No Excuses -- Step Three: Terminate the Worst Teachers

I have identified 5 steps Utah should take to improve K-12 education.

STEP 3: Increased ability to terminate the worst teachers. This proposition would seem to make sense to everyone other than the worst teachers, and I don't think it needs a lot of explanation.

No Excuses -- Step Two: Improve Math in Grades 4-6

I have identified 5 steps Utah should take to improve K-12 education.

STEP 2: Improve math performance in grades 4-6. Two years ago, we started a reading initiative for grades K-3. The results are impressive. These early-acquired reading skills will carry forward throughout the students' lives. The next major learning hurdle comes in math in grades 4-6. Whether students ultimately excel in math turns, in large part, on where they are by the end of the sixth grade.

Rather than correct math deficiencies early (when we could do so most efficiently), government tends to spasm further down the road. Currently, we panic over getting kids ready to pass their high school graduation exams (at a point when they not only lack the basic sixth-grade skills but all the others that subsequently should build on that base), and we pour money into college-level engineering initiatives to increase the number of engineers we produce (long after we have drained the pool of students with sufficient math skills). A better way would be to take care of the second major education building block at the correct time -- build a solid math base in grades 4-6 with a direct appropriation for math specialists.

This emphasis on educational building blocks is consistent with the State's decision in 2003 (SB 154) to place more focus on the core curriculum.

No Excuses -- Step One: Pay the Best Teachers More

To better focus the discussion, I'm going to post separate entries for each of the 5 steps I have identified to improve public education in Utah. I greatly welcome ideas and input on each element and how it might best be implemented (or whether it should be implemented).

STEP 1: Pay the best teachers more. Great teachers are invaluable and, currently, are underpaid. Bad teachers burden the system and should be paid less than the good teachers. Such pay differentials should encourage great teachers to enter and remain in the profession and encourage bad teachers to improve or leave. By identifying and rewarding excellence, we promote it.

No Excuses

The new campaign of the teachers union is "No Excuses."

The article states that one teacher "thinks the campaign is a great idea, but she questions whether legislators will ever give education more funding. 'Those guys are so resistant to change,' she said."

It's odd how political perceptions can be so different. Other than simply wanting increased teachers' pay, I don't recall major initiatives for change that the Union has supported in recent history. Maybe someone will remind me of one.

In any event, I welcome the Union's campaign to boldly work for change in a no-excuses environment. Here are some changes that could use the Union's support:

1. Increased pay for the best teachers. The societal value of a good teacher is incalculable. My perception is that the Union has been the biggest obstacle to paying teachers what they are worth; rather, the Union has insisted that the worst teachers be paid the same as the best teachers, which of course is discouraging to the high-achievers who know they are underpaid because the worst teachers are overpaid. In a no-excuses environment, this change should be easy to make.

2. Increased performance in math for grades 4-6. We're doing a better job in Utah of getting children to read at grade level by the 3rd grade. The next step is to get them to grade level in math by the 6th grade. After that, much will be on auto-pilot.

3. Increased ability to terminate the worst teachers. A few bad teachers hurt our children's progress and should be fired. Though the Union historically has defended the worst teachers' "right" to stay in the classroom, it is hoped that the Union's new no-excuses approach will lead it to embrace such a common sense change.

4. Increased pay for starting teachers. Beginning teachers don't make enough money, and that hurts the pool of potential teachers. Negotiating with the districts, to divide up the chunk of legislatively-appropriated money, the Unions historically have used their clout to push the money away from starting teachers and toward older teachers at the top of the scale. The more-established teachers dominate the Unions and want to maximize their retirement benefits (which are based on the average of the highest 3 years of a teacher's career). The Union's new no-excuses approach should lead it to help increase starting teachers' pay, by supporting a specifically-appropriated bonus that is equal for ALL teachers, rather than insist that starting teachers receive less of any bonus than the more-established teachers do.

5. School choice. Some families determine that their children could do better in a private school, but they can't afford it. The State should provide some assistance to low-income families, while ensuring that the amount of assistance is less than the cost the State would have spent to educate those students in the public system. In other words, the families get an option and the State saves money. It is hoped that the Union's new no-excuses approach will lead it to support families' educational decisions.

It is time. No excuses!

Public Hearings

Last night, at the Capitol, the Tax Reform Task Force held its first public hearing on the proposals that have emerged from the process. Here is a link to an audio of the 2 1/2 hour meeting. Much of the testimony was spirited and highly-informative.

Upcoming hearings include:

Oct. 25, noon, Western Park, 300 E. 200 South, Vernal
Oct. 25, 6 p.m., County Commission chambers, 120 E. Main, Price
Oct. 26, 6 p.m., Dixon Middle School, 750 W. 200 North, Provo
Oct. 27, noon, Cedar City chambers, Old Post Office, 10 N. Main, Cedar City
Oct. 27, 6 p.m., County Commission chambers, 197 E. Tabernacle St., St. George

Art in the Park

My wife, Sara, is Chair of the Dixie Arts Foundation. One of DAF's big annual events is Art in the Park/Taste of Dixie (art exhibitors, food vendors, entertainers), which was held this past weekend. This year, a Friday night event was added to the usual Saturday festivities. It was a big success.

