We must sell bad magazines
May 7th, 2010 — Press
We must sell bad magazines.
We must sell bad magazines.
We must sell bad magazines.
After years of shrinking content and growing sensationalism Newsweek is being sold for scrap. The best guess is that some rich guy will buy it as a personal soapbox. Maybe. The magazine already tried selling itself as a rich industry's soapbox and that doesn't seem to be working.
If this seems mean-spirited, take a close look at the cover. I met a young teacher yesterday who's struggling to teach every student in her class as the districts cuts classroom help, reduces resources like books and computers and offers her few opportunities for professional development. She started to cry when another teacher mentioned this Newsweek cover.
Teaching some students is hard work. It takes time and resources. For decades, governments (and, by extension, the public) have chosen to ignore what needs to be done and focus instead on the education equivalent of get-rich-quick schemes. They haven't worked.
Making teachers the scapegoats for our failed policies may be politically expedient, but it's not going to improve education any more than our other, easy, so-called solutions have.
May 7, 2010 No Comments
K-12 cuts for 2010-11
May 6th, 2010 — Budget, Education
School funding's gotten pretty complicated over the past couple of years. We've been slashing away at it, but it's hard to keep track of how much we've been cutting because there are so many different ways of looking at it.
Here's an overview of what we did this year. It shows each increase and cut along the way, from the first 2009-10 appropriation through our FY 2010-11 appropriation.
| School Finance Funding: FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11 ($ millions) | |||||
| State Appropriations | Informational Amounts | ||||
| Description | General Fund | Cash Funds | Total State Funding | Local Funding | State and Local Funding |
| FY 2009-10 | |||||
| Original Long Bill appropriation (FY 2009-10) | $3,076.6 | $619.7 | $3,696.3 | $2,002.0 | $5,698.3 |
| Cut in state funding to offset higher-than-forecast local tax revenue | 0.0 | (66.6) | (66.6) | 66.6 | 0.0 |
| Increase in state funding to pay for higher-than-forecast number of students | 0.0 | 19.1 | 19.1 | 0.0 | 19.1 |
| Subtotal: | 3,076.6 | 572.2 | 3,648.8 | 2,068.6 | 5,717.4 |
| Cut in state funding to protect State Education Fund | (0.3) | (109.7) | (110.0) | 0.0 | (110.0) |
| Cut in state funding to balance budget (eliminates money to pay for new students) | 0.0 | (19.8) | (19.8) | 0.0 | (19.8) |
| Final Funding for FY 09-10 | 3,076.3 | 442.7 | 3,519.0 | 2,068.6 | 5,587.6 |
| FY 2010-11 | |||||
| Increase required to restore FY 2009-10 cuts and fund Amendment 23 requirements for FY 2010-11 | 301.0 | (56.6) | 244.3 | (27.1) | 217.3 |
| Subtotal: FY 10-11 Long Bill appropriation | 3,377.2 | 386.1 | 3,763.3 | 2,041.6 | 5,804.9 |
| Increase to pay for cost of living study | 1.9 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 1.9 |
| Cut to eliminate funding for cost of living study | (1.9) | 0.0 | (1.9) | 0.0 | (1.9) |
| Cut to balance budget (about 6.3% for most districts) | (365.4) | 0.0 | (365.4) | 0.0 | (365.4) |
| Recommended FY 10-11 funding | 3,011.8 | 386.1 | 3,397.9 | 2,041.6 | 5,439.4 |
| Cut from final FY 2009-10 funding to FY 2010-11 appropriation (2.6% reduction in funding, on average) |
(64.5) | (56.6) | (121.1) | (27.1) | (148.1) |
The first total, FY 2010-11 appropriation, shows how much money we're putting into schools next year. It's a cut, but of how much?
The bottom box shows how much we're cutting from the amount we're spending this year. That's the final FY 2009-10 amount minus the FY 2010-11 appropriation. Remember, though, that we cut K-12 a couple of time throughout FY 2009-10, so that's the difference from the reduced amount.
Another way to look at the cuts is how much less are we spending from what we would have spent if we'd followed current law (including Amendment 23). To get that amount, you have to subtract our FY 2010-11 appropriation of $5,439.4 from the the FY 2010-11 subtotal of $5,804.9 million. Looking at it this way puts the cut at $365.5 million.
This is a common problem when you're talking about the budget. We pass the budget before the fiscal year begins. It's based on revenue and cost projections. Once the fiscal year begins, we have to adjust spending to account for real revenue and costs. The budget is in flux until the very end of the fiscal year.
About a third of the way through the fiscal year, we start working on the following year's budget. Almost immediately, people start asking about the difference between the two budgets: how much are you cutting from next year's budget? The answer, of course, is the difference between the current budget and the next budget; but that's hard to calculate when the current budget is still changing and the next one isn't set yet.
