Roughing It

After Christmas, Sara went to Texas to visit her sister, whose husband recently was deployed to Iraq. Check out his blog (with some cool aerial footage) here. We are very proud of them.

So, I'm home with the brood. We have just about caught up on our bowling. And we have been living off the elves' 4 food groups: candy, candy cane, candy corn, and syrup. Sara, if you're reading this, I'm just joking. We've hardly had any candy corn.

Achievement Gap

I read this article today on the achievement gap. It reminded me that last October I drafted the following post on the topic:

This morning [ed. -- last October] I heard a report on No Child Left Behind ("NCLB"). Then, I watched my nephew run in the state cross country ("CC") meet. The two events might relate.

NCLB: The NCLB report shows that the Nation is not making significant progress in improving education performance overall; however, it shows that the "achievement gap" -- the performance differences between various groups (primarily racial groups) -- is closing. In other words, we're not doing better as a whole. But, the distance between the top and bottom is shrinking.

CC: The runners started in a pack, but, by the end of the race, there was a huge spread between the first and last runners. The winners were congratulated. It would be a joke to suggest that the sport as a whole is flawed because of the achievement gap between first and last places. It is a simple fact that some runners work harder and come to the meet better prepared.

NCLB: Even though the report shows that the Nation is not doing better as a whole, the White House hailed it as a success. Of course it did. NCLB is not concerned with improving overall performance. Nor is it focused on improving individual performance. Instead, it is focused on shortening the distance between first and last. The report and the reaction show that NCLB is getting exactly what it is after -- a pull to the middle.

CC: Each runner should work hard to improve -- before the meet. Some will work harder than others and will improve their performance; with constant effort, they might even win some races. If, however, cross country were governed by the NCLB approach, individual preparation would be irrelevant; the important thing would be to close the achievement gap between the best and worst runners. In future meets, NCLB would require all runners to do about the same, no matter what they did to prepare: no matter whether they train 2 hours a day or 3 minutes a week.

If we're unwilling to acknowledge that preparation and effort outside the actual race have any importance, but we decide that the main drive of the cross country season is to correct the achievement gap, what is left other than putting ankle weights on the top performers?

NCLB: NCLB is designed to have the bottom come up and the top stagnate or come down. And that's what we're getting. We don't do any better as a Nation, but, by golly, the achievement gap is overcome! We will meet in the middle -- as other nations race past us.

It is ridiculous to gauge success by measuring the gap between top and bottom performers. If there are obstacles to learning in the classroom and in the system, they should be identified and eliminated. But, to try to use education policy to overcome massive differentials that occur outside the classroom simply denies reality. Some get more support at home and come better prepared to learn. Those advantages virtually guarantee better performance, unless we hobble those students or actively work to negate the advantages that come from greater effort and preparation.

We do need to improve the performance of the worst performers, but not at the expense of the top performers. Helping both, and those in between, can best be accomplished by measuring the performance/gains of the individual. Rather than focus on group versus group statistics, we should ask, "Is each student improving at least one grade-level each year?" If so, public education is doing its job. If some parents and students want to achieve more, they have 5 or 6 years before the child hits the system, and, after that, they have weekends, summers, and 17 hours every school day to do something about it. Some families will take advantage of that time. Others will not. And performance will reveal who did and who did not.

Urban Homesteading

The United States should rekindle its homesteading program.

America has good, hard-working citizens – teachers, law-enforcement and military personnel, and many other dedicated community servants – who cannot afford to own a piece of ground in the community they serve. And, just like 140 years ago, America has a lot of empty land where those people could stake a claim and become stakeholders in the American dream. It would cost Government nothing, but it would benefit the country significantly.

I’m not talking about 40 or 160 acres per homesteader. Society has moved away from the agrarian lifestyle that required so much land for each family. Instead, these good people and good families need a quarter-acre in a nice development. That would be plenty to give them a leg up in obtaining manageable financing that they could meet with the meager salaries that accompany their great service to society.

For those of you familiar with St. George, for example, you can picture the vast, empty space surrounding the community. Unless adequately provisioned and somewhat experienced, a person could get into real trouble walking half-an-hour outside town in about any direction. The community is an island in the middle of millions of acres of sagebrush and coyotes. But, the building lots on that island start around $80,000.

The problem is that the surrounding lands are owned by the United States. In 1976, the United States broke its promise to Utah that it would sell the public lands in the State (thereby putting the land on the tax rolls to help support public education) and that it would give Utah 5% of the proceeds.

Some of the federal land, of course, will never be sold, no matter what. That’s the way it goes. But, the land surrounding the towns, choking the towns, should be released. It should be sold with provisions that a specified fraction of the lots be set aside for homesteaders. We could define the criteria, the selection process and all the other details. The first step, though, is to reach a willingness – a willingness to honor promises made at statehood and a willingness to help these good Americans own a piece of available land.

