American Dictatorship Would Come From the Left

April 6, 2012

During the W years, I actually enjoyed the frequent leftist commentary that Bushitler was moving us toward a dictatorship. Every time the guy sneezed, he was Stalin. I think it’s healthy to have an aggressive Media. But, I got news for you about that much-feared American dictatorship: it ain’t coming from the Right.

First off, the Left, not the Right, wants move government control: Government knows better and, for our own good, should control more. As you saw President Obama doing this week regarding Congressman Ryan’s plan, the Right is criticized for wanting less Government. Second off, the Media actually watches the Right, smacking them when they deserve it (and even when they don’t). Not so, the Left. Take this week, for example.

President Obama used the bully pulpit to challenge the Supreme Court in a pending case, which, in the American system of Government, is like beating someone in a coma. The Court does not and will not respond to such criticism. Thus, restrained Presidents do not criticize/threaten the Court regarding pending cases. After a decision is made? Sure, go for it; make your case politically for legislation to address the offensive decision. But, an attack while the Court deliberates undercuts the independence of the Judiciary and, thus, the rule of law.

I’m a huge fan of John Marshall, our greatest jurist and the author of Marbury v. Madison—the great decision that elaborated the constitutional pillar of judicial review. Last year, I had the privilege of discussing this great case and the constitutional principle of judicial review with a class at the UofU law school. Every law professor in the country knows that it was wrong for Obama to crap on the Court that way. Were he a Republican, they and the Media editorials, would have called him a Constitution-hating jackass for making the comments. But, since he’s a Democrat . . .

. . . the great Laurence Tribe said, “Even if such comments won’t affect the justices a bit, they can contribute to an atmosphere of public cynicism that I know this president laments.” Let me translate for the non-lawyers: “Such comments undercut the rule of law. The President was a jackass to make them”

Had Bushitler made the remarks, the Media would have spilled barrels of ink calling him a Constitution-hating jackass. Instead, for Obama, the Media spills barrels of anodyne, boldly noting that the remarks “struck a nerve.” Or, in case that was too aggressive to a Democrat, the thuggish words of the man holding the most powerful office in the world, directed to a co-equal branch of government that cannot/will not defend itself in the media, were merely Barack being . . . “cute.”I swear. Read it yourself.

In cases where the Media would call on all patriots to grab pitchforks and torches to thwart a Republican dictatorship juggernaut, the Media dismissed blatant thuggery as “cute.” The Executive’s disdain for the Judiciary and Separation of Powers concerns is “cute.”

But, the hyper-vigilant American Media won’t let a President get away with an attack on the Court; will it? No! The Media proclaims, “Even some legal scholars sympathetic to Obama and the health-care law are saying that the president might have been better off keeping quiet.” Roar! Take that Mr. President! Go Media! Speak unvarnished truth to power!

3 Comments

Sex Ed

March 20, 2012

It has been interesting to listen to the conversation about Governor Herbert’s veto of Rep. Wright’s bill that would have outlawed discussion of contraceptives in sex ed courses.  Much of that conversation has been factually incorrect.

For example, people have said that the veto will lead to advocacy of homosexuality in schools and to condom and zucchini enactments. Well, in a word, no. The veto simply leaves us with our current law. So, the relevant question is whether those activities are happening under our current law. The answer is “no.”

Sex ed is taught in our high schools every year. Out of all those classrooms and all that instruction, where are the examples of promotion of homosexuality and risqué theater? They don’t exist. Current law has served us well. From a factual standpoint, then, this bill was a solution in search of a problem.

Next, to determine the need for this legislation, let’s take a look at current law. In much of the dialogue, I have heard people say that Rep. Wright’s bill is needed because they want abstinence taught and that they don’t want any advocacy of pre-marital sex, homosexuality, or contraceptives. OK. Let’s see how our existing law measures up.

Subsection1(b) says “instruction shall stress:

(A)             the importance of abstinence from all sexual activity before marriage and fidelity after marriage as methods for preventing certain communicable diseases; and

(B)             personal skills that encourage individual choice of abstinence and fidelity.”

Check.

Subsection (c)(iii)(A) prohibits “instruction in:

(I)                     the intricacies of intercourse, sexual stimulation, or erotic behavior;

(II)                   the advocacy of homosexuality;

(III)                 the advocacy or encouragement of the use of contraceptive methods or devices; or

(IV)                 the advocacy of sexual activity outside of marriage.”

And, check.

These existing provisions are why (circling back to the existing factual reality) Utah students don’t come home with stories of nefarious indoctrination by their teachers. Our existing law is good.

