Special Education Problems We Aren’t Solving
July 23, 2012
In the New York Times on July 23, 2012, Laura Klein posted a very provacactive and strong op-ed piece on the failures of special education programs in NYC.
While I absolutely agree with Ms. Klein, I have some additional thoughts I want to share.
Our current K-12 education model was really conceived around an agrarian society and has not been updated (in New York State) since 1907, or so.
Many changes have occurred in our economy and society since then, with accelerated change beginning in the 1960’s.
Today, even in “traditional” 2-parent households, it is quite unusual to find only one parent in the workforce, and that poses a challenge where the K-12 model is 8 AM to 3 PM, and the workplace model is 8 AM to 5 PM.
Now, factor in the growing number of single parent households in America.
If we look back to 1965, we find that about 10 percent of American children lived in single parent households.
In 2011, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) conducted an exhaustive study looking at changes in family structure in 27 industrialized countries.
That OECD study found that in the U.S., about 26% of children were being raised by a single parent, compared with an average of 15% across the other countries.
More telling: 72% of African-American children today grow up in a single parent household.
In the larger picture, females constitute about 83% of the total number of single parents, and single fathers around 17%, and years of evidence tell us that – although the wage gap has narrowed over time – today’s women earn 77.4 cents for every dollar earned by men.
Extensive research in child development over the past several decades has confirmed that the early years (birth to age 8) form the foundation for a full range of human competencies and are the time when young people are most receptive to the effects of both positive and negative experiences.
Researchers have identified several risk factors which – when present – predict adverse outcomes for children, and when absent (or carefully mitigated) can reduce or eliminate the long-term probability of negative outcomes for children, which include reduced economic success and lower quality of life in adulthood.
The single most predictive risk factor is poverty, which is often accompanied by limited parental education achievement; parental mental health problems; social isolation or neglect; and living in an environment where crime and violence regularly occurs.
Two widely-cited intervention programs, the Perry Preschool Program and the Abecedarian Program, used randomized child assignment and long-term follow up to study the effects of early interventions on social behaviors of severely disadvantaged children.
In both the Perry and Abecedarian Programs, there was a consistent pattern of successful outcomes for the children in the program compared with control group members.
Participants in the more intense Abecedarian Program had an increase in IQ which persisted into adulthood. This early and continued increase in IQ is important because IQ is a strong predictor of socio-economic success.
Effects of these interventions also reflected a wide range of positive social behaviors, including higher scores on achievement tests; achieving higher levels of education; the need for less special education intervention; placement into higher wage jobs; more likely to own a home; and less likely to go on welfare or be incarcerated (when compared to individuals from the control groups).
Many studies have shown that these aspects of behavior translate directly or indirectly into high economic returns.
One economist (Heckman) has estimated the rate of return (the return per dollar of cost) to the Perry Program is in excess of 17%, which is clearly higher than long-term returns on stock market equity and suggests that society at large can benefit substantially from these kinds of interventions.
It is my contention that investing in high-quality early education programs which are both reflective of the economic realities of today (read: 7 AM to 7 PM) and fully articulated with public schools and the expectations of kindergarten readiness will rapidly change the paradigm noted in Ms. Klein’s essay, and will also create a long term benefit to the U.S. economy.
If we continue to push children along through the K-12 system ill-prepared for future workforce opportunities, we will continue to wring our hands and despair that jobs are moving overseas.
In early July 2012, our national unemployment number came in at 8.2%, yet there were some 3 Million private sector jobs open and unfilled.
Why?
Jobs are open and unfilled for a number of reasons, often related to labor mobility and/or experience and training. A poorly educated individual is just not a good candidate to help bolster our domestic economy, and that is a tragic waste of our limited resources.
If even some of the research on the importance and economic return for investing in quality early childhood education is true, then why aren’t we demanding that our public school systems re-engineer themselves to address our 21st century economy?
Our Congressional Representatives
February 12, 2012
Our U.S. economy is still shaky. A payroll tax cut was enacted to help increase the spending power of middle-class Americans, and it is due to expire at the end of February.
Class action lawsuits and medical malpractice lawsuits have driven up costs across our health care system, and could potentially be ameliorated through comprehensive tort reform.
There are dozens – probably hundreds – of serious domestic issues that our Congress could be working on.
Instead, they are currently focused on contraception.