The only miscues were lighting and overnight security for Friday night. According to well-established laws and procedures for volunteer organizations, dealing with miscues falls to the Chair's spouse. But, after 20 popped breakers, wiring adjustments/rigging to make the steeliest fire marshal tremble, and a no-nonsense nightwatch by me and my four kids (whose shifts apparently ran concurrently from 9:45 to 10:05 p.m. -- when the supply of Ding Dongs and pop was exhausted), the event was lit and secured.

Sara, her board, and the many helpers and volunteers did an excellent job. It was a great community event.

Input Please

The Legislative Tax Reform Task Force is touring the state to solicit input on tax reform proposals. A schedule and some background information are included in this article.

I am pleased that the Governor's office (1) seems to be warming to the idea of a tax cut and (2) that it seems to identify personal income as the specific tax to be cut. In my opinion, the personal income tax has a greater effect on economic development than any other tax. Also, most of the State's current surplus (about 80%) is coming from the income tax. Therefore, the personal income tax would appear to be the proper place to seek a reduction.

The article highlights some differences that Speaker Curtis and I have with the Governor's plan. In my opinion, we should look for the quickest, clearest way to move from point A to point B. Too often, government gets caught up in fanfare. If we're not going to have a flat tax, it seems the best way to provide income tax relief would be to simply readjust the brackets and lower the top rate. Tweaking this and poking that (to frontload taxable income) would allow us to claim (on the back end) that we have a top tax rate of 5% and, then, use that as an economic development tool. But, I'd hope the people and businesses we are courting are smart enough to calculate effective tax rates, which wouldn't be much different under either scenario, except for those groups to whom the burden would be shifted under the Gov's plan (which, as the plan currently stands, would be parts of the State with the highest relative housing costs, like Washington County).

We're 3 months away from the session, and I'm pleased that the deliberations are becoming more focused. Last week, a colleague on the task force expressed frustration along these lines: "Wouldn't it be waste of time, if we held all these meetings and simply lowered the personal income tax rates." Not at all. I don't think people are looking for us to perform art or poetry with the tax code. They'd probably be pretty happy, if we simply left a few more bucks in their pockets.

Flattish Tax

The Governor's Office has backed away from a flat tax and, instead, proposes a personal income tax revision that it calls "flatter, fairer, and simple."

The proposal is not a flat tax. As I wrote a few weeks ago, it is difficult for governments to stick to (or enact) a flat tax, because of pressures for tax-favoritism brought by different sectors. This proposal has some winners (high wage-earners, charities and small families) and some losers (homeowners and big families).

With it not being a flat tax, I look to see if the proposal truly reduces the tax rate, which would be a good thing. By that, I mean a real reduction to the taxpayers, instead of simply masking effective rates by visibly dropping one number but quietly recouping the money elsewhere. As it currently stands, the proposal seems to fail on this point.

For many, the purported benefits under this proposal would be more than offset by the new burdens they would incur. Think of someone earning average wages but paying high housing costs (e.g., a policeman or teacher living in Washington County, where the average housing price is $235,000). Unless wage-earners at that level relocate far, far away, this proposal would represent an annual increase in their tax burden of somewhere between $800 to $2,000.

If we're just going to shift around the tax burden, this probably isn't the best place to point it. It already is problematic that we push teachers and policemen and others similarly situated to the outskirts of our communities with the lack of affordable housing. I worry that this proposal, by effectively increasing the amount they pay for housing, would shove them completely out of the communities they serve.

Status Quo

Here is a good article by George Will on the damage being caused by lost conservatives and big spending.

Priorities v. Pork

Rep. Dougall earlier posted a good entry on the pork in the federal transportation bill.

In normal course, Utah's highway projects are prioritized years in advance by the state legislature, transportation department, and transportation commission. It is intentionally tough to alter the order of those projects; you might say that it would take an act of Congress.

Through earmarking, Congress messes up the State's priorities (not to mention bloating the size of the federal deficit). Earmarking takes general money that would flow to Utah and dedicates it to specific projects -- often, projects that the Legislature has given low priority or no priority. In other words, Congress effectively vetoes the priorities set by the people who better understand the State's overall transportation needs.

Why would Congress undercut the State's priorities in such a way? Patronage. Smoke. And mirrors. Press releases will proudly (and misleadingly) proclaim that pork has been brought home for projects X, Y, and Z. Pork here, pork there, pork everywhere. But, the press releases won't explain that, once the total appropriation amount for the bill was set, the same money was headed here in any event. It won't be said that, without a single earmark, Utah would have received the same amount of money. It won't be said that the money has just been shuffled. It won't be said that the earmarking will cause other projects with higher priorities to now be delayed. And, of course, it won't be said that the cost of this silly exercise is billions and billions of wasted taxpayer dollars.

Solution: stop earmarking; it just inflates the total cost of the bill and inefficiently undercuts local planning efforts. Better yet, get the federal government out of the highway business. Downsize the federal government and its associated tax burden in this area, and wish the states well with their road system.

Remediation and Vouchers

Sen. Howard Stephenson has come up with a very interesting idea. In order to receive a graduation diploma, Utah high school students now are required to pass the Utah Basic Skills Competency Test (UBSCT). Many of our students are not passing. Therefore, the State Office of Education is requesting $6.1 million for remedial education. Senator Stephenson suggests that the remediation money should be in the form of a voucher, payable to a public or private program upon successful completion of the UBSCT. Here is a D-News editorial on the proposal.

Though details would have to be worked out, I favor this concept.