Our existing law could be beefed up in 2 areas: consistency in the discussion of contraceptives and better parental notification. But, based on my experience, it would be tough to make such commonsense changes, because the conversation on sex ed quickly strays from facts and actual language.

And, I get that. Human sexuality is a huge deal, and it has great significance to just about everyone. It is a sensitive topic. With that in mind, I don’t mean to provoke. Rather, because the issue has great significance to me too, I simply intend to pull the discussion back to facts and actual language. My take is that our existing law went through a far better process than Rep. Wright’s bill and, as a result, is a far better law. It has served us well, and it will continue to do so.

9 Comments

Concurrent Enrollment: UPDATE (3/5/12 3:15 p.m.)

March 5, 2012

My bill to shore up concurrent enrollment in Utah advanced to the Senate Third Reading Calendar. (We’re currently moving bills “straight across”–meaning we’re combining the Second and Third readings; but, I just wanted to move it one step, in order for people to have some time to take a look at the amended bill and provide some commentary.).

Without SB 284 (Concurrent Enrollment Amendments), concurrent enrollment (“CE”) is in danger. Two Utah higher education institutions have given notice that they will reduce CE offerings. The reason for that reduction is that Utah colleges are losing too much money offering the courses. Someone has to pay for the offerings; currently, existing college students (who are not rolling in money) are subsidizing the cost for the high school students.

SB 284 instructs the Regents to look at certain aspects of CE. The Regents should consider the appropriateness of a fee—not more than $30/credit hour—for credits, which would still be at least an 80% subsidy. Amendment 3 exempts from that fee certain general education courses and kids who are eligible for free-and-reduced-lunch-eligible kids. Thus, poor kids wouldn’t pay the fees, and no one would pay for fees for certain general education courses—which are the ones we want them to take.

Also, please be aware that any high school student still would be allowed to TAKE the courses for free (public education being free). But, where a fee is imposed by the Regents, a student would need to pay in order to receive the college credit (higher education not being free).

I will draft an additional amendment to require that any tuition fees flowing from this bill receive approval from Legislative Management Committee and providing discounts for each additional course taken.

Leave a comment

Concurrent Enrollment: Facts and Fiction

March 1, 2012

One of the most frustrating things about public policy is the significant role that disinformation plays. Experienced people know that and, unfortunately, exploit it.

As I’ve discussed previously, (very clearly, since 1/1/12 as a matter of fact) concurrent enrollment is great, but it needs some changes. I believe that I have been balanced in my presentation, realizing that a real discussion is needed. If you care about this issue, please read my detailed discussion of this important issue.

Without a real discussion, colleges will reduce their concurrent enrollment offerings. That is the reality. So, you would think that entities that purport to love concurrent enrollment would work to promote factual, adult conversation. But, unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case with the Utah School Boards Association (USBA).

The USBA distributed a flyer stating, “Concurrent Enrollment is currently required in statute. Higher education cannot unilaterally decide to discontinue CE without violating statute.” No duh. But, as Patti Harrington of USBA and I discussed, and as she clearly knows, higher education can cut back its offerings—as it will, if it is forced to continue passing the costs onto already-stretched college students. (And that is what currently happens; colleges lose money on CE for high school students, so they recover those costs from the tuition of existing college students). If USBA knows the difference between discontinuing CE and cutting back CE, why would it put out this disinformation? Because in a rushed session, it sells.

USBA claims, “Higher education does not provide the majority of CE courses; public education does.” Well, then, USBA, if public ed has it covered, why would you care if higher ed backs out? Answer: because higher ed is responsible for 100% of the credits, which translates to resources and costs. Again, why would USBA put out this disinformation? Because in a rushed session, it sells.

Patti, USBA, I invite you to the table for a factual, adult conversation on an important issue.

2 Comments

Changes to Concurrent Enrollment

February 8, 2012

Utah needs to make some changes with concurrent enrollment (“CE”). I’ve previously given a lot of background on the issue. If you care about concurrent enrollment, please check out that background info. Now, the specifics.

To save/promote concurrent enrollment, Utah needs to:

  1. better focus CE offerings to post-secondary general education courses;
  2. establish funding standards for concurrent enrollment courses;
  3. establish quality standards and accountability;
  4. designate regional service areas for Utah colleges and universities; and
  5. include accommodations for rural areas, small schools, and high schools designed around the associate’s degree (e.g., AMES, Success Academy).

A little discussion.

