Today's LeftAhead Podcast: Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz

Mike has the full write-up at LeftAhead, but here's the general gist of today's jam-packed show.

The ever-intense MA Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz joined us today, centering on redistricting, transgender rights, and education. Not only is she a progressive leader in LGBT issues, she chairs the Joint Committee on education and is vice-chair of the Special Joint Committee on Redistricting.

I was impressed with the Senator's ability to squeeze in a lot of details in such a short amount of time, never mind switching between three unrelated topics at the drop of a hat. Her intellect and energy is why she's quickly become one of the most effective senators out there, never mind one of the leaders in the Commonwealth's small-d movement of progressive politics.

Today's show ended up being more timely than I would have suspected, with Congressman Frank's retirement, but we managed to talk about redistricting at both the local and congressional levels, as well as talk about some of the meta that goes behind it -- such as the goals of the committee and the process behind it. We also have some frank discussion on the Transgender Rights bill, both the importance of getting this done and the fact that there's still a little unfinished business surrounding it, since public accommodation was left outside of the bill. On education, mainly focused on her bill tackling the state's drop out problem, in which 8,000 kids in Massachusetts are dropping out every year.

For people who want to skip to the parts of the show they're most interested in, redistricting was the first topic and then we got to the transgender rights bill at about 14:20. At 24:50, we finally got to education. We didn't have as much time as I would have liked to take on this issue, but even just the five minutes we had was enough to tackle some key aspects of her bill on how she thinks we could be better at getting kids to stay in school.

Dear Parents, Please Save Your Freaking Children From Massive Debt

Here's a great NYT piece on the near-criminal enterprise that is today's Law School. They're puppy mills and, like almost all puppy mills, they don't care about the dogs. Law schools don't exist to train people to become lawyers; they exist to suck up all kinds of money for the school, and that's why they've rapidly expanded, even though the profession hasn't (quite the opposite, in fact).

The sad thing is you could easily apply this to most of academia, given the extent of degrees that aren't worth the paper they're printed on. We tell children, in what should be pure mythology, that college is the answer to everything. We've even convinced ourselves that it is as a society. I certainly bought it when I went off to school.

Meanwhile, there's untold millions of people graduating college today who have job prospects that are little better than if they hadn't gone to school at all, particularly for graduate programs and certain BAs. I can't count the number of friends who have graduated from college and can't find a meaningful job that makes use of their skills -- and these are all perfectly smart people, most finishing in the top 10-20% of their class. Some have been forced to take jobs that they certainly could've had right out of high school; others were forced to take jobs where they're lucky to be able to afford the rent. Finally, some have been forced to consider what should be the unthinkable: Grad school.

For the latter, they'd say at least they'd be doing something fun with their time -- less hopeful that the grad degree would provide them an edge for a job as they are hopeful a two year pause would provide enough time for the market to sort itself out. Yes, I've actually heard that argument -- from sane and rational people who are very desperate and know it's easier today to get into a decent grad program than it is to get a decent job. Of course, they'd be sorely mistaken, particularly given the millions of others who share the same thoughts -- and would be competing for the same jobs. The only group of people making out here is academia -- and the sad thing is, deep down inside, they probably know it.

But college graduates looking into grad school at least have some foresight and understanding of what all that debt will do. Teenagers graduating high school don't -- and they should be pitied most of all. We just throw students out there, with little time for them to understand what they even want to do or what their options will truly cost -- and without that kind of a plan ahead of time, four years can go by and a student can realize they just wasted all that time and money. Case in point: My college friend who learned he really wanted to study English after nearly getting enough credits for a degree in Biochemistry. Every teen thinks they know what they're doing and it's so hard to argue to them that they don't, but given the enormity of a possible mistake in this day and age, no responsible adult should let them before they have some idea of what the consequences would be -- and what those consequences would mean.

In Massachusetts, we're worse off than most states, because we suffer from HarvaBuMit-tus, where students are caught with the bug that makes them think it's somehow unseemly to go to public college, as if public schools were tainted or something. In a day and age when UMASS is ranked in the top 100 schools across the Globe, you'd think we could make some headway on this -- but alas. This, of course, goes doubly for community colleges -- which induced laughter amongst many of the snobbier types at my high school back in the day.

Those ignorant enough to choose private schools without the means to pay for their debt (aka those without wealthy parents) should be pitied, because they really have no idea and they won't want to be dissuaded -- until it's too late. Private schools will cost twice as much or more in almost all cases, but they certainly won't make you twice as likely to get a job or even get into grad school. No where close. Your experience and, most importantly of all, contacts, are far more likely to help in that department -- and your GPA and field-appropriate grad-school test scores are the tickets into that town, should you be foolish enough to choose it.

Thinking back on how stupid we all were at 17 and 18, picking where we'd go to school, I'm utterly shocked our society lets us do it as easily as we do. The NYT makes a great case that law school admissions, or at least rankings, need a great deal of reform -- but the truth of the matter is our entire system does. Far from empowering students to do what they want, our system of endless and easy college loans in this country is a system of neo-indentured service -- and the only people it empowers is colleges and universities to grossly inflate the cost of a college education. For students, those who graduate or not, they get giant loan payments that force them to sacrifice what they want to do for what they have to do -- killing entrepreneurship, creativity and even happiness.

