to get there) and we know how far away he is from those
goals.  He wanted to be the "education" President and wasn't.  He committed
to funding Head Start fully and didn't.  Now, he wants a tax credit for the
rich to go to exclusive schools (this credit is no where near what it needs
to be for poor students to attend private schools).  It sounds like Bush
wants to back away from a public school system he can't make work. 

My money is with Clinton.  He has worked hard to bring up the level of
education in Arkansas and even though it is still very low on the list, the
changes have been dramatic.  Through programs such as removal of drivers 
licenses from students who drop out of school with no good reason, Clinton
has shown he can and will work to improve the level of the average
student.  If you truly find education a pivitol issue in your consideration
of the candidates, I don't see how you can vote any other way.

-- Brett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc