Education in the SOTU

So we've covered energy in the SOTU, the one area that got the largest response from my group of friends. ("Say the N-word! Say NUCLEAR! Dammit. He didn't say it.") Another one that got a huge response was when Obama spoke on his plans for education.

So let's jump right into that.

For less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning – the first time that’s happened in a generation.

This sounds, disturbingly like what Bush administration did with No Child Left Behind. They across the board raised standards for performance on standardized tests and graduation rates, because that's one of the only ways to set and measure federal standards of achievement. That program has been almost universally panned as ineffective and actually incredibly detrimental to real learning in the classroom. Teachers have to teach to the test and pass students who have not mastered any basic skills such as reading or arithmetic or the school loses funding. Students learn nothing more than how to answer questions on a specific test, and we end up with graduates who can only read at a 3rd grade reading level if they can read at all.

Obama's plan, the Race to the Top plan, is basically NCLB with some extra wiggle room. Teachers are made accountable in a different way. Instead of simply evaluating their effectiveness through student performance on standardized tests, they are going to be evaluated through a combination of student performance (45%), teacher observations (40%), and parents and peer feedback (10%). This is how teachers can stop "teaching to the test" as Obama put it, and keep their jobs even when faced with failing classrooms.

His claim that this is the first time this has happened in a generation is, as usual, disingenuous. NCLB tried to accomplish the exact same things with the same top-down ideas. Education needs a lot more flexibility than a program of federal standards can allow.

Obama is right to praise the teachers in this country. It's truly a noble profession mentoring and guiding the young. (I have loved every experience I've had teaching I've taught summer classes of 6-12 year olds, tutored in high school, mentored writing and communications in college, and TAed in graduate school. I've also just signed up to mentor middle school students in developing their writing skills over the next two months. So I've been there!) And over the past few years our teachers have made countless sacrifices from using their own money to supply their classrooms with vital supplies, giving up their free time to mentor struggling students, and many have even still been fired for lack of funds.

And yet, more money is being spent on education every year. Education spending has more than doubled since 1996, from $420.7 billion to $864 billion in 2009. And yet most teacher's salaries have not. (If you think that number is inflated by an increase in the number of students: the expenditures per student have increased 32 from 1994-2008.) According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, teacher's salaries have only increased by about 3% since 1990. So where is all of the money going?

There may naturally be more teachers teaching fewer numbers of students. The student-teacher ratio is credited with improving overall performance of the students (though many have contended that point and many studies exist to prove both sides of the issue, the idea has an intuitive appeal). There's also the point that non-instruction related expenditures are beginning to make up a bigger portion of education expenditures.

According to census.gov, non-instruction related expenditures currently make up about 40% of the total costs of educational spending. Instruction spending is broken up into salaries and wages of current teachers ($209 billion) and benefits, including pensions for retired teachers ($109 billion). The rest is divided in support services. If teacher salaries have only increased by 3%, I imagine this is where we'll find the greater increase in spending.

As it's Friday night and I haven't eaten dinner yet, I don't have the mind to continue breaking this down. Besides, I feel I've gotten a bit carried away with the research without making enough of a point. My point, I think, was that our government is spending more and more and instituting more top-down standards, and yet it doesn't seem that educational achievement is improving all that much. Certainly, it hasn't progressed as much as our spending has. We may have hit a bit of a margin with regards to government spending and what impact it actually has these days on our students' education.

I'll return possibly tomorrow, but maybe not until Monday, to evaluate more of Obama's points on education. For now, have a great weekend!

SOTU and Scientific Funding

My friend Ross posted the following on my brief and immediate response to the State of the Union.

At one point during the speech, he was making some comments regarding government funded basic research. You had run out of the room for most of it, but caught the end of it and made a face of disgust. I don't personally see private organizations funding labs nearly as much as they did in the days of Bell Labs or Xerox PARC. I suppose that 3M, Honda, Google, and Siemens still have separate research labs. However, even with collaborations with universities, most of that research is tied to applications. I'm curious if you have an argument against the funding of national labs or even NSF grants.

What Ross is referring to is the following. I ran out of the room for a quick bathroom break, came back and asked what I missed. I was told that Obama claimed the only way we will ever have clean energy is through government funding. I think the line referred to was this one:

"It was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock – reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground."

I think the summary I was given was an exaggeration of what was said, but I think my reaction may still hold.

The government and Obama's administration in particular have been pushing more and more spending on clean energy. While I am for the expansion of clean or alternative energy sources (again, can we say nuclear?), the ways in which government has chosen to subsidize this goal has been both ineffective and may have actually hurt many paths for alternative sources of energy.

Investments the federal government has made in the past few years in solar and wind have an incredibly bad track record with several of those companies filing for bankruptcy and taking millions of federal dollars with them (forgive the over-using of Reason.com there; I can find more sources if anyone would like them). Yet, at the same time, Obama wants to take credit for the successes private natural oil and gas companies have eked out DESPITE incredible opposition from the federal government.