Let’s set the record straight: Members of Congress who seek to limit the availability of affordable birth control all enjoy contraception insurance as part of the government managed Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB).
This benefit has been in place since 1998, and it “…ensures that federal employees participating in FEHB have insurance coverage of FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related services.”
Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on February 10 that ‘insurance plans shouldn’t cover contraception services because birth control “costs a few dollars” and is only a “minor expense” for women.’
Good to know.
In my job – in my life – I am forced to prioritize my time and my efforts. Wouldn’t it be nice if I could spend all my time focused on minor issues that I think are “fun”?
That seems to be what our leaders in Congress are all about these days.
To paraphrase an old fable, “Rome is burning while our Congressional leaders are fiddling.”
We pay each and every member of Congress a base annual salary of $174,000, plus deluxe health care and pension benefits, and perks for things like travel and mail. There are various stipends for leadership roles as committee chairs, majority leader, minority leader, etc.
Most recent estimates of the total annual costs of our federal legislative body – Senate and House of Representatives — are in the $5 Billion range.
Now, some might point out that spending for the House and Senate, which includes salaries, mailings, and committee expenses, represents only .07 percent of total federal spending. The entire legislative branch includes additional expenses for the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Budget Office, the Library of Congress, and some other functions.
That seems like a really good deal — if we are getting focus on critical issues and real results.
There are some – including voters, political scientists and lawmakers themselves– who have said that the 112th Congress (which convened on January 3, 2011) was our worst ever.
The 2011 session began with a House vote to repeal President Obama’s health-care law and ended with a flip-flop over the 60-day tax-cut extender — with detours in between for the two parties to flirt with shutting down the government, jeopardize the nation’s credit and various assorted legislative mayhem.
As a citizen, a taxpayer and a voter, I don’t much care what political party a person claims as their own.
What I do care about is: When they run for public office and get elected, our representatives put aside their personal agendas and work for the best long-term interests of our country.
Is that too much to ask for?
Home Rule in a World Economy
December 4, 2011
I live in New York State, often thought of as the land of high taxes and the home of Wall Street.
Current debate in New York has to do with what is called a “millionaire’s tax” which is really just a graduation of income tax rates as incomes rise.
Today, the NYS income tax on a typical New York family is 6.85% on taxable earnings up to $300,000 annually.
The‘surcharge’ starts to kick in when taxable household income for a family exceeds $300,000, causing incremental taxable income over $300,000 subject to NYS Income Tax at a rate of 7.85%, and at $500,000, the marginal rate then rises to 8.97%.
Now let’s take a look at a family in New York State with an annual taxable income of $750,000.
That is about $14,400 per week.
If the “millionaire’s tax’ expires, this family will save about $7,300 at tax time, which equates to $140 per week.
Meanwhile, the Empire State is facing a potential $3.5 Billion deficit in the coming year.
Why would Governor Cuomo not support the extension of this surcharge on the highest earning households?
On another level, one danger of having an uneven income tax landscape in adjacent states is that these highly compensated individuals can easily relocate — note that Greenwich, CT has become the capital of the hedge fund industry; and that downtown Stamford, CT is home to several large investment banking operations (UBS & RBS).
There is currently an effort by the State of Ohio to bring the headquarters operation for Sears from the Chicago area where it’s been forever, to the Columbus area.
Illinois claims they are not in a position to offer hundreds of millions to Sears to retain their operations there; meanwhile, Ohio — with nothing to lose and plenty to gain — is willing to offer a $400 Million incentive package as an inducement to bring 10,000 jobs and all of the ancillary spending that accompanies such an operation.
This news made me stop and think — while our local towns, counties, cities and states are working hard to cannibalize each other, we lose sight of the world economy, and when jobs move overseas, citizens in the U.S. get up in arms, surprised and shocked.
I’m all for ‘home rule’ to a point — but when home rule decisions result in zero sum solutions which have short term benefit (offset by short term loss) to one local region vs. another– accompanied by serious long-term negative impact on our entire nation — we have a flawed public policy that needs immediate attention.
The Walrus thinks it is time to rethink our entire system in the U.S.A. to – hopefully – make it more relevant and competitive in our current world economy…..
Occupy Wall Street
October 27, 2011
Look back on the origin of Investment Banks and you will find people with real money coming together to pool their capital and gamble on commercial opportunities. When the bets were in the black, the partners would share in the gains, and when there were bad investments, the partners would share in the loss.
Fast forward to the time when we began to see a transformation of Investment Banks from private partnerships into publicly held companies.
Most would agree that the beginning of this metamorphosis was the public offering of Merrill Lynch in 1971. That was followed by four other entities which became infamous in the 2008 credit apocalypse: Morgan Stanley (1986), Bear Stearns (1985), Lehman Bros. (1994), and Goldman Sachs (1999) (aka, “the Gang of Five”).
These former partnerships converted to public ownership ostensibly so they could better compete with international banking giants which were encroaching on their core business of underwriting stock offerings and advising firms.
New capital from new shareholders allowed them to increase their involvement in riskier, capital-intensive businesses like proprietary trading.
“In order to have a capital base that would support the funding they needed, they had to be public,” said Roy Smith, a former Goldman Sachs partner and a professor of finance at New York University.
Going public allowed the former Investment Bank Partnerships to become more powerful, with much deeper equity cushions, giving them the gravitas to actively influence significant regulatory change to support their agendas. One clear example of this is the 2004 rule change at the Securities and Exchange Commission which allowed investment banks to increase the amount of debt they could take on their books—a move made at the request of the Gang of Five’s CEOs.
Before Lehman crashed, it had amassed more than $600 Billion in debt. No partnership or private corporation could have achieved that milestone!
The shift to public ownership also replaced the accountability of partnerships—when there are no profits, there are no partner bonuses—with the apparent lemming-like behavior of public boards which some would say are selected for their willingness to rubber stamp recommendations from the COO.
When Lehman failed, $45 Billion in shareholder value disappeared forever. Bear Stearns was rescued from a similar fate when JPMorgan bought it at what some have claimed was a fire-sale price with the help of the Federal Reserve. Morgan Stanley and Goldman managed to remain independent and solvent, apparently because huge subsidies were made available to them.
In the final analysis, shareholders suffered, but employees and executives didn’t. In true Investment Banking partnerships, compensation was contentious: major debates would take place at the end of each year as partners worked to resolve the equitable distribution of bonuses. These debates took place in private, and involved rich people taking money out of one another’s pockets.
Today, it seems to have evolved into a zero-sum game, where the protagonists in the drama have no real skin in the game, yet they are eligible to take Billions from shareholders.
It would seem that the public — as aggrieved owners, taxpayers, and savers — has every right to question the Investment Banks’ methods and practices. If they don’t want the public digging into their businesses, these publicly traded Investment Banks could shrink their balance sheets, replace government-subsidized debt with market-rate debt, stop relying on the Federal Reserve for funding, and get out of index funds that bet against our domestic economy.
Juvenile Delinquents in the Congress
August 4, 2011
Last week, I was alarmed and angry at some of our elected representatives in the Congress as they played Russian Roulette with our economy.
This week, I am stunned.
The partisan shenanigans that have transpired in the 112th Congress is just Un-American and unacceptable.
As the entire world watches – in real time, thanks to advanced technology – a group of newly elected individuals in the House of Representatives are behaving badly.
They remind me of unchaperoned adolescent hooligans at their first spring break.
But this is no harmless teenage fun.
This is the real thing.
The credit rating agencies have put the world on notice that they have serious concerns about our Nation’s credit rating.
Today, the domestic equities market dropped about 4%, wiping out nearly $9.3 Trillion of our nation’s private worth.
Meanwhile, our elected officials are on leave from Washington enjoying their August recess, no doubt oblivious to the pain they have caused to regular citizens like you and me.
I’m stunned? Yes, and I’m furious!
Economic Jihad
July 29, 2011
We are fast approaching the 10th anniversary of the horrors inflicted on our nation by ultra-fanatic and radical religious extremists intent on causing unspeakable physical damage and wholesale loss of life.
September 11, 2001 marked the first time that any foreign power had successfully invaded the U.S. causing major chaos and catastrophe.
Our nation responded swiftly and in a unified, bi-partisan and multi-faceted manner.
We may have failed to recognize the ultimate goal of Al-Qaeda in their plan to destroy the U.S. both physically and economically. It has been said, “The U.S. economy will finally collapse under the strain of too many engagements in too many places, making the world wide economic system which is depended by the U.S. also collapse leading to global political instability, which in turn leads to a global jihad led by Al-Qaeda and a Wahhabi Caliphate will then be installed across the world”.