As a simple matter of protecting students who don't understand what the real world is like and making sure we get as much bang for our buck in terms of government investments, any student who takes a government loan to go to college should first have to go to a two years at a community school before going onto a bachelor's program. Would it really hurt anyone doing that? For students, they'd still get all the same opportunities, as well as

1. Two more years to learn what they really want to do, so they can avoid disastrous mistakes (like my friend who spent 2+ years studying Biology before he realized his passion was English),
2. A greater likelihood of obtaining at least some kind of degree, rank or training in a specialized field requiring a two-year course,
3. Get the first two years of their education at a greatly reduced cost, saving millions from a crushing debt some may never truly be able to afford. 

The government would also get the tangential benefit of being able to greatly increase the number of students able to receive loans and grants, which would empower far more Americans. Why haven't we done this yet?

When I was looking at schools at 17 or 18, I'm glad I had the sense (at the last minute) to avoid all the private schools I desperately wanted to go to -- but had someone told me what even UMASS would cost, I'd have run to North Shore Community College for two years first. Back then, I seriously thought my loans would be pocket change -- something like $50 or $100 a month -- instead I have a $500 monthly albatross, binding me to my childhood home.

Update: Great blog on a WSJ story about how wages are declining across the country and probably won't rise for a very long time; the blog ties it into the greater (failed) strategy of the past 20 years that very much relates to what I wrote above.

$250 million later

those Department of Education changes to our standards are starting to look a little bit better, right?

Boston Herald Goes off the Deep End

In what should be a shocker to no one, today's Herald editorial jumped off the deep end, coming out strong against a UMASS Dartmouth Law School, with the kind of hyperbole rarely out seen outside of tabloid "journalism." Saying the "skids are greased," they launch an attack at Chancellor of UMASS Dartmouth, Jean McCormick, the UMASS Board of Trustees, Romney-appointed UMASS Prez Jack Wilson and Governor Patrick. Notably missing is almost any reason why they think a UMASS Law School, focusing on public law at reasonable in-state tuition, would be such a bad idea.

A lot of the editorial doesn't even make sense. For example:

But when there are agendas at work - and make no mistake there are - you just can’t keep a bad idea down.

Please, Boston Herald, pray tell, what "agendas" are there at work? UMASS Dartmouth wanting to become a more prestigious public school? The UMASS system wanting a law school? The agendas here seem to be of the noble variety.

The Herald goes on to bash this idea as a bad one, because it failed in 2005. Of course, the only reason why the law school failed to earn the votes last time is because BU, Northeastern, Suffolk and several other high-priced law schools screamed bloody murder. Seems they think a neighbor on the block that costs half as much (literally) may just put a dent into their profits. That was the real hidden "agenda" last time -- the agenda to stop a public law school, led by the private ones.

It only gets more absurd from there.

And the only thing that has changed since 2005 is the state of the Massachusetts economy. In case President Wilson hasn’t read the papers lately, the economy has tanked and it’s not getting any better very soon.

And that's a reason to oppose an accessible, affordable law school?

From there, the Herald goes on to distort the truth. They say the law school "basically wants to give itself away to UMASS." However, that's misleading at best. The law school wants to become part of a major university system so it has the increased resources to become academically competitive. UMASS wants a law school so it can be a more competitive major university system in this country. Herald Board: That's why they call this thing a "merger," jackasses.

The Herald then decides swim deeper, saying the state can't afford this.

Wilson is singing the same old song about what a wonderful asset this will be and how it will eventually make money for the system. That, of course, is predicated on it enrolling nearly twice as many students as the school now serves and that wouldn’t happen unless it got American Bar Association accreditation.

Which the University says it would do in a matter of years.

What Wilson and his enabler UMass/Dartmouth Chancellor Jean MacCormack don’t like to talk about is the millions of dollars it will cost to get ABA accreditation by upgrading the school’s facilities, library and its faculty.

Really? They don't like talking about it? Have ya asked them? The fact of the matter is that while this would cost the school some money, it would cost the state diddley squat. The university has the access to the cash to make this happen. They've had that cash for a long time. Making it happen will make the University a more prestigious public school across the entire country, which in turn would make more people want to go to it.

There are a lot of people in this state, many of them who probably buy ads in the Boston Herald, who are terrified of the UMASS system becoming the type of University system that you find in North Carolina, California and elsewhere: elite, public colleges that are affordable and accessible to in-state students. UMASS has already made many leaps and bounds, getting a law school and making relatively small investments in it would go a long way toward reaching the finish line. The real agenda here is keeping UMASS down. Unfortunately, the same forces that have been successful in that quest for so long are losing the public fight, which is probably why this Herald article tries so hard in its own deranged way at grasping for straws.

Education Numbers that Make you go Wow

Here's an absolutely imperative blog to read from Common Cause. I could not possibly give it justice without copy/pasting the whole thing, but here's the relevant fact.

The average Gateway district went from less than half low-income students in 1992 to nearly two-thirds in 2008 (see table below). These 11 regional cities, urban centers vital to the Commonwealth’s economic future, now represent seven of the 10 highest poverty districts in the state.

I've long thought one of the biggest problems facing Massachusetts was making sure all of Massachusetts shares in the success that the inside 128 communities have been lucky enough to achieve. There's no reason why we can't make our Gateway Cities be economic engines that drive the success of all of Massachusetts, giving each and every citizen a somewhat equal chance at success. However, these education numbers suggest that things are even worse than what I thought (and I thought they were pretty bad).

Given that one of the best indicators of school success is socioeconomic levels -- even on tangible things like MCAS scores -- we need to invest heavily in our Gateway Cities. Common Cause has some suggestions, all of which should be employed - for a base start, including how to pay for it.