The technology that has made it possible for oil and gas companies to extract natural gas from shale rock is the vilified hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which uses pressurized liquid chemcials to break up rock and enable horizontal drilling into shale oil fields. This practice has been criticized for introducing possibly debilitating chemicals into the environment and into our drinking water.

How to manage this new technology may actually lead to very legitimate regulations as they create a serious problem of negative externalities. (I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist, so I do believe in government existing for a lot of very good reasons. However, when government expands far beyond these select reasons, I believe, is where it loses its moral and political legitimacy.)

Obama cannot have his cake and eat it, too. His actual investments and support of energy have generated little or failed all together, while the ones he has attempted to shut down or restrict have flourished. He wants to explain away the first while taking credit for the later, which I find disingenuous. Nothing I wouldn't expect in a SOTU address in an election year, naturally, but still something I'll grimace at.

As for general NSF grants and funding of national labs, I actually can find justifications for a lot of them, even in an libertarian context. However, the ways in which many grants are decided (Solyndra's lead investor was an Obama fundraiser, Feinstein's investment in Amyris, Gore's car company, and several dozen more are covered in this article) gives me a great deal of pause when it comes to the Loan Guarantee Program from the Departmetn of Energy. There are no "comprehensive performance goals" when evaluating applications, which leads to many bad investments, and opens itself to corrupt political influence. With $77 billion at stake, I think it's a good idea to be incredibly skeptical when any government official takes credit for their investments in alternative energy.

Thankfully, the NSF has largely avoided such corruption, and I do support many of their initiatives. However, as a libertarian, I do question the political validity of many of their grants, I would not advocate dismantling the program over a few bad grants. I like to take a reasoned and sane approach to the issue. :)

Drunk Blogging the State of the Union

I have a tradition. Whenever the State of the Union is on, I like to get together with friends, devise a drinking game around expected topics or phrases, and comment on whatever the President has to say this year. The phrases are mutually agreed upon and change from year to year and president to president.

For instance, with Bush, popular phrases included 9/11, nucular (nuclear mis-pronounced *shudder*), terrorism, and Osama Bin Laden. With Obama, the phrases "Let me be clear," "Make no mistake," and "Put America back to work" are all reliable go tos.

Hence I was disappointed this year when Obama said very few of his stock phrases, and my friends and I were forced to drink to whatever we felt deserved it. The tally this year is three beers for me, seven friends, and about five shushes to quiet the commentary from the peanut gallery.

I may decide to do a more in depth analysis of the speech later, but I'm starting to doubt that. This year's speech was fairly chock full of empty platitudes and little offered in the way of real substance. But I did take notes on my reactions to the speech in real time, and if I can read my own handwriting, I should be able to share some. So here we go, my slightly tipsy recollection from scribbled notes:

First impressions: Michelle Obama looks AMAZING! Blue is absolutely her color. She can sometimes over do the structural design of her dresses for big occasions, but this one had a nice twisted structure to it around the waist that made her look just incredible. I may disagree with a lot of what she has to say, but she looks great saying it!

Plus, Obama himself looks better than he has in the past while. He doesn't look as grey and haggard as he has, but that may be because of the more closely cropped do and a lot of makeup. I worry for the people he's hugging! He might smudge.

The speech itself: Platitudes, platitudes, obligatory salute the troops remarks.

Ooh, I'm pretty sure that "safer and more respected" remark was in direct response to the recent incident with marines peeing on the Taliban. Maybe it wasn't meant that way, but all of us here did a little "Oooh" moment.

He says it's the "First time in 9 years" that we have no troops fighting in Iraq. Hmm, maybe we're not actively engaged in attacks, but we're still stationed there, helping the Iraqi government find stability, fending off attacks, and doing more than maybe we should have to. Rhetorical tricks won't get by us, here, Mr. President.

Yay to Osama Bin Laden no longer being a threat!

And then he goes into how America should be more like the military? What, with more top-down hierarchy and military tribunals? Oh, wait. Yeah, that's exactly what he means. With the recent changes to the NDAA we should have that in no time.

Good praise for WWII, greatest generation, GI Bill, etc. Ah, nostalgia, you wonderful speech mainstay.

Great lead in to discussion of preserving the American Promise. He wants for every American a "fair shot," for people to pay their "fair share," and for everyone to play by the same rules. Um, well, yeah. Isn't that what everyone wants? Equal opportunity, equal treatment under the law, etc? I think we're still in the feel good time of the speech.

Ooh, guess that's over. Time for discussion of the economy... technology making jobs obsolete, millions of Americans out of work, outsourcing, etc. He's sure to point out that the collapse happened in 2008. I don't quibble, just pointing out the framing. :)

Blaming the banks, and decrying the lack of "authority to stop it." I get that the Glass-Steagall repeal was a HUGE contributing factor, but he's completely leaving out the huge rolls that government agencies also played in the situation. No Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? I understand the desire to point fingers away from one's self, but a large part of the problem was the intimate relationship between government and the financial institutions. Not to mention the number of government stewards or legislators who were in tight with the banks and mortgage companies that helped make this possible. If you want to impose regulations, maybe start with regulating the power of congressmen and women to make deals and hide evidence? Where's the transparency we were promised?