What apparently has not been said (or if it has, not very loudly!) is that the Tea Party Extremists are playing right into Al Qaeda’s grand plan.
Where Al Qaeda expected it would take until 2020 to collapse the U.S. economy, the work that is presently being done by John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Michele Bachmann (and more) — under the careful and watchful oversight of shadow characters Grover Norquist, Mark Meckler, Jenny Beth Martin, Judson Phillips Dick Armey and others – has almost guaranteed early success!
It is also clear that the system developed by the Fathers of our Country in the late 18th century is no longer relevant or effective.
We have evolved to a political system where election to public office has virtually nothing to do with experience, ability or integrity. It is clearly all about selfishness, duplicity and shadow special interest groups.
The news this week from Standard & Poor’s about a probable downgrade of the U.S. credit rating is more alarming than the message sent during ‘the midnight ride of Paul Revere’.
Virtually all of my personal assets are in U.S. dollar denominated investments. I have lived conservatively, saved and scrimped to ensure that I would have a suitable cushion to weather future financial storms, and now I am terrified.
Each of us in the U.S. is being held hostage by radical extremist elected officials.
We — the people — need to take action. Now.
A Zero Sum Game
June 27, 2011
“The central problem in our economy now is not putting idle resources and unemployed workers back to work, but of ending slow productivity growth; of causing the nation to save and invest more and consume less of its income; of preventing inflation from sapping the vigor of the economy whenever it approaches high employment; and of wiping out the enormous budget deficits that are weakening the national economy and its ability to compete in world markets. And just as important, and even tougher to solve, are the problems of individual companies and industries stemming from inadequate research and innovation; poor labor-management relations; and myopic management that seems incapable of looking beyond the short-run bottom line.”
“Cutting Federal expenditures (military and/or civilian) is not a viable way to wipe out the deficits. Government at all levels has an important job to play if the nation’s economy – its educational system, its industrial base, its infrastructure, its power to innovate and forge ahead in world markets – is to be strengthened.
Higher taxes are the only way to eliminate budget deficits, and the optimum way to accomplish this is through a value-added tax (VAT), which would replace the corporate income tax and permit a sharp reduction in payroll taxes. A VAT is determined by subtracting a company’s purchases of materials from its gross selling revenue and levying a tax on the difference: it is really a national sales tax. With a 15 percent VAT, a $20,000 car would cost a consumer $23,000.
A VAT would be a good thing not just to wipe out the budget deficit, but also to help the nation to consume less and save and invest more, to collect taxes from participants in the underground economy and to encourage exports by rebating the VAT on them as foreign countries do.”
Does this sound like something from a recent economic analysis you may have overlooked? Not to worry — it is not!
It is an excerpt from THE ZERO-SUM SOLUTION: Building a World-Class American Economy, written by Lester C. Thurow, a professor of economics and management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It was published in 1985 following up on an earlier book, ”The Zero-Sum Society” (1980).
Dr. Thurow argued that the United States was caught in a trap of sluggish growth from which it could not escape without making some politically powerful groups worse off in the short run, yet resulting in strengthening the U.S. by making the nation as a whole better off in the long run.
The term ”zero-sum” — apparently borrowed from John von Neumann’s and Oskar Morgenstern’s theory of games — refers to that class of games (such as football, poker and some wars), in which the total gains equal the total losses.
A negative-sum game—(a nuclear war, for example) — is one in which everybody loses.
A positive-sum game – i.e. a good trade or a happy marriage – is one in which both sides win.
The majority of challenges Thurow identified three decades ago persist today because an elite few with tremendous political influence and power refuse to step back and “bite the bullet” in the short-term to support real and sustainable long-term reform.
One clear difference between 1980 and today is the absence of rampant inflation. Fed Chairman Bernanke has consistently supported a policy of ‘quantitative easing’ which has ensured interest rates near zero and an almost endless availability of credit.
During the Reagan years, a combination of relaxed fiscal policy (resulting in huge budget deficits) was accompanied by tight-money policy (resulting in double-digit interest rates).
Thurow contended that turning big budget deficits into a moderate budget surplus would eliminate a big drain on national savings. That proved to be true during the Clinton years.
