Showing posts with label EDUCATION. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EDUCATION. Show all posts

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Why Are Finland's Schools Successful?

The country's achievements in education have other nations doing their homework
By LynNell Hancock - Smithsonian magazine

It was the end of term at Kirkkojarvi Comprehensive School in Espoo, a sprawling suburb west of Helsinki, when Kari Louhivuori, a veteran teacher and the school’s principal, decided to try something extreme—by Finnish standards. One of his sixth-grade students, a Kosovo-Albanian boy, had drifted far off the learning grid, resisting his teacher’s best efforts. The school’s team of special educators—including a social worker, a nurse and a psychologist—convinced Louhivuori that laziness was not to blame. So he decided to hold the boy back a year, a measure so rare in Finland it’s practically obsolete.

Finland has vastly improved in reading, math and science literacy over the past decade in large part because its teachers are trusted to do whatever it takes to turn young lives around. This 13-year-old, Besart Kabashi, received something akin to royal tutoring.

“I took Besart on that year as my private student,” Louhivuori told me in his office, which boasted a Beatles “Yellow Submarine” poster on the wall and an electric guitar in the closet. When Besart was not studying science, geography and math, he was parked next to Louhivuori’s desk at the front of his class of 9- and 10-year- olds, cracking open books from a tall stack, slowly reading one, then another, then devouring them by the dozens. By the end of the year, the son of Kosovo war refugees had conquered his adopted country’s vowel-rich language and arrived at the realization that he could, in fact, learn.

Years later, a 20-year-old Besart showed up at Kirkkojarvi’s Christmas party with a bottle of Cognac and a big grin. “You helped me,” he told his former teacher. Besart had opened his own car repair firm and a cleaning company. “No big fuss,” Louhivuori told me. “This is what we do every day, prepare kids for life.”

This tale of a single rescued child hints at some of the reasons for the tiny Nordic nation’s staggering record of education success, a phenomenon that has inspired, baffled and even irked many of America’s parents and educators. Finnish schooling became an unlikely hot topic after the 2010 documentary film Waiting for “Superman” contrasted it with America’s troubled public schools.

“Whatever it takes” is an attitude that drives not just Kirkkojarvi’s 30 teachers, but most of Finland’s 62,000 educators in 3,500 schools from Lapland to Turku—professionals selected from the top 10 percent of the nation’s graduates to earn a required master’s degree in education. Many schools are small enough so that teachers know every student. If one method fails, teachers consult with colleagues to try something else. They seem to relish the challenges. Nearly 30 percent of Finland’s children receive some kind of special help during their first nine years of school. The school where Louhivuori teaches served 240 first through ninth graders last year; and in contrast with Finland’s reputation for ethnic homogeneity, more than half of its 150 elementary-level students are immigrants—from Somalia, Iraq, Russia, Bangladesh, Estonia and Ethiopia, among other nations. “Children from wealthy families with lots of education can be taught by stupid teachers,” Louhivuori said, smiling. “We try to catch the weak students. It’s deep in our thinking.”

The transformation of the Finns’ education system began some 40 years ago as the key propellent of the country’s economic recovery plan. Educators had little idea it was so successful until 2000, when the first results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a standardized test given to 15-year-olds in more than 40 global venues, revealed Finnish youth to be the best young readers in the world. Three years later, they led in math. By 2006, Finland was first out of 57 countries (and a few cities) in science. In the 2009 PISA scores released last year, the nation came in second in science, third in reading and sixth in math among nearly half a million students worldwide. “I’m still surprised,” said Arjariita Heikkinen, principal of a Helsinki comprehensive school. “I didn’t realize we were that good.”

In the United States, which has muddled along in the middle for the past decade, government officials have attempted to introduce marketplace competition into public schools. In recent years, a group of Wall Street financiers and philanthropists such as Bill Gates have put money behind private-sector ideas, such as vouchers, data-driven curriculum and charter schools, which have doubled in number in the past decade. President Obama, too, has apparently bet on compe­tition. His Race to the Top initiative invites states to compete for federal dollars using tests and other methods to measure teachers, a philosophy that would not fly in Finland. “I think, in fact, teachers would tear off their shirts,” said Timo Heikkinen, a Helsinki principal with 24 years of teaching experience. “If you only measure the statistics, you miss the human aspect.”

There are no mandated standardized tests in Finland, apart from one exam at the end of students’ senior year in high school. There are no rankings, no comparisons or competition between students, schools or regions. Finland’s schools are publicly funded. The people in the government agencies running them, from national officials to local authorities, are educators, not business people, military leaders or career politicians. Every school has the same national goals and draws from the same pool of university-trained educators. The result is that a Finnish child has a good shot at getting the same quality education no matter whether he or she lives in a rural village or a university town. The differences between weakest and strongest students are the smallest in the world, according to the most recent survey by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Equality is the most important word in Finnish education. All political parties on the right and left agree on this,” said Olli Luukkainen, president of Finland’s powerful teachers union.

Ninety-three percent of Finns graduate from academic or vocational high schools, 17.5 percentage points higher than the United States, and 66 percent go on to higher education, the highest rate in the European Union. Yet Finland spends about 30 percent less per student than the United States.

Still, there is a distinct absence of chest-thumping among the famously reticent Finns. They are eager to celebrate their recent world hockey championship, but PISA scores, not so much. “We prepare children to learn how to learn, not how to take a test,” said Pasi Sahlberg, a former math and physics teacher who is now in Finland’s Ministry of Education and Culture. “We are not much interested in PISA. It’s not what we are about.”

Maija Rintola stood before her chattering class of twenty-three 7- and 8-year-olds one late April day in Kirkkojarven Koulu. A tangle of multicolored threads topped her copper hair like a painted wig. The 20-year teacher was trying out her look for Vappu, the day teachers and children come to school in riotous costumes to celebrate May Day. The morning sun poured through the slate and lemon linen shades onto containers of Easter grass growing on the wooden sills. Rintola smiled and held up her open hand at a slant—her time-tested “silent giraffe,” which signaled the kids to be quiet. Little hats, coats, shoes stowed in their cubbies, the children wiggled next to their desks in their stocking feet, waiting for a turn to tell their tale from the playground. They had just returned from their regular 15 minutes of playtime outdoors between lessons. “Play is important at this age,” Rintola would later say. “We value play.”

With their wiggles unwound, the students took from their desks little bags of buttons, beans and laminated cards numbered 1 through 20. A teacher’s aide passed around yellow strips representing units of ten. At a smart board at the front of the room, Rintola ushered the class through the principles of base ten. One girl wore cat ears on her head, for no apparent reason. Another kept a stuffed mouse on her desk to remind her of home. Rintola roamed the room helping each child grasp the concepts. Those who finished early played an advanced “nut puzzle” game. After 40 minutes it was time for a hot lunch in the cathedral-like cafeteria.

Teachers in Finland spend fewer hours at school each day and spend less time in classrooms than American teachers. Teachers use the extra time to build curriculums and assess their students. Children spend far more time playing outside, even in the depths of winter. Homework is minimal. Compulsory schooling does not begin until age 7. “We have no hurry,” said Louhivuori. “Children learn better when they are ready. Why stress them out?”

It’s almost unheard of for a child to show up hungry or homeless. Finland provides three years of maternity leave and subsidized day care to parents, and preschool for all 5-year-olds, where the emphasis is on play and socializing. In addition, the state subsidizes parents, paying them around 150 euros per month for every child until he or she turns 17. Ninety-seven percent of 6-year-olds attend public preschool, where children begin some academics. Schools provide food, medical care, counseling and taxi service if needed. Stu­dent health care is free.