Data generated by rigorous testing ushered in with Ed Reform have taught us a lot about what low-income students need -- quality early education, more time in the classroom, and access to the best teachers. Getting them what they need will cost money. Given the severe fiscal constraints both the state and local governments are likely to face for the foreseeable future, cost-saving efforts are urgently needed. This means moving more employees to the GIC, transferring retired employees to Medicare, maximizing Medicaid reimbursements for special education, reducing procurement costs, and working with energy companies to reduce utility costs.

Toll Fraud

[Note: Please read the important update below. The Pike's still in the wrong, but for a slightly different - and not quite as bad - reason. The Herald article was a little bit confusing, so I apologize for getting some of this wrong originally. Went offline today to learn more so I could correct it.]

Why do we allow this authority to exist anymore?

A $100 million state legislative bailout of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority was supposed to make possible a reduction in tolls - but there’s been no talk of fulfilling that promise since the cash was approved weeks ago.

And what do we get?

“Since then the Authority has experienced additional fiscal strains,” said Executive Office of Transportation spokesman Colin Durrant. “The costs of the system simply do not permit toll reduction to be a viable option.”

Should anyone be surprised? A great deal of people were sounding the warning bell months ago, declaring this would happen. They knew, even after we raised taxes to give all the requested money to the Pike, the Pike would raise the tolls anyway. These people were calling for the state legislature to enforce the Pike's promise to lower or keep the same toll rate. Sadly, the State did not listen.

Let us not forget: The MBTA did the same exact thing. What is it with these Massachusetts Authorities thinking they can have their cake and eat it too? The Pike told the State House it needed $100 million or it would have to basically double all tolls. The MBTA said it needed $160 million, or it'd have to make extreme cuts to services and hikes to fees. The State House actually raised taxes and provided the necessary funds. Both Authorities raised the fees anyway. Who do these people think they are? In what world do they live in -- because it's clearly not the one the rest of us draw breath from.

The brashness of these assholes is, at this point, legendary. Their lack of honor, dignity or compassion makes them downright alien. Both of these authorities are declaring open warfare on Massachusetts taxpayers. People should park their cars in the Ted Williams tunnel. They should stand in the doorways of the Green Line. It is time to shut down the Pike and MBTA. It is time to say no more. They don't give a shit about you or me. They don't give a shit about the people who use their services. They don't give a shit about the fact that we're all losing jobs, taking paycuts or doubling payments on our healthcare just to get by. They care about protecting their rackets. They care about maintaining the status quo. They need to be fired. The tolls need to be taken down. And we need real, live, fucking accountability in our "authorities" for once.

Important Update: Okay, I'm calming down a little bit, because I went offline to talk with some people today to get the real scoop. The Pike is honoring the existing rate after the state dug up the $100 million for them, but it's not honoring the clause in the bill that said the Pike can no longer use toll money to pay off their Big Dig debt.

On the one hand, that latter clause was a hard-fought addition to the law. On the other hand, 58 cents of every dollar paid at Pike tolls goes to pay off the Big Dig. So, the state's going to have to cough up more money if it's going to get the Pike to actually honor the law. It's still an unaccountable organization -- they could have done something to at least show that they wanted to honor the new law. And nothing's changed about the fact that the MBTA completely lied and showed an utter disregard for its passengers when it claimed the need for $160 million or else, got it and raised prices anyway. That utter disregard shows a need for the public to become much more active in getting these authorities to be accountable -- one way or the other, legislatively or through civil disobedience. These people need to learn that they serve at our pleasure, not the other way around.

UMass Lowell at the Next Level?

Note: I had this saved in draft form for a few days. Whoops. Still relevant, though -- and LiL has more.

In these bleak fiscal times, that's a tough stretch. Moreover, the (horror) stories I've heard about Meehan's management skillz certainly adds skepticism. Yet, UMass Lowell - a school with over 10,000 students - is about to add something most big schools have, a hotel and conference center, and there's plenty of talk from the powers that be to push Lowell's ownership of the Tsongas Arena to UMASS Lowell. Many thousands of people fit in it: it could be a (modest, but legit) D1 caliber arena with a little work. Plus, fostering Lowell as a "college town" may just lure in more bands and parties to the medium-sized arena, perhaps making it more profitable. At the very least, between these two developments, UMass Lowell is starting to look like a state school that would rival what exists in most other states.

Time to Talk Revenue

One Massachusetts is trying to push the issue of revenue the best way possible -- through the grassroots. Deval Patrick and the state legislature have cut the budget this year, through midyear cuts, by over 3 billion dollars. This is on top of cuts that have taken place year after year after year. The result?

Don't you all see it? This state is facing crumbling roads and we can't manage to run a functioning subway system. Teachers are being laid off in every community. In fact, schools often can't even fund substitutes anymore -- forcing students of all classes into study halls when their teachers are absent. Health clinics are being cut. Parents are being forced to pay hundreds of dollars a season so their students can play sport or participate in extracurricular activities -- both things that are proven to help student performance.

Paul Levy made the interesting comment at BMG that we pay anyway. No matter what, we're going to pay. If we don't adequately fund our roads, we run over bad potholes that do hundreds of dollars of damage to our cars. My car, just last winter, ran over a bad pothole, which threw my car out of alignment. If we adequately funded our roads, maybe that wouldn't have happened? Studies have been done that have shown the average person pays hundreds a year to fix their vehicles because of our bad roads. A somewhat modest increase to the gas tax of 15-20 cents could actually save people hundreds a year. The state isn't providing enough funds for schools? We pay anyway -- in cuts to quality, added fees and interest payments on debt schools take on to fund new textbooks. Why pay for something once over when you can pay twice as much?