We have plenty of historical data which clearly shows that reducing taxes and increasing government spending (whether domestic or defense) is a recipe for economic disaster.
Stay tuned for more positive ideas on how we can restore the U.S. to the pinnacle of economic power, meanwhile, don’t believe what you might hear from Elected Officials along the lines that, “…enormous tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans will slow down economic growth because they will transfer resources from the productive hands of the private sector to the wasteful hands of Congress, raise energy prices, and reduce incentives to work, save, and invest. Tax hikes are not the right solution for Americans—nor are they needed to reduce the deficit. Congress should cut spending and reform the tax code so it inflicts less of a burden on businesses and families and is more conducive to job creation.”
It is great rhetoric, but as written, it’s just not true.
Real reform requires serious collaboration and involves a very carefully designed combination of spending reform; tax reform; and re-engineering of government, starting from the federal, then cascading to state, county and local levels.
Yes, there will be some pain and agony. It’s long overdue, and I predict will result in great long-term benefits across economic classes.
Isn’t that what the U.S. is all about?
Gold over $1,500 an ounce?
April 20, 2011
Yikes!
Bloomberg L.P. tells us that gold reached $1,506.50 an ounce in New York as the dollar slipped as much as 1 percent against a basket of six major currencies to trade at a 16-month low.
Gold has risen 32 percent in the past year as the dollar fell 8.2 percent.
Silver topped $45 an ounce for the first time since 1980.
The U.S. Treasury Department has projected that the government will reach the $14.3 Trillion debt-ceiling limit no later than May 16 and run out of options for avoiding default by early July.
“As the numbers show, the debt cannot be repaid without dollar debasement, so people are warming up to the idea of hoarding gold.”
Gold? In 2011?
Something is seriously wrong here.
I must have somehow slipped and fallen into the 4th dimension.
Help!
U.S. Credit Rating in Danger!
April 18, 2011
Yikes!
Our friends at Standard & Poor’s reminded us today that posturing and bickering by our elected officials is not only juvenile and annoying, it also has the potential to cost us dearly!
Despite their affirmation of a ‘AAA/A-1+’ rating for U.S. sovereign debt, the major stock indices lost real value.
Although S&P had some pretty positive things to say about the U.S. in its press release, investors are nervous.
Analysts at Standard & Poor’s think that our “highly diversified, and flexible economy (is) backed by a strong track record of prudent and credible monetary policy, evidenced by its ability to support growth while containing inflationary pressures.” They also admire “the unique advantages stemming from the dollar’s preeminent place among world currencies.”
Their concerns seem to emanate from U.S. debt and deficit ratios that are equivalent (or perhaps even worse than!) those of Spain, Portugal and Greece, countries that have already been downgraded by the rating agencies.
Some of us have been sitting on the sidelines frustrated beyond belief that a small cadre of elected officials in Washington seem to be unable (or unwilling) to openly and civilly discuss, debate and/or negotiate policies that impact the present, and which potentially have significant long-term consequences.
Most recently, we sat on the edge of our seats while some fringe politicians followed their own personal agendas and attempted to derail a bi-partisan budget compromise with the demand that Planned Parenthood be defunded.
Apparently, we came within minutes of a total U.S. government shutdown while these self-important creatures followed their individual ideologies on the road to nowhere.
The Congress of the United States was created by the Constitution in 1789.
My recollection from history and civics classes I took in school leaves me thinking that these individuals – Senators and Congress people – are elected to represent the wishes and best interests of their constituents.
I don’t recall any language that implied an opportunity for individuals to be elected to represent their own individual agenda, at the expense of the rest of our nation.
Yet, the behavior of a few members of Congress appears to be at the very heart of Standard & Poor’s warning today.
We need to hold our elected officials accountable for getting to optimum solutions, based on facts and solid analysis, not based on emotion, anger or specious arguments.
Each and every of our elected officials ought to be entitled to their own opinions, but they should not be entitled to their own facts.
My friends, Standard & Poor’s has thrown down the gauntlet, and it’s time for all 311 Million of us to step up to the plate and tell our 536 elected officials in Washington to stop the nonsense and do the job we elected them to do: create sustainable, long term solutions that restore the U.S. to a leadership role economically and politically.
We can’t accept or tolerate anything less.
walrus51 