Even so, Rintola said her children arrived last August miles apart in reading and language levels. By April, nearly every child in the class was reading, and most were writing. Boys had been coaxed into literature with books like Kapteeni Kalsarin (“Captain Underpants”). The school’s special education teacher teamed up with Rintola to teach five children with a variety of behavioral and learning problems. The national goal for the past five years has been to mainstream all children. The only time Rintola’s children are pulled out is for Finnish as a Second Language classes, taught by a teacher with 30 years’ experience and graduate school training.

There are exceptions, though, however rare. One first-grade girl was not in Rintola’s class. The wispy 7-year-old had recently arrived from Thailand speaking not a word of Finnish. She was studying math down the hall in a special “preparing class” taught by an expert in multicultural learning. It is designed to help children keep up with their subjects while they conquer the language. Kirkkojarvi’s teachers have learned to deal with their unusually large number of immigrant students. The city of Espoo helps them out with an extra 82,000 euros a year in “positive discrimination” funds to pay for things like special resource teachers, counselors and six special needs classes.

Rintola will teach the same children next year and possibly the next five years, depending on the needs of the school. “It’s a good system. I can make strong connections with the children,” said Rintola, who was handpicked by Louhivuori 20 years ago. “I understand who they are.” Besides Finnish, math and science, the first graders take music, art, sports, religion and textile handcrafts. English begins in third grade, Swedish in fourth. By fifth grade the children have added biology, geography, history, physics and chemistry.

Not until sixth grade will kids have the option to sit for a district-wide exam, and then only if the classroom teacher agrees to participate. Most do, out of curiosity. Results are not publicized. Finnish educators have a hard time understanding the United States’ fascination with standardized tests. “Americans like all these bars and graphs and colored charts,” Louhivuori teased, as he rummaged through his closet looking for past years’ results. “Looks like we did better than average two years ago,” he said after he found the reports. “It’s nonsense. We know much more about the children than these tests can tell us.”

I had come to Kirkkojarvi to see how the Finnish approach works with students who are not stereotypically blond, blue-eyed and Lutheran. But I wondered if Kirkkojarvi’s success against the odds might be a fluke. Some of the more vocal conservative reformers in America have grown weary of the “We-Love-Finland crowd” or so-called Finnish Envy. They argue that the United States has little to learn from a country of only 5.4 million people—4 percent of them foreign born. Yet the Finns seem to be onto something. Neighboring Norway, a country of similar size, embraces education policies similar to those in the United States. It employs standardized exams and teachers without master’s degrees. And like America, Norway’s PISA scores have been stalled in the middle ranges for the better part of a decade.

To get a second sampling, I headed east from Espoo to Helsinki and a rough neighborhood called Siilitie, Finnish for “Hedgehog Road” and known for having the oldest low-income housing project in Finland. The 50-year-old boxy school building sat in a wooded area, around the corner from a subway stop flanked by gas stations and convenience stores. Half of its 200 first- through ninth-grade students have learning disabilities. All but the most severely impaired are mixed with the general education children, in keeping with Finnish policies.

A class of first graders scampered among nearby pine and birch trees, each holding a stack of the teacher’s homemade laminated “outdoor math” cards. “Find a stick as big as your foot,” one read. “Gather 50 rocks and acorns and lay them out in groups of ten,” read another. Working in teams, the 7- and 8-year-olds raced to see how quickly they could carry out their tasks. Aleksi Gustafsson, whose master’s degree is from Helsinki University, developed the exercise after attending one of the many workshops available free to teachers. “I did research on how useful this is for kids,” he said. “It’s fun for the children to work outside. They really learn with it.”

Gustafsson’s sister, Nana Germeroth, teaches a class of mostly learning-impaired children; Gustafsson’s students have no learning or behavioral issues. The two combined most of their classes this year to mix their ideas and abilities along with the children’s varying levels. “We know each other really well,” said Germeroth, who is ten years older. “I know what Aleksi is thinking.”

The school receives 47,000 euros a year in positive discrimination money to hire aides and special education teachers, who are paid slightly higher salaries than classroom teachers because of their required sixth year of university training and the demands of their jobs. There is one teacher (or assistant) in Siilitie for every seven students.

In another classroom, two special education teachers had come up with a different kind of team teaching. Last year, Kaisa Summa, a teacher with five years’ experience, was having trouble keeping a gaggle of first-grade boys under control. She had looked longingly into Paivi Kangasvieri’s quiet second-grade room next door, wondering what secrets the 25-year-veteran colleague could share. Each had students of wide-ranging abilities and special needs. Summa asked Kangasvieri if they might combine gymnastics classes in hopes good behavior might be contagious. It worked. This year, the two decided to merge for 16 hours a week. “We complement each other,” said Kangasvieri, who describes herself as a calm and firm “father” to Summa’s warm mothering. “It is cooperative teaching at its best,” she says.

Every so often, principal Arjariita Heikkinen told me, the Helsinki district tries to close the school because the surrounding area has fewer and fewer children, only to have people in the community rise up to save it. After all, nearly 100 percent of the school’s ninth graders go on to high schools. Even many of the most severely disabled will find a place in Finland’s expanded system of vocational high schools, which are attended by 43 percent of Finnish high-school students, who prepare to work in restaurants, hospitals, construction sites and offices. “We help situate them in the right high school,” said then deputy principal Anne Roselius. “We are interested in what will become of them in life.”

Finland’s schools were not always a wonder. Until the late 1960s, Finns were still emerging from the cocoon of Soviet influence. Most children left public school after six years. (The rest went to private schools, academic grammar schools or folk schools, which tended to be less rigorous.) Only the privileged or lucky got a quality education.

The landscape changed when Finland began trying to remold its bloody, fractured past into a unified future. For hundreds of years, these fiercely independent people had been wedged between two rival powers—the Swedish monarchy to the west and the Russian czar to the east. Neither Scandinavian nor Baltic, Finns were proud of their Nordic roots and a unique language only they could love (or pronounce). In 1809, Finland was ceded to Russia by the Swedes, who had ruled its people some 600 years. The czar created the Grand Duchy of Finland, a quasi-state with constitutional ties to the empire. He moved the capital from Turku, near Stockholm, to Helsinki, closer to St. Petersburg. After the czar fell to the Bolsheviks in 1917, Finland declared its independence, pitching the country into civil war. Three more wars between 1939 and 1945—two with the Soviets, one with Germany—left the country scarred by bitter divisions and a punishing debt owed to the Russians. “Still we managed to keep our freedom,” said Pasi Sahlberg, a director general in the Ministry of Education and Culture.

In 1963, the Finnish Parlia-ment made the bold decision to choose public education as its best shot at economic recovery. “I call this the Big Dream of Finnish education,” said Sahlberg, whose upcoming book, Finnish Lessons, is scheduled for release in October. “It was simply the idea that every child would have a very good public school. If we want to be competitive, we need to educate everybody. It all came out of a need to survive.”

Practically speaking—and Finns are nothing if not practical—the decision meant that goal would not be allowed to dissipate into rhetoric. Lawmakers landed on a deceptively simple plan that formed the foundation for everything to come. Public schools would be organized into one system of comprehensive schools, or peruskoulu, for ages 7 through 16. Teachers from all over the nation contributed to a national curriculum that provided guidelines, not prescriptions. Besides Finnish and Swedish (the country’s second official language), children would learn a third language (English is a favorite) usually beginning at age 9. Resources were distributed equally. As the comprehensive schools improved, so did the upper secondary schools (grades 10 through 12). The second critical decision came in 1979, when reformers required that every teacher earn a fifth-year master’s degree in theory and practice at one of eight state universities—at state expense. From then on, teachers were effectively granted equal status with doctors and lawyers. Applicants began flooding teaching programs, not because the salaries were so high but because autonomy and respect made the job attractive. In 2010, some 6,600 applicants vied for 660 primary school training slots, according to Sahlberg. By the mid-1980s, a final set of initiatives shook the classrooms free from the last vestiges of top-down regulation. Control over policies shifted to town councils. The national curriculum was distilled into broad guidelines. National math goals for grades one through nine, for example, were reduced to a neat ten pages. Sifting and sorting children into so-called ability groupings was eliminated. All children—clever or less so—were to be taught in the same classrooms, with lots of special teacher help available to make sure no child really would be left behind. The inspectorate closed its doors in the early ’90s, turning accountability and inspection over to teachers and principals. “We have our own motivation to succeed because we love the work,” said Louhivuori. “Our incentives come from inside.”