Some in the State Senate have clung to the utterly meaningless and distracting slogan, "reform before revenue." In reality, it's a do-nothing slogan, because the legislature -- unless we poke and prod them -- doesn't even have the appetite to reform. While it's true that we can't completely tax our way out of problems, we can't "reform" our way out of them, either. We don't need reform before revenue, we need reform and revenue. So, for sure, let's save money where we can, improve services through reform where we can -- but we also need to make sure that our system is adequately funded. If it's not, we'll pay anyway -- and it will probably be by magnitudes more.

Here's an Idea

Something's broken with the buses. The Globe notes that most of the buses in Boston's system fill less than a quarter of the bus, some as low as one or two students. Why drop or dramatically alter the busing scheme and spend half the $79 million (9% of the city's budget) on private tutors at schools that aren't performing up to par, increasing school days if need be? $40 million buys a lot of private, highly qualified tutors.

Considering some of these buses are shipping next to no students halfway across the city, that sounds like a way better way to both make sure kids are getting a quality education and making sure the city is spending money efficiently. Otherwise, there's layoffs and everyone loses, including those getting bused, as the bus system suddenly takes up 10-15% of the school budget because of the cuts.

I honestly doubt sending the kids across the city would dramatically improve the education they receive; the very fact that these kids are willing to go that far, and have parents willing to go through that extra mile, suggests that they're generally good students already. 'Bad schools' are schools that just lose more students - students that can't or won't do homework or study because of home life or don't have the tools to learn what they didn't learn whilst in class (everyone has their own pace). Finding ways to get at them, teach them what they need, preferably during school hours, is the way to salvation at schools. That's not going to come from a bus. It's going to come from more hours in school, with guided study sessions that include personal tutoring if need be, so students are learning what they need, when they need it.

Today's Globe

• Horrifying. Racists burn down nearly finished mostly black congregation in Springfield, angry about Obama becoming President. Can we double or triple Obama's secret service, please?
  
• Renee Loth throws a fit. She's angry and outraged, mostly for good reasons, though more in the full-of-sound-and-fury, signifying-nothing kinda way, ie she offers no prescriptions. And did she really have to go into a video-games-are-evil meme at the end? So tired.
  
• Cape Wind is winning. Yay!
• Howard Dean's going into the private sector. Doesn't sound like he wants to. It's amazing to me that Obama didn't take Dean on. The 50 state plan, which wouldn't have happened without Dean, was a huge boon to the Democratic Party.
• The Globe editorializes that the state needs to step in to get schools to cut costs through measures like buying energy in bulk and the GIC, but in the end, the only way to really enforce large savings in budgets is to regionalize more schools. At the middle school and high school level, it's actually beneficial to kids, because it opens up more options, APs and other goodies. Then again, what would we do without all those wonderful Thanksgiving Day games?
• Varitek talks with Henry. Varitek was stupid to listen to Borass, who told Varitek to not accept arbitration, which would have assuredly granted V-tek $10 million or more next year. Now, no one wants the Captain, not even really the Sox, who seem more than content to trade for a young gun. That said, the 'Cap is going to have to take a pay cut and will almost certainly hit better than he did last year, a year in which he got divorced. If I got divorced, I think I'd play like horse manure too. So I hope he can suck it up, realize he made a mistake and pay the (admittedly stiff) price. For the right price, I'd love to have him back next year.
• Finally, don't forget to check out my first video blog, on Obama's inauguration and what it'll take to make sure his priorities match the progressive movement.
  

Raise Taxes

Despite whatever the Governor and Speaker think, we aren't going to and can't cut ourselves out of this budget mess. We're only going to need to cut more and more and more. Where does it end?

A small increase to the state's income tax, say .3%, would not only be unnoticeable to the average taxpayer over the course of an entire year, but would end this state's fiscal crisis. Our tax burden, as a state, is below the national average in a state that is one of the most expensive places to live in. Either we have to become a crappy state, which will make us poorer in the long run, or we have to suck it up and contribute just a little more to our state's finances.

There's around 6.4 million people living in this state and the average taxpayer earns around $42k. Raising taxes by .3% would bring in about $900 million dollars. That, alone, would nearly solve our budget gap for this year and maybe the next. Couple that with reducing the cost of health care and not only would our structural deficit finally end, but we could start to think about working on all the projects we've been neglecting in this state for decades - the kind of economic stimulus that could not only help in a desperate economy, but help the parts of the state that never felt the boom years to begin with.

[Note - I missed a decimal point in my original math. It is now fixed. I made some changes to the blog to account for a smaller pool of funds. But my general point remains: we can't just cut ourselves out of this mess - it's going to take a varied approach, finding funding efficiencies, like in health care or regionalization, as well as raising revenue.]

Mass Kids are Smaht

Massachusetts 4th graders ranked 2nd in the world in science and 3rd in mathematics. 8th grade students aren't doing quite as well, but our percent of those achieving advanced scores in science and math ranks favorably compared to the rest of the world, showing that we just need to make sure we're reaching more students. Bottom line, Massachusetts compares favorably to the rest of the world in teaching its kids, especially those who are youngest. We should have a good idea of what we're doing well and what we need to improve.

