under the dome – 2008
As we begin the 2008 session, the picture has changed, and group think – defined by some as – a pompous, self-congratulatory discussion where little to no progress is made – is circulating a wealth of misinformation that limits our present to solutions from the past and threatens our future as well.
Doug Handshoe, a construction specialized CPA located on the Coast, has defined group think for what he calls polite company as people that think alike without examining contrary facts or points of view. A student of what is known as game theory, Handshoe attributes an overwhelming buy or sell sentiment in the stock market to group think and says it can have the same impact on state budget and policy development.
Say What?
originally posted January 17, 2008
Say’s Law – there can be no demand without supply – explains a lot about the state of our State.
Most would not associate this economic principle with the State’s budget; but, Say’s Law rules government budgets as well as the private sector market.
Every new program creates a small but
entrenched constituency that has a greater
financial stake in holding its ground than the
larger but less organized taxpaying public has
in taking back the territory it rightfully deserves.
Say’s Law is the chief reason it’s so difficult to pass legislation that establishes a new program or service; and, also the reason the so much new program legislation contains the magic word – pilot.
The magic comes from common thinking of a pilot as a small scale test worth the risk of appropriating a comparably small level of funding.
A pilot, however, is a test to discover and solve problems before full implementation.
Consequently, when members vote for legislation to pilot a new program, they are voting for full implementation at a later date without knowing the total cost or where the money will come from.
Say’s law applied means that a pilot of any new program is going to take taxpayers for a ride.
Money doesn’t buy quality – in the class or by the glass!
Originally posted January 22, 2008
The toasts to the proposed Quality Act began months before the 2008 session of the Legislature.
Strategically, it’s definitely a quality package as victory can be claimed by all but certain passage of MAEP alone. The extent to which proposals in the package represent quality, however, is subject to debate – as is the impact of increased spending on quality.
Research on the cost of wine relative to perceptions of quality versus actual quality was recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
A related commentary How’s Your Drink?, applies the finding – cheap wine tastes better when its drinkers believe they’re sipping a Grand Cru – to the relationship between increased spending on education relative to quality.
The commentary is directed to the increased cost of a private school education. However, it applies equally well to the state spending on public education – a claim supported in the response posted by Patrick Groff, Professor of Education:
For years I have calculated statistical coefficients
of correlation (r’s) between (a) how much the
various states spend on education, and pay
their teaches, and (b) how much academic
skills and knowledge the children in the various
states acquire. The r’s here are far too low to
have any predictive usefulness.
Without question, Mississippi needs to improve the quality of public education and ample evidence to suggest that quality by the glass or in the class is not associated with increased spending. Sip on that when thinking about the proposed Quality Act.
A Rising Tide Lifts All Ships – and School Districts, Too.
Originally posted January 30, 2008
The 2007 session of the Legislature ended with the additional appropriation requested for at-risk funding left on the table for discussion prior to the convening of the 2008 session. Some called the deadlock over at-risk funding “politics” – maybe so, however, from all indications, it appears it could more accurately be called “a lucky break”.
The concept of at-risk funding is one component of the deficit-model of education equity adopted by the State. In this model, the focus is on problems – deficiencies in the skills of students, teachers, superintendents and school boards. Solutions in this model are remedial and rely on legislation to authorize additional State authority and/or appropriate additional funding.
The deficit-model of the system of public education is a stark contrast to the strength-model approach adopted by the social-welfare system. While both models share the common goal of improved outcomes, the strength-model approach identifies and builds on existing strengths.
Over a decade ago, the nation came together in a bi-partisan effort to “end welfare as we know it” and replaced the deficit-model of public assistance with the strength-model of family assistance. The resulting increase in parental employment made it possible to shift funding to meet the needs of employed parents with child care and job training programs. These employment support services were also available to other low-income working parents to reduce the numbers at-risk of needing public assistance.
In other words, the strength-model approach to welfare reform fueled a rising tide that lifted more than welfare-dependent families out of the sinking ship of parental unemployment. Replacing the current deficit-model of education with a strength-model approach would likewise empower local school districts and lift children, teachers, and superintendents from the sinking ship of public education.
Will the 2008 Legislature drop the anchor of politics and continue the deficit-model approach or take advantage of the lucky-break to get on board with a strength-model approach?