College is expensive. Our scarce resources – meaning, in this case, our courses – need to be pointed toward degrees. (Otherwise, many less-expensive pathways to education exist and should be employed.). Let’s make sure concurrent enrollment is taking care of the basics of college. Walking before running. Milk before meat. You get the idea.

Public education is free. Higher education is not. Concurrent enrollment courses should be free to high school students. If they want credit, though, they should pay for it. Otherwise, our other college students – through their tuition – will subsidize the costs of granting that credit. I suggest a maximum price of $30 per credit hour be used. Compared to the normal freight that college students pay, this still is a significant scholarship.

The Utah System of Higher Education (“USHE”) should develop the course offerings on a system-wide basis. The importance of the courses is not seat time; rather, it is mastery of the outcomes and competencies. The courses must contain measurement of student performance and methods to compare disaggregated data throughout the state. That way, we can identify the districts/schools that are getting it done (and learn from them) and the ones that aren’t (and help them). The TICE courses give us a great start on achieving these goals.

Colleges and high schools need to improve coordination. This coordination includes reporting of grades, length of courses, prerequisites, enrollment, and other items. These items, along with the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, suggest that colleges should establish designated service regions.

This is where I’m headed. If you don’t agree, let me know. Wise people save me from myself all the time. Please give me the benefit of your thinking.

18 Comments

Higher Education Appropriations — Opportunity Knocks!

January 22, 2012

As always, I can’t wait to start the session!!!

This year, we are going to do amazing things in the Higher Education Appropriations Committee. As I’ve discussed elsewhere on this blog, we will change the world by better preparing Utah students for college, we will give our faculty a bit of a bump in pay, we will better align concurrent enrollment with future college success, and we will figure out how we will fund our public institutions on the basis of excellence instead of mere growth. In other words, we have much work to do!

We already do what we do and know what we know. Thus, I don’t want to take up too much committee time talking about what we already do. Instead, I want to use the skill and expertise of my wonderful committee members, the great people at the Utah System of Higher Education, the students, and the public, to discuss what we need to do in order to do things even better. So, here’s what I envision.

We will start with Innovators’ Week (or 2). First, we’ll hear from outside innovators, like Clayton Christensen, Burck Smith, Ellen Siminoff, and Erik Frank. They will tell us about the direction of higher education, the ability to provide excellence in an affordable manner, affordable individualized college preparation, and open textbooks.

Then, as part of Innovators’ Week (or 2), we’ll hear from innovators within our system. And, I want to highlight that point; innovation doesn’t necessarily mean cool stuff that’s going on elsewhere. We tend to make that mistake as policymakers. (Or, maybe I should own it and confess, I tend to make that mistake). Some of the greatest innovations we will ever find come from our own people who know our system, our unique challenges, our personnel, and our opportunities. I do not hold anyone in higher regard than many of the fine people within Utah’s higher education system who are dying to do things better. They lead me and inspire me.

Next, I would like to handle budget recommendations early – well before our last meeting, so that we can grapple with important policy issues.

Lastly, you guessed it, we’ll deal with those important policy issues – concurrent enrollment and performance-based budgeting.

I’ll lay this out to committee members on Tuesday. So, if you don’t like it, let me and my committee members know about it. In any event, come reason with us, and help improve this system and the lives of our students. Opportunity knocks!

Leave a comment

My Goals for Higher Education This Session

January 17, 2012

I’ve attended my classes and done my homework. Now it’s time for my report. So, here’s what I want to do this session for higher education. If you disagree, you’re on notice and you should contact me.

First, to address our biggest challenge – completion – I want to raise standards, assess high schoolers, and fully prepare high schoolers. The details of the plan can be found here.

Second, we need to take care of our valuable personnel. Higher education workers were left out of the Governor’s budget recommendation for a 1% bump. That’s not acceptable. They truly have done more (huge enrollment increases) with less (significant budget cuts).

The thinking, I assume, is that higher ed can raise tuition and find whatever money it needs in the students’ pockets. I disagree. The comparatively low tuition of Utah’s state institutions gives our students a significant advantage. Smart people don’t flippantly give away their advantages.

Part of our problem with completion rates is that too many of our students work part-time. Increased tuition means even more will do so, and even less will complete.The reality is that some of our institutions should raise their tuition (e.g., UofU and USU) and others definitely should not. But, all our valuable personnel should get a bump.

Those 2 items likely will command all the money that higher education might receive this session.

Now, for reform: it is not an oversight that I left out money for “mission-based funding.” I don’t know what the term means. So, I wouldn’t know what to fund.