No, Mr. Cahill

More about standardized school designs. I've already analyzed his plan and found it lacking (though, with some good ideas). For starters, only half of this state's construction sites would be suitable for a standardized design. Secondly, the Treasurer is a) deciding what towns can and can't afford [Note to Cahill: that's up the the towns and democracy, isn't it?] and b) mandating what towns can do with their facilities, completely violating centuries of the spirit of Massachusetts and local control.

One caveat: in terms of academics, the schools Cahill would use as models have plenty of science labs and facilities that could host lectures or be used in a number of different ways. The schools are academically sound, which would ensure that many or even most towns would want to use all or part of these designs to save costs. However, there are others that wouldn't want to use the designs at all - we shouldn't make them. Also, the idea that towns wouldn't be allowed to add to the designs is ludicrious - using any part of them would save on some of the costs, so let's try to get as many towns involved as possible.

Here's the most contemptible thing Cahill has to say:

Cahill hopes the program will eliminate one-upmanship, which at times has prompted a spate of field houses, swimming pools, and other expensive perks.

"It's not just what the state can afford for these projects but what the towns can afford," Cahill said in an interview last week. "Standardization will take the envy factor out of the process."

That just reeks of know-it-all-ism. People don't like that. Are these towns really trying to 'one up' each other? Is that the only motivating factor Cahill can possibly think of? Is it at least conceivable that a majority of people in certain communities would want a community building that would have a field house or a pool? Is it not conceivable that these facilities serve a role for the entire community - a place where kids can learn how to swim or skate?

These things are expensive - and certainly not necessary - but since when was America about doing the bare minimum? America is about Democracy - let the towns decide. It's not as if one town building a field house would cost the rest of the state anything - the state only helps to reimburse expenditures deemed necessary - academic. The extra frills aren't covered.

Furthermore, while not every town needs a pool, a field house and hockey rink, we need at least some schools in every region to have one of them. We can't ship off our kids in busses for an hour every day in the winter, just so they can get to hockey practice. Every region will need a couple of each, so if a town wants to build one or two of those "extra perks," as the Treasurer put it, it may be completely necessary for the student athletes in the school. Let's not forget that student athletes perform better in school - and many sports are what keep students active and interested in learning, or even keeps them from otherwise dropping out.

So, let's go full steam ahead with the model school plans, but for heaven's sake let towns modify them or do something else if they're willing to cough up the dough. Let's not prevent communities that are willing to expand community resources from doing so, by creating keep-everyone-down policies. That's not what America's about, that's not even what equality is about, that's more like something out of the CCCP. No thanks.

On Student Loans: Here's an Idea

The State's going through a lot of hoops to make sure MEFA has funding available for its loans. In fact, while I appreciate the effort, Governor Patrick and others are trying so hard that I can't help but ask a few questions.

My first question is this: why have we let state colleges in Massachusetts become so prohibitively expensive that people are desperately searching for funds? Seriously, the UMASS system and other state schools are just rediculously overpriced at this point - meanwhile the state funds the system at the second worst rate in the country, per capita. The University now depends on charging students vast sums in fees just to keep the institution affloat, fees that are preventing many students from earning a college education in this Commonwealth.

Here's my second question: if MEFA is such a sound investment, why isn't the state kicking in the difference? Surely, we could have found $425 million somewhere, money we'll be able to get back with a sizable interest (6-8% annually!). By shopping these loans at Harvard and MIT, it's a very cheap way to ask them to scratch our back, while we scratch their's in much more expensive ways - funding for research at private universities over our UMASS system's, burying the bill that would tax Harvard's windfall investments that lead to profits of hundreds of millions every year (the head of their investment portfolio earns over $35 million a year at this 'public' institution alone) and other awful quid pro quos.

While MEFA is a program that thousands in Massachusetts depend on every year - I borrowed over ten thousand dollars in MEFA loans - it's not actually a program I would consider "good" in Massachusetts. We need to toss aside this rediculous notion that it's okay for students to take out upwards of $50k in debt at state schools to get an education. It should be free. It's free in many other places in the world. No student should be wondering whether or not, at this point in the summer, they'll have funding available to continue their education, yet it's a yearly conundrum for tens of thousands and it's only been exacerbated this summer.

My last question: Imagine what $425 million more in scholarships and fee wavers would do in this state, instead of going to fund MEFA? For starters, it would pay for Governor Patrick's free community college program twice or three times over. It may be enough money to extend a free public college education beyond the two years to anyone who successfully moves through the first stage. No matter how anyone looks at it, it's one of the best investments we could make in this state: not only do we need to keep our young smart and local, public investment in public colleges brings a return of over $3 for every $1 invested - $425 million would become $1.275 billion in economic activity. Not even MEFA's sound numbers bring in those dividends. It's time to rethink the way we do public higher ed in this state - and do it better.

Let's Not Forget: Brandon Killed Lawrence

Newsweek seems a little confused over just who killed Lawrence King. There's five pages of analysis over what the heck happened, and the most damning things they seem to focus on is the fact that Lawrence wore high heels to school once or twice, and he had a vice principal who was nice (and/or advancing her big, queer agenda) by supporting Lawrence and his decision to explore himself.

Rubbish. It doesn't matter that Lawrence King wore eye liner. It doesn't matter that he had a really nice vice principal. It wouldn't even matter if she were spreading the big, gay agenda, as if one really existed. Lawrence King, his Vice Principal, and the school didn't fire the shot. Brandon McInerny did. And that's something Newsweek apparently forgot.