To be sure, it was only in the past decade that Finland’s international science scores rose. In fact, the country’s earliest efforts could be called somewhat Stalinistic. The first national curriculum, developed in the early ’70s, weighed in at 700 stultifying pages. Timo Heikkinen, who began teaching in Finland’s public schools in 1980 and is now principal of Kallahti Comprehensive School in eastern Helsinki, remembers when most of his high-school teachers sat at their desks dictating to the open notebooks of compliant children.

And there are still challenges. Finland’s crippling financial collapse in the early ’90s brought fresh economic challenges to this “confident and assertive Eurostate,” as David Kirby calls it in A Concise History of Finland. At the same time, immigrants poured into the country, clustering in low-income housing projects and placing added strain on schools. A recent report by the Academy of Finland warned that some schools in the country’s large cities were becoming more skewed by race and class as affluent, white Finns choose schools with fewer poor, immigrant populations.

A few years ago, Kallahti principal Timo Heikkinen began noticing that, increasingly, affluent Finnish parents, perhaps worried about the rising number of Somali children at Kallahti, began sending their children to one of two other schools nearby. In response, Heikkinen and his teachers designed new environmental science courses that take advantage of the school’s proximity to the forest. And a new biology lab with 3-D technology allows older students to observe blood flowing inside the human body.

It has yet to catch on, Heikkinen admits. Then he added: “But we are always looking for ways to improve.”

In other words, whatever it takes.

Race to Nowhere

Monday, May 16, 2011

THE DEATH OF FREE WILL Part 1

PART 1 of 5

 
“To extinguish the free will is to strike the conscience with death, for both have but one and the same life.” – William Ellery Channing 1780-1842
 
Something is drastically wrong with the present restructuring of education. I hope this article will persuade parents and traditional public school administrators and teachers to work together to stop the dismantling of what was once considered the finest educational system in the world. The traditional system’s successful administrative structure which allowed elected school boards (working with superintendents, principals, and teachers) to provide our children with an academic education, should not be changed to accommodate the needs of the corporate fascist/socialist (government/business) partnerships and tax-exempt foundations. 

One must understand that the situation with low academic test scores and unacceptable behavior of students was deliberately created over a period of 80 years, starting in the 1930s with the Carnegie Corporation’s plan to use schools to bring about a Soviet-style (performance-based) planned economic system. See reference to Carnegie Corporation's Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies (1934) and Carnegie-Soviet Academy of Science Agreement (1985). The latter agreement was signed the same year Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev signed the U.S.-USSR Education Exchange Agreement. 

The first experiment with Outcomes/Performance-Based Education (the restructuring system being implemented today) was Carnegie Corporation’s “Eight Year Study” (1933-1941).

To get an idea of the enormity and severity of the problems addressed by this article, see the OECD-SSRC Stupski Next-Gen Data System Workshop (October 2010) presentation which states the following: “We will build capacity to leave a dying system and give birth to a new one…”

Solution—the following government agencies which control local education must be abolished: 

U.S. Department of Education, its laboratories and centers, and all federally funded state departments of education. Also, legislation must be passed prohibiting outside meddling in state or local education matters by corporations and tax exempt foundations. Such legislation would prevent international, national or corporate entities from administering attitudinal assessments and collecting private data on students, their families, educators and/or members of small businesses. 

It is doubtful that major conservative groups would help in this endeavor. Our best hope is to enlist the help of traditional teachers and administrators, and small business owners, who would have to go up against their prospective organization leadership. It might work. It’s worth a try. 
This article is written for the benefit of parents, our children, and the teachers of our children; it explains the following:

The last nail of so-called school reform is being struck in the coffin of traditional American education which made our nation the envy of the Free World and which produced famous scientists, engineers, mathematicians, writers, artists, musicians, doctors, etc. 

The reform is not new. It started in the early 1900s when John D. Rockefeller, Jr.’s Director of Charity for the Rockefeller Foundation, Frederick T. Gates, set up the Southern Education Board. In 1913 the organization was incorporated into the General Education Board. These boards set in motion “the deliberate dumbing down of America”. In Frederick T. Gates’ “The Country School of Tomorrow” Occasional Papers No. 1 (General Education Board, New York, 1913) was a section entitled “A Vision of the Remedy” in which he wrote:
“Is there aught a remedy for this neglect of rural life? Let us, at least, yield ourselves to the gratifications of a beautiful dream that there is. In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our moulding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply.”
The above quote sounds like something from one of the public/private school-to-work/tax-exempt foundation partnerships involved in the Reinventing Schools Coalition agenda, as well as other innocuous sounding current-day initiatives that are being implemented across the nation.

The above Rockefeller agenda was followed up by the Carnegie Corporation’s little volume on education entitled Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies (Charles Scribner’s Sons: N.Y. 1934) — funded to the tune of $340,000. This little book called for using the schools to turn the United States into a socialist nation, ultimately to become a member of a socialist/communist world government. Author Francis Gannon wrote that Harold Laski, the philosopher of British socialism, said of this report:
“At bottom, and stripped of its carefully neutral phrases, the Report is an educational program for a Socialist America.”
Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies is the most important book I ever laid my hands on. You can find it here. Following are important and revealing excerpts from Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies:
“The Commission was also driven to this broader conception of its task by the obvious fact that American civilization, in common with Western civilization, is passing through one of the great critical ages of history, is modifying its traditional faith in economic individualism [free enterprise], and is embarking upon vast experiments in social planning and control which call for large-scale cooperation on the part of the people…” (pp. 1-2)
“. . . Cumulative evidence supports the conclusion that in the United States and in other countries the age of ‘laissez faire’ in economy and government is closing and that a new age of collectivism is emerging.” (p. 16)
In 1951, Human Relations in Curriculum Change was published (Ed. Kenneth D. Benne and Bozidar Muntyan, The Dryden Press, Inc., NY). The book contains “Selected readings with an emphasis on group development.” Most works—written by social scientists and philosophers of-the-day—appeared in publications during the 1940s decade; some included references dating from the 1930s decade. Human Relations in Curriculum Change discusses “social engineering” (theory, methods); “re-education of personnel in knowledge, skills, and attitudes”; schools as potential laboratories for “experimental social science”; “human engineering”; “group thinking”; “change agents”; Kurt Lewin’s “change process” theory; “consensus”; and more.

In Critical Theory, Marxism, Dialectical Method and Total Quality Management (2002), author Judy McLemore explains that the editors of Human Relations and Curriculum Change selected for inclusion “the research experiments and writings on group development and human engineering by various transformational Marxists to create a blueprint for the ‘re-education’ or brainwashing of the masses and subsequent transformation of America. It is a master plan for ‘inducing and controlling changes in social systems,’ that is, changes in the individuals within schools, government, universities, industries, etc. by way of the ‘group’ (Benne Preface, 24). . . . The plan includes a dialectical method of ‘resolving’ personal individual beliefs and dispositions of traditional Americans into a ‘common social outlook’ defined by these Marxists (336). By common they mean of the same mind, feelings, habits, knowledge, motivation, beliefs and values. In effect they mean to mold each individual personality to conform to a facilitated group adaptable to change.”

Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies (1934) and the old progressive theories and practices that appeared in Human Relations in Curriculum Change (1951) are accommodated by school/workforce reforms today that promote so-called global competitiveness and global citizenship. (Note: the term progressive was “in the middle of the last century, what socialists and communists used for themselves because they believed they had the key to the future."[1])

Please use this article “The Death of Free Will” to fight state implementation of the federal Common Core Standards. Use this article to fight the totalitarian Pavlovian/Skinnerian performance-based workforce training agenda that will dumb down students as well as teachers . . . which will pay teachers for students’ good grades (teach to the test/what are they testing?) and very likely also pay children as well for good grades.

This agenda MUST be stopped or all of us will suffer: our children, their teachers, and our free political and economic system of government. Once FREE WILL is destroyed, there is no protection from descending to the level of animals, subjected to “training”. Only human beings can be educated. Why have we opted for animal training, with or without the computer, rather than continuing to educate our children in the traditional way for upward mobility?

This is the ultimate war for our children’s minds and souls. No other war has ever been more important. If you don’t have time to read this entire article, please at least click on the links at the beginning of this article as well as their associated links. Descriptions of the links follow. See Charlotte's 9 min. vedeo below. For part two click below.

Click here for part -----> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
Endnote:

1- Project MUSE - Sewanee Review, Vol. 118, No. 2, Spring 2010, The John Hopkins University Press.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Chopped: Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 by Washington Post
Budget deal: Cuts of $38 billion include accounting gimmicks, target Obama priorities
by Philip Rucker

WASHINGTON - More than half of the $38 billion in spending cuts that lawmakers agreed to last week in the 2011 budget compromise that averted a government shutdown would hit education, labor and health programs.

Although the pain would be felt across virtually the entire government — the deal includes a $1 billion across-the-board cut shared among all non-defense agencies — Republicans were able to focus the sharpest cuts on areas they have long targeted. The Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services departments, which represent about 28 percent of non-defense discretionary spending, face as much as a combined $19.8 billion, or 52 percent, of the total reductions in the plan. Funding for federal Pell grants, job training and a children’s health-care initiative would face cuts, senior congressional aides said. A multitude of other programs — from highway and high-speed rail projects to rural development initiatives — also would experience significant reductions.

But some of the worst-sounding trims are not quite what they seem, and officials said they would not necessarily result in lost jobs or service cutbacks. In several cases, what look like large reductions are actually accounting gimmicks.

The legislation includes $4.9 billion from the Justice Department’s Crime Victims Fund, for instance, but that money is in a reserve fund that wasn’t going to be spent this year. Crime victims would receive no less money than they did before the deal.

The bill contains some policy provisions, including language preventing Guantanamo Bay detainees from being transferred into the United States for any purpose. And it eliminates funding for four Obama administration “czars”: the “health care czar,” “climate change czar,” “car czar” and “urban affairs czar.” But those positions are already vacant, and Democrats beat back a GOP effort to defund other “czar” positions.

Republicans were able to terminate more than 55 programs in the areas of health, labor and education, resulting in a total savings of more than $1 billion. In addition, two minor components of President Obama’s health-care law will be eliminated: the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan and the Free Choice Voucher programs.

The bill would cut U.S. contributions to the United Nations and international organizations by $377 million, and to international banks and financial institutions by $130 million. It also would prohibit pay raises for foreign service officers, although other federal employees would not be affected.

The Washington region would be spared from potentially painful cuts to the Metro system, as the budget measure would fully fund the federal government’s $150 million share of the agency’s budget, congressional sources said.

But District officials are livid about some policy provisions attached to the bill, particularly one that would ban federal and local funding for abortion. Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) and several members of the D.C. Council led a rally Monday on Capitol Hill to protest those provisions and were arrested.

The full extent of the cuts did not become clear until Tuesday morning, after congressional aides worked all weekend and all day Monday to shape a detailed spending plan based on the framework that Obama and congressional leaders agreed to Friday. Budget aides tallied cuts into the evening Monday, racing to prepare a bill that was introduced in the House.

(A summary of the cuts provided by the House Appropriations Committee is available here, and a detailed list of program cuts is here.)

Of the $38 billion in overall reductions in the budget that funds the government for the rest of the fiscal year, about $20 billion would come from domestic discretionary programs, while $17.8 billion would be cut from mandatory programs. The latter cuts, known as “ChIMPS,” affect permanent programs protected by law. The money they lose this year could be put back in their budgets next year.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) hailed the historic nature of the spending cuts in a statement Tuesday morning.

“My committee went line-by-line through agency budgets this weekend to negotiate and craft deep but responsible reductions in virtually all areas of government,” Rogers said. “Our bill targets wasteful and duplicative spending, makes strides to rein in out-of-control federal bureaucracies and will help bring our nation one step closer to eliminating our job-crushing level of debt.”

Although the pain would be felt across virtually the entire government — the deal includes a $1 billion across-the-board cut shared among all non-defense agencies — Republicans were able to focus the sharpest cuts on areas they have long targeted. The Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services departments, which represent about 28 percent of non-defense discretionary spending, face as much as a combined $19.8 billion, or 52 percent, of the total reductions in the plan.

In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency, long a target of conservatives, will see a $1.6 billion cut, representing a 16 percent decrease from 2010 levels. At the Department of the Interior, affected agencies include the Fish and Wildlife Services ($141 million cut from last year), the National Park Service ($127 million cut from last year) and “clean and drinking water state revolving funds” ($997 million cut from last year).

Democrats were able to beat back the most severe cuts originally proposed by House Republicans and protect funding for some cherished programs, such as Head Start, AmeriCorps and the implementation of the new health-care and food safety laws.

“Race to the Top,” Obama’s signature education reform initiative, will receive an additional $700 million in funding. In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission received a $74 million increase from 2010 levels, which will help fund new securities enforcement measures.

But Democrats agreed to key concessions in important areas and were not able to reduce military spending.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that the deal demonstrates “a commitment to making tough choices that are not the kinds of choices in an ideal world the president would want to make or that Democrats would want to make.”

Less-painful cuts

Some of the cuts may have only a limited effect on people’s daily lives. The Crime Victims Fund provides money — for counseling and other services — that comes from fees levied on criminals, according to U.S. officials and victims’ advocates. By law, all the money collected must be spent on victims. But Congress has limited the amount that can be spent each year, allowing excess money to grow in a reserve account. Those savings constitute the $4.9 billion listed as a cut, advocates and officials said.

“It would be a disaster for crime victims if this were really a cut,” said Susan Howley, director for public policy at the National Center for Victims of Crime.

The bill includes savings of nearly $500 million on the federal Pell grant program, which aids low-income college students. But those savings are reflected in an administration plan already underway to limit grants to the academic year to preserve the maximum grant amount of $5,550.

The year-round component “was costing more money than was originally anticipated and was not having a noticeable effect” on completion rates, Education Department spokesman Justin Hamilton said.

Another cut, $3.5 billion for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, would affect only rewards for states that make an extra effort to enroll children. But officials with knowledge of the budget deal said that most states were unlikely to qualify for the bonuses and that sufficient money would be available for those that did.

And about $2.2 billion would be cut from the COOPS program, a provision of the new health-care law that subsidizes loans to civic and community groups that come together to create health insurance cooperatives. This represents more than one-third of the program’s $6 billion budget.

‘We’re on a battleship’

Most lawmakers will not discuss the specifics of the spending cuts until a final analysis is revealed. But Rep. George Miller (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee, issued a statement after the deal was announced Friday saying that he “had concerns.”

“Poor and middle-class families have already received more than their fair share of pain in this economy while the wealthy and special interests have paid no price,” he said.

The House and the Senate plan to vote on the budget bill this week. Some conservative lawmakers have said they will not support it. Many freshmen House Republicans — who had resisted backing down from the GOP proposal of $61 billion in cuts — said they will remain undecided until they have a chance to read the measure.

“I’m not sure that this agreement will look quite as good under the light of day,” said freshman Rep. Bill Huizenga (Mich.). “We’re on a battleship. The wheel has been turned. And I understand that. I get that. I just want to make sure that we’ve turned the wheel all the way.”