Federal Money
May 6, 2010 No Comments
Thank you teachers
May 4th, 2010 — Education
I don't deserve it this year, but the Colorado Education Association named me their Friend of Education for 2010. Someone at the event recorded it and put the video on YouTube.
May 4, 2010 No Comments
K-12 budget cuts
May 1st, 2010 — Education
The state's massive cut in school funding this year is forcing layoffs and other reductions in district budgets. Here's a survey of some district cuts so far.
The Colorado School Finance Project has been collecting reports from districts on how much and what they're cutting. Great Education Colorado is mapping the budget cuts across the state.
Boulder Valley Schools are planning to cut up to $24 million. Parents and staff seem to agree on how the budget should be cut:
- Chop administration
- Spend some money from the emergency reserve
- Slightly increase class sizes
- Freeze salaries
Adams 12 is cutting $24 million.
The district is cutting administrators and overhead, but it's also cutting deep into the teaching ranks. It plans to eliminate 90 teachers, academic coaches, reading specialists, librarians, counselors, assistant principals and special education specialists.
Cutting nearly $200,000 from it's School Effectiveness and Accountability Department, including 1.5 employees. That might make it tough to do all of the new teacher evaluations.
- Middle School Technology Fee: $15/student
- Transportation: $10/month
- Athletics participation fees: 25 percent increase
- High school parking fee increased from $30 to $50
In Durango, the school district has been listing options and asking the community for suggestions on what to cut. The consensus seems to be for delaying purchases, raising lunch prices and a small to moderate mill-levy override.
May 1, 2010 No Comments
Update on HB10-1350
April 29th, 2010 — Uncategorized
House Bill 10-1350 passed on third reading today. That's the bill that asks the Economic Development Commission to come up with a plan to determine if our supposedly job-creating subsidies and tax breaks are actually creating any jobs.
The bill passed the House by one vote.
April 29, 2010 No Comments
Even asking is anti-job
April 28th, 2010 — Bills, Labor, Taxes & Fees
The anti-job attacks have hit a new level of absurdity. Now, even asking if a job-creation plan actually creates any jobs has become anti-job. Seriously.
We were considering a bill (HB10-1350) today that asks the Colorado Economic Development Commission to come up with a plan for determining if our supposedly job-creating subsidies and tax breaks really create jobs. Yes, that's asking the foxes to report on their success in guarding the hen house (more on that after the break), but even that was too much for the Governor and the Republicans.
While the Governor's crew and the chamber of commerce lobbyists were frantically trying to kill the bill from the lobby, Republicans on the House floor were calling the proposal anti-business and anti-job.
It wasn't clear from their comments if requiring job incentives to create jobs is anti-job, or if just asking if they create jobs is anti-job, but, does it matter?
Another argument against the bill was that it would send the wrong message to business. Really? What message would it send? That when he hand over money to businesses so they'll create jobs, we expect them to create jobs with it? That seems like the right message.
I think the wrong message would be that we're handing out subsidies and tax breaks and don't care if they create jobs or not.
Keep in mind that we hand over hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tax breaks every year in the name of creating jobs. Those tax breaks are why we have to cut school funding, raise tuition at colleges and universities and suspend the senior property tax exemption.
With those kinds of consequences, asking if we're getting our money's worth seems like a good idea.
The most discouraging part of the debate was that the Governor and the business lobby had already gutted the bill.
April 28, 2010 2 Comments
Can you handle the truth? With a straight face?
April 26th, 2010 — Economy, Press
OK, most of the comments that appear below online news articles are just the vapid rantings of a few disgruntled people with a lot of time on their hands. But every once in a while, there's a real gem. Like this one. It was posted someone called COMFORTABLYSMUG after a New York Magazine article on Lloyd Blankfein and Goldman Sachs. It's based on Jack Nicholson's monologue in "A Few Good Men."
“You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth. Son, we live in a country with an investment gap. And that gap needs to be filled by men with money. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Middle Class Consumer?
Goldman Sachs has a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.
You weep for Lehman and you curse derivatives. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what we know: that Lehman’s death, while tragic, probably saved the financial system. And that Goldman’s existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves pension funds.
You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want us to fill that investment gap. You need us to fill that gap.
“We use words like credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligation, and securitization… We use these words as the backbone of a life spent investing in something. You use ‘em as a punchline. We have neither the time nor the inclination to explain ourselves to a commoner who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very credit we provide, and then questions the manner in which we provide it!
We’d rather you just said thank you and paid your taxes on time.
Otherwise, we suggest you get an account and start trading. Either way, we don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!”
Here's the original monologue by Aaron Sorkin:
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty…we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
April 26, 2010 No Comments