Instead of investigating why Brandon was so troubled and distressed, a real tragedy in and of itself, they focused on Lawrence's playboy bunny necklace and the fact that he was the "Britney Spears" of the school that all the students liked to talk about. Buried in the article is a paragraph that could have truly been the start of an informative and important story, but Newsweek didn't pay it the attention it deserved.

Like Larry, Brandon had his share of troubles. His parents, Kendra and Bill McInerney, had a difficult, tempestuous relationship. In 1993, Kendra alleged that Bill pointed a .45 handgun at her during a drunken evening and shot her in the arm, according to court records. She and Bill split in 2000, when Brandon was 6. One September morning, a fight broke out after Kendra accused her husband of stealing the ADHD medication prescribed to one of her older sons from her first marriage. Bill "grabbed Kendra by the hair," and "began choking her until she was almost unconscious," according to Kendra's version of the events filed in court documents. He pleaded no contest to corporal injury to a spouse and was sentenced to 10 days in jail. In a December 2001 court filing for a restraining order against Kendra, he claimed that she had turned her home into a "drug house." "I was very functional," Kendra later explained to a local newspaper, in a story about meth addiction. By 2004, she had entered a rehab program, and Brandon went to live with his father. But he spent years caught in the middle of a war.

While his life did seem to become more routine living with his dad, Brandon's troubles resurfaced in the eighth grade. His father was working in a town more than 60 miles away, and he was alone a lot. He began hanging out with a group of misfits on the beach. Although he was smart, he didn't seem to have much interest in school. Except for Hitler—Brandon knew all about the Nuremberg trials and all the names of Hitler's deputies. (When other kids asked him how he knew so much, he replied casually, "Don't you watch the History Channel?" Brandon's father says his son was interested in World War II, but not inappropriately.) By the end of the first semester, as his overall GPA tumbled from a 3.3 to a 1.9, he was kicked out of his English honors class for not doing his work and causing disruptions. He was transferred to Boldrin's English class, where he joined Larry.

Does anyone else not see warning signs there? He lived in a violent household, with a family that likely owned a gun. His father allegedly pointed that gun at his mother, perhaps even shooting her, serving 10 days in jail. And he was the "stable" parent!

It's tough to tell how much the school knew about these events surrounding Brandon's life, but they certainly should have been made aware. Even if they didn't have any knowledge of these events, there were still warning signs. Whenever there's a strong student who suddenly starts failing, that student is crying out for help.

So, if the school has any blame in this - which is a tough case to prove - then it's the fact that they failed to address Brandon's problems. Clearly, they were doing a reasonable job with Lawrence.

On Jan. 29, every teacher received an e-mail with the subject line STUDENT RIGHTS. It was written by Sue Parsons, the eighth-grade assistant principal. "We have a student on campus who has chosen to express his sexuality by wearing make-up," the e-mail said without mentioning Larry by name. "It is his right to do so. Some kids are finding it amusing, others are bothered by it. As long as it does not cause classroom disruptions he is within his rights. We are asking that you talk to your students about being civil and non-judgmental. They don't have to like it but they need to give him his space. We are also asking you to watch for possible problems. If you wish to talk further about it please see me or Ms. Epstein."

This "they were asking for it" defense and media narrative is ignorant at best. Either Ramin Satooted, the writer, was intellectually lazy, pressured from Newsweek to cover the story in this way, or there's a subconscious homophobia in the way that this story is covered - probably all of the above. Why? The fact is that Brandon killed Lawrence, that the school was doing everything they could to accomodate Lawrence and make sure he was in a good environment - and they were largely successful. According to numerous reports, Brandon was as happy as he'd ever been.

The lesson to draw from this article is that while Newsweek questions if the students in California were grappling with issues too grown-up for them, in all actuality we need to teach kids about glbt issues earlier and often. The world would only be a better place if students starting a young age were taught that there were a number of different kinds of families, that people end up growing up with different likes and interests and that our minds work differently. Kids need to know that they have no control over those thoughts and that there's nothing wrong with them. They also need to know that they have to respect and be kind to those who are different. Most of all, kids need to learn that violence is not an answer.

If Brandon was taught not to be afraid of gay people in advance, years earlier, Lawrence would be alive right now. If Brandon were taught not to be violent, both at school and at home, then Lawrence would be alive right now. Most importantly, Brandon would be alive and free today, instead of facing years in prison and a life stained by his actions, actions he'll surely come to regret.

Despite what Newsweek seems to think, this tragedy had nothing to do with Lawrence and everything to do with Brandon. It has nothing to do with students struggling to deal with their self identities and everything to do with a society that society isn't preparing its young for the world. Until we fix that - until we make schools tackle these issues and problems before its too late - we'll never have a society where every student can have the peace of mind that they can choose to be happy, that they can choose to explore their identity, instead of hiding away from the world. It sounds like a big task, but it doesn't have to be. We can make the world a better place in a single generation, if we're willing to teach our students about life before they decide to take life in their own hands.

A Christian Science Lesson

I guess all those Intelligent Design people must have had a point!

Digging Into Cahill's School Proposal

As I said earlier, Treasurer Cahill's proposal to create state-sponsored school designs, in order to save costs, is a great idea. He says it could cut costs up to 30% - which it may - but it would also be the state's way of reigning in some of these crazy-expensive schools that wealthy towns are building. As I said before, there are good ideas amongst his proposal and bad. I'm glad he's making the proposal so we can talk about them - and hopefully form some sort of concrete action using the good.