He points out that in the 6 months before he took office America lost 4 million jobs. And in the 22 months since he has taken office, we have created 3 million! USA! US-- wait.... In almost four times the amount of time we have not quite caught up to the rate of loss in six months? Wow. That sucks! Why would you share that?? We can do math, you know...

The State of the Union is getting stronger. Oh, I damn well hope so.

Ooh, and then he gets all angry. You tell them, Mr. President. No more obstruction! NO more games! Wait, aren't both sides responsible for that? Careful, your mote is showing.

Huh, I didn't know that GM was the world's number 1 auto maker. And my friends all confirm it. Yay. Chevy Volts didn't pull them down!

Outsourcing time.. and he wants to impose a tax on all companies that operate multinationally? I do not see this going over well, nor do I see it EVER passing Congress.

Education time: training of 2 million Americans in job relevant skills. I like that, but wonder and worry about how the federal government intends to do it. I suppose subsidies for community colleges? Weren't we just talking about how tuition is getting too high and no one can pay for schools? Do we expect giving schools more money will make things cheaper? How has that worked in the past? Oh, he says he wants to keep those costs down by denying subsidies to colleges that raise tuition. Rent control on education... Something to ponder and maybe discuss later.

Ooh, and he wants states to enact strict truancy laws for high school students? Technically they're already mostly on the books, but I really worry about enforcement.

Immigration: stronger border control AND amnesty for hard-working young immigrants. Really trying to hit the Democrats and the Republicans on this one. I think the only ones who are going to be truly happy about both suggestions are the libertarians and the sane in both parties, so just a few of us. :)

Equal pay for women! Easy win.

Energy: Opening up offshore drilling. Many of my friends groaned at this one, but I like that it will open up jobs and with all of the new safety measures and new financial penalties for accidents or spills, we may have safer and more environmentally friendly drilling offshore than ever before. God knows we'll be more conscientious about it than OPEC or China.

Hehe, and all of my friends are waiting for one particular energy strategy. "Say the N-word! Say the N-word!!" Apparently, we're all fans of nuclear energy here.

And we jump to the conclusion that the only way to have clean energy is to have government fund it?? How did this happen? I admit, I ran for a bathroom break, but I can't imagine any flow of logic that lends itself to such conclusions.

Ooh, and the Department of Defense is going to dedicate itself to developing clean energy on public lands. Enough to power a quarter of a million homes... That's not even enough to power a small subsection of my suburb of Atlanta...

Good line; "No bailouts, no handouts, no copouts." Wish it meant something.

Aww, Obama made a joke! He's so cute when he's all proud of himself like that.

And it almost distracted from his reference to Cordray, the recess appointment Obama made when Congress wasn't at recess. I think I hear booing.

I like that he's going to open up investigations into the Wall Street debacles, but I wonder if they will extend to the implications with members of Congress.

Finally!! I've been waiting for a Warren Buffet reference to drink on. And raising taxes on Congress. I'm fine with that. If they want to raise them on others, then they should raise them on themselves. Though this video makes me think the whole thing is a bit disingenuous.

Back to criticizing Washington. I feel sometimes that he is ready to scold because he thinks his own actions are above what he sees in others, even as he engages in the same things. Frustrates me.

Now, close with something you're good on: foreign policy again. "Look at Iran. Now look at me. Now look at Iran." --quote from my friend Karen.

And then he closes out with some more platitudes and troop flattering.

A fairly long speech, and a relatively long response on my part. Forgiveness. I did cut out a good deal. I may come back to some of these issues in the next few days, but we'll see.

The Sane Libertarian

So what is a sane libertarian?

Well, I imagine a sane libertarian has much in common with a sane Democrat or a sane Republican, a sane liberal or a sane conservative.

That is, he or she has arrived at a set of core political beliefs after careful and reasoned consideration of the available facts. His or her philosophy is built on a foundation of principles and values that the sane person thinks are worth protecting or striving toward both as an individual and as a member of society. His or her positions on politics and policy are the result of debate and research, rather than emotion or loyalty to a party.

I have spent the majority of my life dedicated to the study and understanding of political actions and beliefs. I have a graduate degree in political theory and American politics. I have worked in political jobs in the nonprofit sector, the public sector, and the political sector. I analyzed health care and social security solvency and attended hearings at the Capitol. I have worked as a public servant investigating identity theft and fraud. I ran a campaign for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

None of that really matters though, because trust me, there are plenty of insane people in all of those jobs.

There are people who have never considered their positions, never questioned their core beliefs. There are plenty of people who have no idea that many partisan political positions are based on fundamental conceptions of human nature and human society, so they’ve never asked where their views come from. There are even more that just “know what they know” and vote the party line without questioning what people stand for and why they behave the way that they do.

That to me is insane.