It remains unclear how deep a conservative backlash might be — 54 House Republicans voted against a short-term spending bill earlier this year, many arguing that it did not contain deep enough cuts. Privately, though, Republican leadership aides said the legislation would almost certainly pass when it comes to the House floor on Wednesday.

Across the Capitol, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a freshman tea party adherent, issued an open letter to fellow senators saying he would vote against the bill because it is “simply not credible or serious.”

“Think about it another way before you vote: The entire budget cut [skims] 3 percent off the top of our historic $1.65 trillion deficit. That means the side of Big Government got 97 percent of what they want,” Paul wrote. “I prefer to be on the other side. The side of the people who sent us here to Washington to do something. To cut spending.”

The legislation is not expected to include funding for an alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter program, according to a source with knowledge of the decision. The Ohio district of House Speaker John A. Boehner (R) stands to gain from the costly and controversial defense project.

The budget bill also will not include the more controversial policy provisions, or “riders.” Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and peel back environmental regulations led to a stalemate last week.

Other policy riders kept out of the final bill include efforts to prevent regulation of the for-profit college industry and to defund Obama’s health-care law and National Public Radio. But the bill does include provisions that would limit NASA’s cooperation with China and that would remove wolves from the endangered species list in Montana, something Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) had been seeking.

The deal also includes several other concessions Republicans sought. It guarantees that the Senate will debate and vote on repealing Obama’s health-care law and ending federal funding to Planned Parenthood. That’s designed to force politically vulnerable lawmakers to vote on the hot-button issues. The legislation also would block a funding increase, sought by the administration, for the Internal Revenue Service to hire additional agents to enforce the administration’s agenda on a range of issues.

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Tax Day in America: A People Without a Vision Will Perish

Friday, April 1, 2011 by CommonDreams.org
by Joseph Gerson

How does it feel to know that nearly 60% of your tax dollars this year will pay for our present and future wars, not for your family’s or communities’ needs?

Our nation is in trouble, and the diagnosis is as old as the Bible, which warns that “A people without a vision will perish”. Our nation has lost its way, and its people are in trouble. People continue to lose their jobs, services, and economic security, while we spend ever greater sums in the disastrous pursuit of global military supremacy.

Consider: the combined debt of our fifty states is $140 billion. That’s a lot of money, about what we spend annually for the self-defeating “wars of choice” in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. They will likely have cost $3 trillion by the time our grandchildren finish paying for them.

Our nation spends roughly as much for war and war preparations as the rest of the world combined. Does that buy real security? Our people suffer the highest infant mortality rate of any industrialized developed nation, and infant morality is a key indicator of a nation’s societal and future economic health. We’ve suffered a tsunami of housing foreclosures, and we have yet to find our way out of the “jobless recovery” from the country’s greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

What about the cost health care and human services? That’s just 7% of the Federal government’s discretionary spending. Education: what our children need to find jobs and a critical foundation of any democracy? That’s just 6%, and unlike other “developed” nations, most of our graduates begin adulthood with staggering debt from their college loans.

Between tax cuts for the rich and continuing increases in military spending, our communities have been set on the path of de-development, with catastrophic consequences. With the national cuts in block cuts and other spending reductions mean that in the world’s richest nation, we must suffer cuts in health care and programs for the elderly and disabled. Education is increasingly essential, but head start is being reduced, teachers are being laid off by the thousands, class sizes growing, and Pell Grant loans that working and middle class students need for college are withering. Police and fire fighters are losing their jobs, while job training programs are cut.

The budget surplus that President Bush the Lesser inherited from President Clinton didn’t evaporate magically. It was mugged in the back alleys and dark corners of the White House, Congress the Pentagon and K Street. Bush’s tax write off for the super rich, extended by the last lame duck Congressional session, took $2.5 trillion from our communities. $2.5 trillion! That’s quite enough to ensure decent housing and health care for all, to educate our children, to build the infrastructure fueled by sustainable energy that our nation needs to be competitive in the 21st century, and to be paying down the national debt.

The Pentagon’s budget, far and away the world’s largest a decade ago, has doubled since 9-11. Meanwhile our people enjoy less real security. Despite President Obama’s pledge to work for a nuclear weapons free world, $185 billion has been committed to modernize the country’s preparations for nuclear war. Plans are afoot to replace our fleets of Trident nuclear submarines and nuclear bombers. Two decades after the Cold War, we still spend more than $100 billion a year to deploy hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops around the world on an estimated 1,000 foreign military bases, including more than 100 across Japan and more than twice that number in Europe.

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail. Instead of seeking diplomatic or nonviolent solutions to the Libyan crisis, for example urging our Turkish allies to mediate the crisis or urging the Pope, the heads of the Councils of Churches and other renowned religious leaders to serve as human shields, we launched hundreds of cruise missiles and B-2 bomber attacks in yet another unnecessary and very uncertain “war of choice.”

Fifty years ago, outgoing Republican President Dwight Eisenhower warned that the “subversive tentacles” of the “military industrial complex” created to fight two world wars were undermining U.S. democracy. A half century later they are undermining our real security as well.

As anyone who has traveled or lived in Western Europe knows, by cutting our military spending we can enjoy a higher and more secure standard of living. It’s time to refocus our vision and to reorder our priorities.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Waiting for Superman

October 6th, 2010 by John LaPlante


Public schools are facing “an inconvenient truth” in the form of a movie produced by the man behind Al Gore’s eco-disaster movie. Will it save the fate of America’s children? I’ve just returned from seeing it, and I have one word of advice: Go. This week.

Waiting for Superman is a documentary about some horrible public schools and several children who attend them–and are trying to get out. The children, human faces behind the education statistics, want a good education, but face very long odds if they attend the school assigned to them by the political establishment. Most if not all are destined for high schools dubbed “failure factories.” They are waiting for a superman to deliver them from what would otherwise be a disastrous school experience.

For these students, as for others across the country, Superman comes in the form of a charter school. Some charters have done so well as to send nearly all of their students–uniformly from low-income families–to college. For other families, the chance to send their children to a safe school, let alone a high-achieving one, is a blessing.

Charter schools, contrary to much misunderstanding, are public schools. They are free of much of the red tape that entangles public schools, and have more freedom to experiment with curriculum, pedagogy, and other factors. Almost without exception they are also non-union schools, which is one reason that teacher union officials have launched demonstrations outside some theaters that have shown the movie.

Charter schools have their challenges, including the fact that they’re hard, in the jargon of business, to “scale up.” State laws generally prohibit them from tapping into public bonding authority to pay for new buildings, though Minnesota charter schools do have something called “lease aid” available. (Even that, though, has come under fire lately.) The result of meager financing possibilities and burgeoning parental interest is that some charter schools have an extensive waiting list. In Harlem alone, 11,000 students want to get into a charter school but can’t, for lack of space. Nationwide, some 440,000 students are on waiting lists. It’s not just a problem for inner-city populations. Here in Minnesota, the Paideia Academyin Apple Valley has a waiting list for most grades.

When faced with overwhelming demand for seats, charter schools conduct a lottery. Sometimes it’s done in private, sometimes, as in the movie, in public. The public lotteries are gripping affairs to watch. Not being picked is a crushing defeat for those families who cannot afford private school tuition or to move to a neighborhood zoned for a better school.

Nationally, charter schools reach over 1 million out of some 45 million students. Not all charter schools are good, but as one father of a Harlem child puts it, “The reason there’s such a gravitational pull is not because they love charter schools. It’s because they’re the only game in town.”

Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute criticizes the film for advocating national curriculum standards and saying nothing about vouchers or tax credits that would let parents enroll their children in any school, including private schools. I share his objections to national standards, and will have more to say about that topic another day.