So, here's the good stuff:

• His proposal could save the state and local towns tens of millions every year.
• A state-sponsored design would set a base level of what's needed in schools, so at least we'll have all new schools complete with what should be standard.
• We'll be able to update these designs to make sure they're tested and work well.

Here's the bad stuff:

High schools aren't just schools, they're community buildings. By banning towns from adding parts to the project that benefit the entire community, he's

• Making it less likely schools will get through overrides,
• Reducing the ability of towns to provide what they think their kids need (and no town should be prevented from doting - or deciding things democratically),
  
• Ignoring the fact that schools need some of these things he'd like to ban. Field Houses have become necessary for sports like indoor track. Towns that have hockey rinks actually break even, if not outright profit, because other towns pay big bucks (tens of thousands a year) to pay for the rights to use rinks.
• Meanwhile, residents lose the ability to have public rinks or pools, where their kids can learn to skate or swim, etc. More importantly, he's removing the concept that these buildings are community builders. Case in point, Swampscott's high school and senior center are one in the same, and the field house is open to all in the community to use for working out. There would be no senior center or open field house in Swampscott under Cahill's plan.
  

If a town wants to add a pool, or a field house, or a hockey rink, or have a gigantic, beautiful theater that goes above and beyond the standard state plan - they shouldn't be prevented from doing so. All of those things, in the end, benefit the entire community. Heck, these are the kinds of things that make a community.

Furthermore, each community's needs are different. Marblehead, right next door, built an entirely unique theater that's 3/4 of a circle, with the seats rising high up in a dramatic stadium-seating setting. It's quite remarkable, smaller than a typical theater, but significantly more dramatic. It's where they perform serious drama, likely making them a school that's better at the art. They didn't need or want a standard theater, because Marblehead already has one of the nicest theaters for students in all of Massachusetts - it's just in their Middle School (which used to be their high school).

By being a little different, Marblehead was actually being smart. Each town knows their needs better than the state, so the state should be willing to work with towns - providing plans if they want them, but also letting towns modify them if needed - so we can save costs and build better projects in the process. Many towns will just need the standard plan, some towns may want to alter them, for some towns their landscape won't allow for a standard plan (up to 50% of projects, according to the article). Other towns may want something different or with more features than the standard plans. All should be encouraged. .

That said, I concede Treasurer Cahill's point that towns shouldn't be able to wrack up a huge bill with the intentions of passing off nearly half the costs to the state. Newton's $200 million-dollar project may have been something residents were more than happy to bestow upon their kids, but Massachusetts shouldn't have to pick up 40% of the price tag. Quite likely, the biggest savings (for the state) under Cahill's proposal would be by neutering these school plans - but, as I've already pointed out, that's not an answer that's any better than the status quo.

So what should the state do?

It should be obvious. Currently, the state will reimburse communities 40-80% of the costs of these buildings, irregardless of the costs of the project. Why not set up a hard cap, in addition to the state's soft cap? Why not, for example, say that the state won't contribute any more than $30-40 million to any project at the 40% rate? Newton could have its $200 million dollar school, but only if it were willing to pay $160 million instead of $120. The state could set a higher hard cap for the urban school systems that tend to get the higher percentage of state reimbursements, so the hard-cap system would work across the state.

Furthermore, the concept of having standard state school designs is a good concept, because they will save costs. So, let's not only create them, but encourage towns to use them. Why not, for example, give towns something like a 5% reimbursement bonus for choosing a state-sponsored design, if the town has a suitable site for one of those designs. A 5% bonus would be enough to encourage towns to use the state designs, while also not eating into the cost differential between the state and private plans. Many - likely most - cities and towns across Massachusetts will want to save costs, even just a couple million, so it's an option that will promise to be popular.

In any event, Treasurer Cahill's idea is interesting, fresh and appreciated. Maybe he does have some good ideas after all, in addition to his constant bickering with the Governor. However, Cahill needs to work better with the administration and Beacon Hill on state policy in the future, because it's clear that both camps are unwilling to work with each other. Solutions come when politicians and constituents work like a pack with a common goal, not when the political elite acts like cats with sharp claws, ready to thrust and hiss at any to come near. When that happens, good ideas go no where.

"Readiness" School Gimmick

Massachusetts doesn't need a third type of charter school; it needs longer school days, free tutoring and more options for students, so they're interested in what they're learning. Massachusetts doesn't need a new shiny wrapper ("readiness schools") or even a complete overhaul of its educational system; we need to address the nuts and bolts of the problems laying behind why students in some districts aren't performing up to par.

One of the clearest factors in student performance is socioeconomics; that only became even more obvious post MCAS. Simply put, some students have college-educated parents who know how to foster an environment where their children learn what they need to know by the time they enter college. They're parents who can afford tutors, or at least have the extra time (and skill) to tutor their children personally.

Obviously, we can't change all the advantages some students have in particular homes - but there are ways to work around it. Longer school days, with directed study time, would close the gap. Schools with longer hours have shown that time and time again. Part of the problem with Charter Schools - of which "readiness schools" would be a completely new kind - is that while many of them address these problems, they rob the resources of surrounding communities from being able to have any chance of solving these problems. So, again, we don't need the shiny new wrapper of a "readiness school" - we need nuts and bolts fixes for every school in this state. We don't need some good public schools and some bad, we need a universal quality of high caliber education across the board.