It’s not that I’m unfamiliar with the concept. I pushed hard for mission-based funding for over a decade, finally telling the Regents 2 years ago that I would move us to mission-based funding with or without them. Last year I passed a bill, even called mission-based funding, that created a skeleton for funding institutions on the basis of excellence, instead of growth. But, much to my frustration, meat has not been hung on those bones. My bad. I thought others might take the lead. We’ll discuss this important issue in committee, and I’ll take the lead this next interim. But, for now, we’d just be funding a concept.

Along with discussing mission-based funding in committee, we need to preserve/improve concurrent enrollment. I’ve discussed that project here.

Those are my big 4: preparation, funding, mission-based funding, and concurrent enrollment. Agree? Silence is assent.

Also, we’re going to discuss accreditation. It is a huge anchor that stifles innovation, efficiencies, and reform. Unfortunately, the reign of the regional accreditation agencies is supreme. But, I’m working on a plan for the states to band together to change that. Stay tuned.

1 Comment

Concurrent Enrollment

January 1, 2012

Point 1. Concurrent enrollment is awesome.

Many Utah high school students take courses that give them both high school and college credit. Through these concurrent enrollment (“CE”) courses, students can get a feel for college work, some college credit, and some additional academic challenge.

Point 2. Concurrent enrollment has some problems (funding, quality, excess credits).

Funding. CE is a financial loser for colleges. With cuts to state funding – made worse by significant enrollment numbers – Utah colleges have recently given notice that they will reduce CE offerings.

Quality. Because the quality of CE varies significantly, colleges receive students who have credit on the transcript but actually lack the foundational skills that should have been acquired.

Excess College Credits. Many Utah students graduate high school with an associates degree. Again, awesome! However, half those credits won’t count toward a baccalaureate degree. Though any and all education is great, Utah can’t afford to pay for any and all education. CE courses need to track toward a degree.

Point 3. The problems need to be addressed now.

With colleges now moving to reduce offerings, something will need to be done this legislative session regarding CE.

Point 4. Perspective: we’re dealing w/ success, not failure.

It is important to approach a challenge like this with the right perspective. CE mostly works very well. In an innovative way, we created lots of different CE courses Some work. Some don’t. We now simply need to retool.

Point 5. The solution might be at hand.

This past year, Utah developed 6 general education courses – specifically for CE – to deal with the 3 problems outlined above (funding, quality, and excess credits). These 6 courses – called TICE courses, for Technologically-Intensive Concurrent Enrollment courses – can be delivered more affordably, using technology and high school teachers. To assure quality, outcomes and competencies can be measured across the state; that way, we can see which high schools are getting it done and which ones are struggling. And, because they are general education courses, the TICE courses will track toward baccalaureate degrees.

Point 6. We need to expand the number of TICE courses.

Drawing lessons from implementation of the 6 TICE courses, let’s create some more TICE general education courses.

Point 7. We need to establish foundational requirements to better assure success in the college-level courses.

As I’ve written – oh, a couple dozen times on this blog – our students’ lack of basic math and English skills are dooming most of them to fail in college. Well, let’s use CE to help fix that problem. The first step toward taking CE courses should be successful passage of the College Success Primer.

Point 8. Public ed and higher ed requirements need to align better.

Face it. Most of us take math in college, to check a box and move on to a happier place where we no longer need to worry about math classes. Yes, there are plenty of exceptions; I get it. But, most of us get through life just fine using algebraic math skills. Anything else, we Google it or phone a friend. So, why do we take math in high school, forget it, bog down in college on the same math, relearn it, and, ultimately, forget it for life? Maybe because we like to bang our heads against a wall.  It’s a dumb pathway. Instead, we should embed college in our high schools. Take algebra. Pass it. Receive college credit. Box. Checked.

Point 9. We should consider a funding stream for concurrent enrollment.

A few years ago, a bill was passed (then, vetoed) that would have funding CE by charging students a fraction of normal tuition (about 1/10th the cost – meaning somewhere between $15 and $30/course). That still left the students with an effective 9/10th scholarship. The rationale, loosely speaking, for the veto was that “public education is free.” Well, ya, but higher education isn’t public education. Higher education is based on a user-pay model. So, flash forward and, now, without that funding stream, the offerings are being cut. We might want to consider a model where anyone can take the courses for high school credit, but payment (again, 1/10th the normal cost) needs to be made to receive the college credit.

Point 10. Let’s do this.

Because we are building on success, this one shouldn’t be too difficult to figure out. Maybe I’m completely wrong on these points, and someone will want to correct me or chart a different pathway. That’s fine. The thing is, we need to get the conversation going in earnest before the session. So, let’s talk.

6 Comments

  • Twitter