I’m with him that children ought to have a full range of options. In the ideal world, we would give parents $X thousand dollars and say, “Good luck with that, now go find a school that is suitable for your child.” We’re not there, and for now, charter schools are the most visible and largest form of tax-funded school choice. (The homeschooling phenomenon may actually be larger, but it’s not taxpayer-funded.)

Hillary Clinton has been mocked and criticized for saying “it takes a village to raise a child,” but there’s a kernel of truth in there. Providing widespread opportunities for educational success requires the action of lots of different people. President Obama, for one, could save the educational futures of some children in the District of Columbia by sticking up for a voucher program (one of the few in the country) that offers a lifeline.

Here’s a snippet from the William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal on what the president can do about DC schools:
“No one in Washington has more political capital than Barack Obama,” says Jeanne Allen, president of the Center for Education Reform, a Washington D.C., nonprofit that advocates for changes in public K-12 education. “All he has to do is to say two simple sentences. First, ‘I support anyone who gives D.C. parents more options and more accountability.’ Second, ‘We need to keep D.C. on the path of reform with a schools chancellor like Michelle Rhee.’”
For more on President Obama and the Washington DC schools, see Nick Gillespie.

State legislators can play a part, too. Ten states lack charter school legislation of any sort, and others have laws so onerous that they are next to worthless. Even in Minnesota, the home to the charter school idea, charter schools must deal with opposition.

Charter schools aren’t the only way to expand educational opportunities. Some states, such as Arizona and Florida, have substantial tax-credit programs that put Minnesota’s meager efforts to shame. Virtual schools are coming on strong, too.

But charter schools and tax credits help students leave traditional schools. What about those who remain? There many paths open to us: move towards weighted student funding, restore some modicum of the teacher’s authority in the classroom, and rethink our personnel policies governing teachers. Michelle Rhee, who plays a prominent role in the movie, was a teacher in Teach for America, a program that offers an alternative to ed schools for people who want to teach. Then she started the New Teacher Project, which along with the National Council for Teacher Quality, has focused the spotlight on the need for tenure reform and some sort of merit pay. In time she became the chancellor of the DC Public Schools, where, among other things, she found a way to fire teachers who needed to be fired.

The challenges to good public schools are many. Some are a matter of science: getting merit pay right is difficult, and it shouldn’t be the only or even the most important factor in teacher pay. Some are a matter of politics: teacher unions routinely kill plans for vouchers or alternative certification programs. Political machinations in Detroit prevented a business leader from spending $200 million on new charter schools in what is by many measures the worst school district in the country. Voters in Washington DC “thanked” Rhee for her reforms by defeating the mayor who has served as her patron. Now it’s widely expected she will get the boot.

There’s also complacency. In general, people think public schools are in trouble, but the ones near them are doing just fine. But as one institute pointed out about schools in California, middle-class schools are often not as good as you think.

If there’s a weakness in the movie for those of us in the Midwest, it’s that it doesn’t challenge us with examples of students who need help here. It doesn’t follow anyone from Detroit, Chicago, or even the Twin Cities, which has some of the highest achievement gaps in the country. So filmgoers here might be tempted to say “Oh, it isn’t that bad here,” when in fact, we have our own disasters, one child at a time. Of course, as national citizens, we also ought to care what happens in New York, LA, and the slums of the District of Columbia.



I want to believe in public schools, but …


One thing I like about the movie is that it makes clear that it isn’t just libertarian-minded economists who want structural reforms in schools. As it starts, we hear Davis Guggenheim, the film’s director, talking about his hopes for public schools. He mentions a film he made in 1999, (The First Year), which tracks (and lauds) teachers in their first year of service. He speaks of the hope that public schools will be an integral part of American democracy.


Sometimes after his 1999 movie, he became a father, and had to figure out which school his child would attend. Almost apologetically, he says that he drives past three public schools on the way to dropping off his child at a private school. Many families, he notes, don’t have that option.


This is all good. To paraphrase the first step in 12-step programs, the first step to fixing a problem is to acknowledge that you have one. And with public schooling, we have a problem.


The faces of five children  behind the statistics


“Superman” then addresses a mixture of topics, scenes, and people, moving from interviews with experts to data-laden graphs to interviews with parents and children. It uses enough statistics (spending trends, national test scores, international comparisons, drop-out rates) to give you the big picture. Here it is: Test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress are flat, even after inflation-adjusted spending on schools has soared. Dropout factories abound. Even middle-class schools aren’t that good. American kids do poorly on international comparisons, except when it comes to self-esteem.


The power of the movie comes from meeting some people behind the statistics, which is to say, children: Anthony, Bianca, Daisy, Emily, and Francisco. The five children live varied lives. They are Hispanic, white, and black. They attend kindergarten, first grade, fifth grade, and eighth grade. They live with grandmothers, one parent, and both parents.They live in the Bronx, Harlem, Washington DC, LA, and Silicon Valley. They live in affluent neighborhoods and ones that aren’t.


Despite their differences, the five children face a similar problem: The school that’s assigned to them by the local school district isn’t good for them. Daisy wants to go to college and then medical school so she can “help people.” But if she follows the default path to high school, she’ll attend a dropout factory: Only 4 out of 10 students who start there graduate, and only a handful actually go to college. Francisco, meanwhile, is having trouble reading, and his mother can’t get the attention of his teacher. Even Emily, who’s contemplating attending a “good” high school in Silicon Valley, would be ill-served the the path assigned to her by the political process. She’s trying to avoid tracking, which the nearby high school practices.


We meet these children and their parents, visit their homes and schools, and come to hope against hope that they find a place in a good school. The interviews are good and touching. The honest answer of one of the children brought laughter from the audience.


Frustrated reformers


Some of the leading “talking heads” in education show up, too, such as Bill Gates (education is a matter of national economic competitiveness), professor Eric Hanushek (the impact of a poor versus a good teacher on student learning is profound), and Jay Matthews (education columnist for the Washington Post). Joe Trippi, a Democratic Party consultant, brings the perspective of a member of the political class who is ready to shake things up–even if doing so upsets his party’s largest backer. Hanushek’s message is especially powerful, and serves as the intellectual foundation for the movie’s call for making systemic changes to teacher tenure and pay.


We also hear from people who have tried to make reforms from the inside out. Howard Fuller, former superintendent of the Milwaukee Public Schools, talks about his frustration in trying to fire teachers who are not merely marginal, but derelict. Geoffrey Canada, a former teacher, thought that within 3 years of starting his teaching career, he would have reformed education–nationally. Now he run a charter school in Harlem. Michelle Rhee, chancellor of the DC Public Schools, gets significant air time, and we learn about her work in firing ineffective principals and teachers, and reducing the bloated central district staff. Rhee offers to double teacher pay in exchange for an end to tenure, but the teacher union refuses. In fact, leadership won’t permit a vote of its membership. There’s a fair amount of footage showing teachers holding signs and chanting in protest of Rhee’s ideas.


If providing effective teachers is the most important thing a school can do, it’s clear that tenure and current contracts get in the way. In DC, the district must take over steps to remove a bad teacher, and if the district misses but a single deadline, it has to start all over. In some school districts, it takes longer to remove a teacher than it does to conduct the average criminal trial. The result? Nationally, doctors and lawyers lose their license to practice at a rate that’s much higher than the comparable rate for teachers. The problem with schools isn’t bad people, it’s bad rules.


If I win the lottery


If an overly zealous system of tenure and foot-high teacher contracts are the problem, what’s the solution? Charter schools, which by design are free of many state rules are a good first step. Not coincidentally, they’re also usually free of teacher unions.