The only reason why many inner-city charter schools sometimes do better, in fact, is because they have an abundance of extra resources for their students - personal tutors volunteering their time, longer school days, etc. Give those resources to all of our public schools and the results will be contagious. Teachers know how to teach; what happens in the school isn't the problem. Longer school days with more personal attention for every student would finally close the gap.

So why deviate so far from what we really need? How do "readiness schools" really help the system? Aren't they really just going to further divide the haves and have nots? Why do we need some big, new, shiny wrapper for these new, cool schools? Schools that create imbalances in the system and focus attention away from the schools that need help? This isn't smart governing, it's ego. Massachusetts doesn't need an education revolution, we just need to find a way to effectively get at every student in the state. In fact, we're doing a fantastic job teaching, our failures come in preventing what gets in the way of education. The solutions to our education problems don't rely in some grand new scheme, but in making sure learning happens in school, where we can get at every student - and not at home, where we often lose them.

Sonia on LeftAhead!

Note: Sonia is the first in a series of candidates we're welcoming onto LeftAhead as the local election season heats up. If you're a candidate running for something and want to discuss the issues and the race with people who actually care, send me an email and we'll book you for one of our upcoming shows. We're looking forward to hearing (from) you.

Today, we had a very special guest, Sonia Chang-Diaz, on at LeftAhead. Lynne, Mike and I took up all kinds of issues during the podcast and asked Sonia for as many details as possible. Lots of tough questions and issue specifics were asked, and we got some pretty good answers.

Sonia is particularly thoughtful on the core issues facing urban areas such as education and housing; I also found what she had to say about taxes toward the end very refreshing. Lynne was at least slightly concerned about the new debt this state is taking on through the recently-passed (and soon to be signed) transportation bond bills. While Sonia hasn't made a cost-benefit analysis on the transportation bond bill yet, she also shares some of Lynne's worries. Here's a window to Sonia's soul re: tax philosophy.

I always look with a weary eye on taking on debt. How does our tax policy work? One thing we [at the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center] always try to get out there and give people a good grounding on is the theories of fairness that are generally recognized when talking about tax policy... one of the theories is the 'use principal' - the idea that the people who use the goods should pay for them. Generally speaking... the use principal is not the fairest... I think it would strike people silly to structure a system that only the people who use a police system should pay for it... if you get mugged, you're charged a fee. That's not how the public system should work.

That's why generally the use principal is not one that should be our guiding principal when talking about taxes. But, the big exception to that ... is longterm infrastructural costs - for things like roads, bridges... that are going to be used over multiple generations in a state, where in no cases does it make sense to share costs across time and not just across the population that currently exists as a state.

Pretty nice drapes on that window, huh? If only the Republicans in D.C. got that principal on things like a certain war in a certain part of the country which is being bought and paid for by people my age (23) and younger, maybe the world would be a better place. Sometimes a bond bill makes sense - and I've actually come out in favor of Governor Patrick's bond bill, because in the long run doing these projects now will save money (and lives) over inflation in the long run. But we need more thinking on Sonia's line, as a whole, across the state and country. With that, she made for a very nice guest and I'm hoping people will listen.

Also: Included in the tags are all the issues we hit on the show.

What Not to Do During a Recession

I recently read an interesting article over at MassInc (unfortunately, I don't have a direct link to the article anymore) detailing basically what not to do during a recession. Basically, everything that was in that article was summed up by the actions of the Boston Public School system.

Dealing with her first budget since she arrived in August, Superintendent Carol Johnson said she also has identified $18.7 million in cuts, mostly by reducing central office staff, deferring maintenance on school buildings, installing energy-saving software on computers, and limiting the number of teachers and principals who go through training programs.... She will reduce stipends for teacher development, cut the number of math and reading coaches, and eliminate the jobs of 10 social workers that were previously funded by grants that had expired.

First off, deferring maintenance isn't a cost saver, it'll actually cost the city of Boston a pretty mint in the long run. The problems with infrastructure will get worse, and more expensive, and meanwhile the city's children will actually have to spend 7 and a half hours in those buildings. Worse yet is limiting training, which will directly effect the quality of education students are getting in the city. Now, maybe some of those cuts can be made to central office staff, but after all these years of cuts it can probably be doubted. Furthermore, all those now unemployed people aren't exactly going to be contributing to ending this recession. They'll probably just be happy to find a new job, never mind one that pays as well or offers the same kind of benefits.

Making matters worse, things aren't looking up for next year.

Officials said the bailout defers difficult choices, including school closings, until next year. Johnson said that a handful of schools, which have not been decided on, would probably be closed because of enrollment declines.

Enrollments go up and down; once a municipality closes a building, it closes their ability to actually deal with those fluctuations. Furthermore, it's tough to close entire schools down without increasing class sizes at all the other schools. Large class sizes are especially bad for elementary-aged children, who do better throughout their academic careers if they had the benefit of small class sizes when they were young.

Of course, not all is bad - but the shocking thing is how far out of budget the city is, when it's adding in $10 million as an emergency bailout and is increasing this year's budget by 5.7%. With nearly a 6% increase in spending, the city is still facing $18.7 million in cuts. This state, and this country, has got to do something about the rapidly rising costs of health care and energy if we're going to survive as a proud, successful nation - because we're on a tightrope and we're losing balance. Most importantly, we have to figure out some kind of way to avoid cutting core services, because that's just shooting ourselves in our own feet, doing our best so we'll never be able to recover from the recession, or avoid new ones in the future.