Robert Reich Urges New $$ For Schools — Says Human Capital Is More Important Than Financial Capital

Posted on March 10, 2010 by Mike Bock

Robert Reich in his article, “Bail Out Our Schools,” makes the case for making a big infusion of tax money into our system of public education. He compares financial capital to human capital.

Reich says that the reasons that justified the $700 billion bail out to “save the engines of America’s financial capital” are the same reasons that should justify a big infusion of money into public schools — “the engines of our human capital.” Reich stresses that human capital is more important than financial capital and warns, “If we don’t bail out public education we face a bigger economic Armageddon years from now.”

Reich’s argument poses a couple of questions:

  1. What is the human capital we must develop in today’s students that is so essential that, if we fail in its development, we face economic disaster of Biblical proportions?
  2. To what degree is the development of this human capital a priority in our current system of public education?

The point is, any thoughtful answer to question #1, most probably, will be shown in the answer to question #2 to have a low priority in the current authoritarian, test driven system of public education.

Pouring more money into the system, as Reich urges, at best, will help the system to show success according to criteria that we currently use. The problem is, our current criteria of educational quality has little correlation to the criteria of the human capital needed for our future. The human capital needed for our future far transcends what can be measured in GPAs or SATs.

Reich is making a false promise that beefing up the current system with more money is the answer to avoiding future economic calamity. He is implying that in our system of public education, we have a wonderful machine for producing the human capital needed for our future, and we just need to keep pumping in more fuel. But this notion ignores the fact that, even when working to its maximum capacity, this machine is simply not good enough. Reich’s well meaning comments in his post, to me, simply underlines the fact that we need to transform our current system of public education.

Posted in Special Reports | 4 Comments

What Divides “Liberals” And “Conservatives” Is The Central Question Of System Purpose

Posted on March 8, 2010 by Mike Bock

The framework I’m hanging my hat on, so to speak, is “systems’ thinking.” A systems’ thinking problem solving framework is neither Conservative, nor Liberal. It is scientific. What divides individuals who consider themselves “Conservatives” from those who consider themselves “Liberals,” more than anything, is how they answer the central question of how system purpose should be defined.

The United States itself can be seen as a system, and the general question, both Liberals and Conservatives need to answer, is, How can this system, known as America, be made to work? But, made to work at what? The first question to guide any system analysis is: What is the aim and purpose of the system? I gave my answer to the question, about aim, over a year ago, when I wrote: “How Can The System Known As The United States Be Made To Work To Provide “Liberty and Justice For All”?

My assertion that system aim should be “liberty and justice for all,” I imagine, might label me as “Liberal.” Someone who considers him or herself “Conservative” might define the aim of the system in other terms — maybe, instead of fulfilling the vision of “liberty and justice for all,” for example, rather, fulfilling the vision, as they understand that vision to be, of the founding fathers for individual liberty — as expressed in property rights or shown in freedom from governmental interference, etc.

Liberals and Conservatives simply have different views of what the purpose of the system should be.

A discussion, for example, on abolishing the progressive income tax system, conducted by Liberals, would center on whether or how or to what degree, such a change would add or subtract from the overall liberty and justice of individuals in the system. A discussion on whether tax rates on the rich should be increased would be based on the same criteria.

A Conservative might object and heap scorn on the notion that the founding fathers would have approved of “the power of the majority to steal from the minority.” But, the question as to whether the founding fathers would have approved of a progressive income tax is a useless distraction. It’s useless to argue about things that can’t be changed. And the 16th amendment is not going anywhere. So-called Conservative views often seem an expression of a wishful thought that the last 200 years of American history somehow never happened, and that the aim of the system should be the same as that of the founding fathers.

This is 2010, not 1810, and 18 yr. olds, and the unpropertied and women and blacks can vote, and, I believe, the proper way to frame the question that should determine our political discussion is: Can our system be made to work for the common person, be made to work for the common good? Can we make the system work to produce a government for the people?

The idea of a government by the people, for the people, is opposed to the reality of a government by special interests, for special interests. A government chosen via an authentic and robust democracy would be quite different from the government we have, one chosen via antidemocratic and corrupt processes.

There needs to be consensus about the purpose of the system, if there is ever to be any coherent dialogue as to how the system can be made to work. If the purpose of the system is not “liberty and justice for all,” then what should it be?

Posted in M Bock | 17 Comments

In Kettering, February Tax Collection For Kettering Schools Exceeds Budget Prediction — By $1 Million

Posted on March 5, 2010 by Mike Bock

According to the memorandum (shown below) prepared by Kettering Schools’ Treasurer, Steve Clark, because property tax revenues and personal property taxes, so far this year, have been higher than predicted, the amount of tax collected in February for Kettering Schools is $1 million more than Mr. Clark originally predicted.

Mr. Clark, in his memo, warns that it may be April before Kettering Schools will know for certain the total amount of tax collected. Below is his memo and a truncated version of his financial report. (Here is a PDF of the full report.)

Kettering City School District

Memorandum

To:       Kettering City Board of Education Members, Superintendent, Directors, Principals, Supervisors, Administrators, Mike Bock
From:  Steve Clark, Treasurer/CFO

Date:    March 4, 2010
Re:        February, 2010 Financial Information (fiscal year 2010)

Enclosed is the fiscal year 2010 monthly spending plan report that compares projected and actual fiscal year-to-date general fund revenues, expenditures and unencumbered balances, through February, 2010, based on the five-year forecast (Revision 1007).

Year-To-Date (Y-T-D) real estate taxes were 3.0% ($1.2 million,) higher than anticipated through February.  However, don’t start spending the money; we haven’t received our February settlement yet. Last year the settlement was in April and the final general fund amount was $5.4 million. We still need to receive $4.1 million to meet the estimate for the year.  Since we only receive 90% of tax revenue collected from an advance, I estimate the County Treasurer has at least $2.4 million to distribute to us.

School foundation (state funding) was $365,000 (5%) higher than forecast.  It’s my understanding that when the Department of Education began paying school districts under the new funding formula in October, they actually paid a little more than was due at that time.  As the year progresses, that surplus should decline.  Last month we were 6% over the estimate so that seems to be the case.  The tangible personal property tax reimbursement remained over projections through February ($279,000 or 4%).

Posted in Special Reports | Leave a comment