For various reasons, each of the five children we’ve met seeks entry to a charter school. To get there, they have to win a lottery. Not the one that pays millions of dollars in annual payments, but a different kind. The best charter schools don’t have enough room to admit all the children who want to attend, so by law they must conduct a lottery.Towards the end of the movie, we see, in five different rooms throughout the country, hundreds of families gathered. They are hoping and praying that their child’s number is called–one of the dozens of numbers that represent the opportunity for an alternative. The movie pans from room to room, and a counter on the screen shows the number of available slots ticking down. As they hear the results, the families are pensive, frightful, hopeful. Most end up stunned and disappointed, though as I watched it all, I did have an opportunity to cry for joy.


Overreaction to real  risks creates far greater harm


Michelle Rhee nails it when she says (several times) that the problem with school districts is that the schools are run by adults for the benefit of adults. The adults go along to get along, which means they overlook the needs of the alleged beneficiaries of public schooling, children. Tenure laws and contracts induce an entitlement mentality that says “If I’m a teacher, I have a job for life.”


How did we get here?  In part, it’s because we’ve overreacted to the problems of the past. Perhaps teachers should have some procedural protection against arbitrary dismissal, though you have to ask: how many private sector employees have that benefit? But the safeguards for teachers that we’ve built into public schools have become so massive that they produce far more harm than they prevent. In exchange for protecting teachers from principals, we’ve exposed students to incompetent teachers who set their education back in the course of a school year.


It would be as if, to eliminate any risk of traffic accidents, we set a national speed limit of 2 miles per hour. The good we would attain from that move would be far outstripped by what we would lose. In education, extensive due process rights for teachers doom children to academic failure.


Where I beg to differ


While I find much to commend in the movie, I do take issue with a few points Guggenheim makes. He suggests that we need fewer school districts and more national, top-down control. To that end, he supports national standards. But some states (Massachusetts) have good standards already, and nationalizing standards is as likely, over time, to lead to bad standards as to good ones. More generally, decentralization limits the damage that can be done by poor decisions.


Guggenheim also suggests that more children need to go to college. More children need to graduate from high school, and more need post-secondary training. Do more need a bachelors degree? I’m not convinced.


There’s one final, unasked question: Why must these good charter schools hold lotteries? Why aren’t there enough of them? It would have been useful, though beyond the scope of the movie, for Guggenheim to ask that question.

Monday, May 3, 2010

The Return of Hooverian Economics

Sacrificing Education
By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO

Those celebrating the end of the recession may be in for a rude awakening, as a deeper crisis may be right around the corner. While the economy grew nationally by 3.2 percent in the first quarter of 2010, looming and quite massive budget cuts being discussed at the state level threaten to derail what limited recovery has taken place. The national unemployment rate is at its highest point since the 1982-1983 recession; it represents the second highest unemployment spell since the end of the Great Depression more than 70 years ago. As of March 2010, unemployment stood at 9.7 percent, just .3 percent lower than the 10 percent high in October 2009, and more than three percent higher than the unemployment level in October 2008, which stood at 6.6 percent. To make matters worse, national home prices have dropped by nearly 4 percent during early 2010, while interest and foreclosure rates are on the rise again.

Although long cast into the dustbin of history, Hooverian economics appears to be making a major comeback in state and national politics. The return of this long maligned model is disturbing, but not unexpected in a country which has a collective memory of no longer than a few years. For those who are unfamiliar, Hooverian economics refers to the do-nothing approach to dealing with economic crises. It assumes that government is always “part of the problem” when it comes to promoting the public good. This most recent strain of Hooverian economics is accompanied by a hypocritical promotion of massive corporate subsidies and bailouts, in which a majority of Republicans (along with the former Bush administration) endorse. As the theory goes, the best way to ensure economic recovery is to get the government “out of the way” of the private sector when it comes to “excessive” and “unneeded” regulations and interference. But how is this approach related to the modern day electoral politics of the Republican Party? One need do little more than look at the rhetoric of national and state Republicans to find out.

As of last month, Illinois Republican Gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady attacked current Democratic Governor Pat Quinn for his plan to increase the income tax from three to four percent, lamenting: “the citizens of Illinois are sick and tired of politicians who continue to dip into their pockets.” Brady railed against “out of control borrowing and spending” and instead supported a plan to “make meaningful cuts to government overspending” in light of the state’s $13 billion deficit. Brady’s opposition to a tax increase has been nudged along by the reactionary Illinois Policy Institute (IPI), which is calling for as much as $3.5 billion in cuts to the 2011 budget ($1.5 billion more than Quinn has called for if he is unsuccessful in pushing a tax hike). IPI Chairman John Tillman dismissed concerns about the soon to be unemployed, working poor, and middle class who will inevitably be hurt by this plan, explaining that “You’ve gotta’ make tough choices.” Such callous and elitist rhetoric is eerily similar to and conceptually indistinguishable from Hoover’s own words, expressed more than 80 years ago, that “economic depression cannot be cured by legislative action or executive pronouncement” and that “prosperity cannot be restored by raids upon the public treasury.”

Hooverian dogmas are also evident at the national level, where Congressional Republicans attack the Obama administration’s 2009 stimulus as an unwarranted government intrusion into the wondrous efficiency of the “free market.” John McCain lamented the Obama stimulus, instead supporting a plan to further starve the states by “make[ing the Bush] tax cuts permanent” and “reduce[ing] spending to get our budget in balance.” House Minority Leader John Boehner lambasted Obama for dooming future generations with today’s deficit spending: “at the end of the day, how much debt are we going to pile on future generations?”

I hoped that we were beyond Hoover’s brain dead economic philosophy, which assumes that only “the market” can solve our problems at a time when the nation’s banks and major investment firms are still on the brink of extinction, home foreclosures are again on the rise, and states are facing crippling budget deficits due to rabid opposition to tax increases from Republican and Democratic officials alike. The Hooverian experiment was undertaken long ago and it was an abysmal failure. Sadly, few in the corporate press have the courage to call out Hooverians for their arrogance and incompetence today.

Keynesian spending has long been understood by most economists as the primary means of pulling economies away from the precipice of total collapse. For those unfamiliar with John Maynard Keynes’ work, I’ll briefly summarize his major argument: during times of economic crisis, national and state governments are forced to manufacture demand for products and services since the private sector is either unable or unwilling to do so (as we have so painfully seen over the last year and a half). Stimulating public demand for products and services is financed through short term borrowing and deficit increases – in order to keep the economy running at a time when banks refuse to loan out cash and private corporations are shedding workers in the millions so as to reduce operating expenses and cut their losses. In such dire situations, individual consumers are unwilling to increase their spending, as they seek to conserve their cash in the case of a greater emergency. The government, then, becomes the only actor able to provide a stimulus of last resort.

While the virtues of Keynesian economics have been understood for decades, right-wing government officials (along with centrist Democrats) have undertaken a radical campaign to sell the public on cutting social services as a solution to “balancing the budget.” The Obama stimulus is lambasted by high profile Republicans like John Boehner, who complains that “taxpayers aren’t getting their money’s worth out of the trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ and struggling families and small businesses are rightly asking ‘where are the jobs?’” A simple answer to this question is available for those who bother to read newspapers (Boehner and other stimulus critics apparently don’t). Jobs haven’t been created despite federal stimulus spending in the hundreds of billions of dollars, in large part because states are using stimulus money to make up for their budget shortfalls, rather than raising taxes to compensate for those shortfalls. In short, stimulus money is being used to replace declining budget revenues; by elementary logic, then, there can be no stimulus if federal funds are simply filling in the holes that were already present in state deficits.

According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), the $787 billion federal stimulus had the effect of subsidizing states that were in the process of cutting their budgets and social services. As CEPR estimates “state and local budget deficits to the tune of $100 billion a year will offset the stimulative effect of the president’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Stimulus dollars used to cover deficits will have no stimulative effect.” In at least 16 states, the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that federal stimulus money (that went to states for education spending) was being used to retain teachers who would otherwise have been laid off: “overall, states reported using Recovery Act funds to stabilize state budgets and to cope with fiscal stresses…the funds helped them maintain staffing for existing programs and minimize or avoid tax increases as well as reductions in services.”