Intelligent Design

Though the details of an intelligent design bill are still evolving, I received a thoughtful email from a retired BYU science professor that I thought readers might enjoy. It reads,

I oppose any legal requirement that “intelligent design”, or comparable idea, be taught along with evolution as a competing theory. I have several reasons for my opposition:

1. It would create a problem where none exists. The problem would be that students would be forced to choose between intelligent design and evolution and, by extension, religion and science. This choice is not necessary and would do harm. Over my professional career, I have talked with a number of people (or their relatives) who have chosen science and left their religion, falsely believing that they were antithetical. But it is possible to accept both, if one is willing to wait to resolve apparent conflicts (point 3 below.)

2. Intelligent design, or similar ideas, is not a scientific theory. It cannot replace evolution. To try to force a thinking student to do so will often push him or her to gravitate to the science and drop the religion (point 1.) It’s like trying to prove the existence of God with science or math—it can’t be done. Teachers know that; students know that; legislators know that.

3. Our understanding, in both science and religion, is highly inadequate. The history of science shows that it is a mistake to try to invoke God to explain scientific mysteries, because the mysteries often get explained later and the religionists then look foolish. Because of our incomplete understanding, there are often apparent contradictions. (I can cite several.) It is better to wait for our religious and scientific understandings to progress—and this may take a while!—rather than to try to wrench one side to fit the other, as Procrustes stretched or compressed people to fit his bed in the old myth.

4. There is an implied assumption held by a number of people in this state that the LDS Church opposes evolution. This is false. See the comments in my earlier letter (attached) about, say, the statement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. There is a packet, available at BYU, containing statements made or approved by the LDS First Presidency, which statements make it clear that the question is not settled.

5. Evolution, while still a developing area, has considerable scientific evidence supporting it. It is a unifying principle in modern biology. As noted above, to force a choice may push people to choose the science over religion.

6. The debate in Dover, PA, over this issue has caused hard and divisive feelings among the citizens of that community. It is not necessary to cause such a division in our community; as noted above, this is not a problem. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”

7. There is the possibility of legal action if apparently religious agenda are promoted by the legislation.

Now—some of you may think there is a problem. It is true that some scientists will baldly state that evolution implies that there is no God. These may be found in a number of universities. It is better to help our students realize that they need not have to choose so that they can meet tough challenges to their beliefs elsewhere. Such a problem occurs typically at the university level, not the public school level, which is what the proposed legislation likely will address. This also results from a confusion over the origin of life as opposed to the development of life (although some people will say that the origin question is settled.)

I personally believe that God somehow arranged the development of man, and man’s body, to achieve the potentially divine body that he now has. I also believe that He used an evolutionary process to do this. There are lots of gaps in my beliefs, and I don’t understand how He did this to achieve such a well-functioning, complicated being as man is. I am content to wait to find that out. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. But I feel my religious and my scientific understandings are satisfactory for the time being.

You may want to make it possible for teachers to say something like, “The origins of life and particularly of the bodies of men and women are unsettled and are largely a matter of one’s religious belief. We cannot and do not address that here. However, many people regard their science and their religion as compatible.” That would be fine, as long as teachers then do not go on to promote their own particular religious beliefs.

Food for thought.

Budget

Bob Bernick has an insightful article on the direction Gov. Huntsman's budget proposal likely will take. If the Gov does push (1) Rep. Dougall's "H3" personal income tax proposal (flat rate below 5%, with variable credits for mortgage interest and charitable contributions) and (2) elimination of the sales tax on food, that would be a great launch into the session.

We should dig deeper in removing the sales tax on food than the $37 million mentioned in the article. The more I think about this issue, the less inclined I am to replace the State's portion of the revenue that would be lost. I think we'd be better off leaving most of that money in our citizens' pockets. It might make sense to let local governments recoup their share of the lost revenues (by increasing the sales tax on non-food items .15%) and having the State recoup .15%, rather than the .5% originally proposed. This would net about a $100 million reduction in sales tax revenue and move the discussion closer to President Valentine's proposal of eliminating sales tax on food with no recoupments. It also would leave some room to give additional tax relief (around the $23 million the Governor proposes) on the income tax side.

Balanced, on-going relief of about $125 million, coupled with returning a good chunk of the current-year surplus to the taxpayers, would be good fiscal policy.

The D-News article mentions a poll suggesting that Utahns don't want a tax cut. As I discussed in this previous entry, the question people were asked in that poll seems biased toward a particular outcome.

UPDATE (later): Sen. Appropriations Chair Lyle Hillyard offers an excellent explanation of the budgeting process and anticipated revenues. Gardening, budgeting, you name the topic -- Lyle "Blogmeister" Hillyard has found his calling in life.

UPDATE (12/09/05): Here are the Gov's budget recommendations.