Without stimulus money, the economic decline in 2009 to 2010 would surely have been far worse. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPR) explains: “Because states also face legal requirements to balance their budgets, they must enact program cuts [or] tax increases to close their budget gaps.” Budget cuts, CBPR concludes, “reduce demand for goods and services, making a weak economy even weaker. Without federal funds, states would have to take even more dramatic measures that, by reducing demand, would cost jobs and make the recession even more severe.” This last sentence should be kept in mind when we discuss the future effects of further state budget cuts. States are likely to worsen the recession if they pass draconian budget reductions. While Democratic and Republican officials promise that cutting spending will help balance the budget, the effects will likely be the opposite, with budget revenues declining even further due to large numbers of state and local employees being fired from their jobs and contributions to state tax revenues declining further because of the mass firings. This has already happened, with massive cuts in the private sector leading to huge reductions in state budgets. Such job losses will put additional strains on the public sector, and justify additional pressures for another round of budget cuts and job losses. Such practices create a cyclical process whereby budget cuts and further economic deterioration become mutually reinforcing and contribute to a greater downward spiral in reducing tax pools and increasing budget deficits.

Noted economist Joseph Stiglitz is right to criticize officials in states like Illinois, New York, and California (among the largest state economies in the country) as “very foolish” for refusing to raise taxes, preferring instead to downsize government services in a time of crisis. Stiglitz estimates that state budget cuts will have “a negative stimulus of half the magnitude of the positive stimulus that is coming out of Washington” if they are left in place. Stiglitz should know – he spent years as the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund – which specializes in promoting neoliberal economic reforms that terminate government spending in countries suffering during economic crisis. Such reforms have had disastrous consequences, contributing to the crumbling of entire national economies over night at a time when Keynesian spending would have greatly helped those in need and stimulated economic stabilization and recovery. One wouldn’t know any of this, however, by listening to the rhetoric of Republicans and Democrats today who celebrate the virtues of non-government interference, while millions suffer under the economic crisis.

Current suffering parallels that suffered by the unemployed, poor, and homeless during the Great Depression. By 1932, and in light of years of do-nothing Hooverian economics, U.S. unemployment had officially reached nearly 25 percent, up from only a few percent prior to the stock market crash. Thousands of Americans – homeless as a result of the depression and the refusal of Hoover to intervene in favor of the working class and poor – increasingly congregated in “Hoovervilles” – the label given to the shanty towns that began to spring up around the country. While Hoover did eventually implement a very limited public works program and increases tax to try and help pay for it, the damage had already been done to a country that suffered for three years under a government that consistently refused to intervene to promote economic stability, recovery, and assistance to the poor.

Many conservatives today criticize Obama’s massive public works programs (itself a classic manifestation of Keynesian spending) for failing to bring the country out of crisis. Such attacks are highly deceptive and propagandistic, and display a stupefying ignorance of historical facts. Those who’ve studied the New Deal period (and its public works program) are well aware of the fact that FDR’s deficit spending contributed to a major decline in unemployment from a high of nearly 25 percent in 1932 to less than 15 percent by 1937. Of course, unemployment again rose to nearly 20 percent by 1938, primarily due FDR’s own unfounded fears about the dangers of deficit spending – which caused him to scale back on public works spending and throw workers out of their jobs in mass. Upon seeing the disastrous effects of efforts to “balance the budget” during a depression, FDR promptly reversed course, reinstituting massive public works spending, which eventually contributed to a decline in unemployment to approximately 10 percent by 1941. In short, Keynesian deficit spending helped reduce U.S. unemployment from a high of nearly 25 percent to about 10 percent over less than a decade. All this took place prior to the mass economic mobilization resulting from wartime spending, which succeeded in further reducing unemployment to negligible numbers by the end of the Second World War.

Think tank policy wonks and affluent politicians naturally find it easy to make the “tough choice” to support budget cuts when the costs are paid by the less fortunate. And there are certainly tough times ahead of the American public. As of March 2010, Illinois is already the 9th highest state for unemployment in the U.S., according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Governor Quinn’s own proposed cuts in the Illinois budget (should his tax increase fail) will lead to an estimated 17,000 layoffs for public school teachers and as many as 400 layoffs for state troopers. Medicaid recipients’ benefits will also be cut, as will be the beneficiaries of the widely popular Kidcare program that provides health care for needy children.

Higher education is already being lacerated across the country. In Colorado, public colleges are bracing for a 10 percent cut in their budgets – the equivalent of losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. In Illinois, universities and community colleges are owed more than $750 million by the state. Budget shortfalls are leading to talk of as much as an 18 percent tuition hike in one year for students of some state institutions, followed by increases in campus housing costs. At the University of Illinois, Chicago, where I completed my Ph.D. course work, there has been serious talk of firing virtually all the administrative staff in the social science departments, while at Illinois State University, where I’ve taught for years, departments are planning on eliminating virtually all of their non-tenure track faculty, decreasing course offerings, increasing tuition costs, and increasing class sizes. Sacrificing a decent education, the IPI and state officials tell us, is the price that must be paid for achieving “progress” under the “free market” system.

A majority of economists supported some sort of government stimulus package in 2009, and many felt the Obama stimulus should have been much larger. According to USA Today, most economists feel that the federal government should do more than its already done to stimulate job growth. The majority of Americans also supported the stimulus, with 53 percent in favor and 36 percent opposed according to a January 2009 Gallup poll. Contrary to the dogmas now spread by both the Democratic and Republican parties, most Americans feel the amount of taxes they currently pay are “fair.” When asked about their policy priorities, 57 percent of Americans favor the government “stimulating economic recovery” rather than “reducing the deficit (CNN poll, December 2009) – in blatant opposition to the reactionary policies pursued by state Republicans and Democrats. Similarly, large majorities of the public (more than 80 percent) favor using federal funds to provide “unemployment insurance and health insurance to people who have lost their jobs,” “increased spending on construction on federal roads and bridges,” and “increased spending on trains, buses and other forms of mass transit” despite official fear mongering over deficit spending during a recession.

Unfortunately, state officials remain recalcitrant in their refusal to consider tax hikes. They prefer to rely on propagandistic claims that the public will not support tax increases – despite the obvious fact that the public strongly supports Keynesian spending to stabilize a weak economy. The public is not fueling the campaign to downsize government and social welfare; rather, the current round of budget cuts are the product of a bi-partisan neoliberal ideology that is contemptuous of social welfare spending and opposed to increased taxation of the affluent in the name of helping the poor. Democrats – although the legislative majority in the state of Illinois – refused to consider a tax increase last year, and are likely to do so again this year. Their contempt for Keynesian welfare spending exceeds even that of Hoover himself, who eventually conceded that some sort of tax increase would be necessary to promote economic recovery.

Conservatives complain that deficit spending is the equivalent of “mortgaging away our children’s futures.” But what good is it to speak of the future of our children when we’re already flushing away their present? What good is it to talk of “balanced budgets” in the future when families today can’t pay for their mortgages, utilities, car payments, or basic necessities such as food, health care, or clothing? Republican and Democratic concerns with “our children’s futures” begin to look extremely disingenuous in light of the desperation and suffering that are already occurring – a misery in which they have literally no interest in addressing. The notorious conservative Grover Norquist screams at the government to “leave us alone” – presumably referring to the tiny segment of the American public that still believes in libertarian “free market” capitalism and opposes taxation by the national government. We can send a message to Norquist and other neoliberal reactionaries in office by pressuring our state leaders to abandon their support for mass budget cuts. It’s time for us to send out our own message: leave public education alone, leave our health care programs in place, and stop throwing public employees out of their jobs when they’re at their most vulnerable. In short, it’s time for the neoliberal corporatists to “leave us alone!”