Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

California’s Single Payer Plan

Reader EM put this comment up in the AB open thread. I thought it was interesting enough to place on AB as I also wonder about the question being asked and the answer; “can a state divert Medicare funds to support a state single payer system?” The simple answer is “no,” Medicare funds can not be allocated to states and the same holds true for VA funding for healthcare and the tax credit to companies for healthcare insurance. Congress would have to approve it in new legislation. David Dayan discusses this issue of California Single Payer starting at minute 31 David Dayen on CA’s SIngle-Payer Debacle on Politics and Reality Radio. This is in direct answer to EM’s question.

Furthermore for Medicaid and CHIPS a 1332 wavier for state contributions must be deficit neutral and not create a deficit in the Federal Program which is required for CHIP and Medicaid. I assume a similar wavier for Medicare fund diversion would also have to be deficit neutral so as not to cause harm to overall Medicare.

The state of California is one of the top 10 states in income (median income 9th). If a state such as California pulls out of Medicare, who makes up the difference in funding? There are other states such as McConnell’s Kentucky who rank in the bottom 10 with the lowest income (median income 46th) and a higher percentage of people living in poverty.

Here is EM’s dilemma:

Mother Jones, Kevin Drum, June 29, 2017 12:38 PM; “I Get Letters

The single biggest proponent of SB562, California’s single-payer health care bill, is the California Nurses Association. But here’s something I didn’t know until yesterday: the CNA is aggressively using support for SB562 as a litmus test for being a true progressive. The bill is basically unpassable, but it’s being used as a way of whipping up the Bernie wing of the Democratic Party against traitors who fail to support it.

Apparently this applies even to B-list bloggers. I got an email today from Chuck Idelson, Communications Director for CNA’s umbrella organization, National Nurses United. Here is how it ended:

“Having seen two years of your hatred for Bernie Sanders, it’s not surprising you would be equally hostile to ideas he champions like single payer, but it would be nice if you were a little more honest with your readers, or maybe you can recommend the name of your magazine be changed from Mother Jones – who actually fought for working people – to Milton Friedman, which would better reflect your class sympathies.”

It is good to see that progressive organizations are learning communications skills from the Trump administration. But, I wonder if this kind of attitude is helpful in attracting and maintaining support for progressive causes?

POSTSCRIPT: “Just for the record, I have supported single-payer health care for at least the past 25 years. But for a variety of reasons, it needs to be done at the national level. No state has ever been able to make it work.”

EM: Still trying to find answers to this Cal single payer thing in terms of financing.

New Republic, Clio Chang, June 30, 2017, “ What Killed Single Payer in California?

“A legislative analysis found that California’s single-payer plan would cost $400 billion to implement, $200 billion of which would be new spending. Critics were quick to point out that this “hefty” price tag is twice the state budget. Furthermore, the bill did not include a funding plan (although the bill’s language ensured that Healthy California would not launch unless it was funded).

However, a report by professors at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, commissioned in part by National Nurses United, estimated that after taking in the savings of single-payer, such as lower administrative costs and prices of pharmaceuticals, the actual cost of the plan would end up at around $331 billion. And, because 70 percent of the state’s current health care spending is covered by public programs like Medicare and Medi-Cal, California would only need to come up with $106 billion in new revenue, which researchers proposed could be done through two new taxes (a 2.3 percent gross receipts and sales tax), with exemptions for small businesses and tax credits to offset costs for low-income families. In exchange, nearly all of Californians’ medical expenses would be covered, doing away with premiums, copays, and deductibles . . .

But according to the Affordable Care Act’s Innovation Waiver, if a state comes up with a credible alternative to the ACA, the federal government is obligated to provide the funding. Pollin said that while it is impossible to know in advance what the Trump administration will do, “you can also pass the bill, and obviously it has to be contingent on us continuing to get 70 percent of funding that we now get.” Pollin felt that Rendon’s objections were technical ones — they need to be addressed, but don’t raise any issues that can’t be worked through. “The concerns that they raised were pretty narrow. Nobody said this is crazy, we can’t do this,” he said.

There are problems other than the fact that the bill did not include a specific funding mechanism. The biggest hurdle may be Proposition 98, a complicated California funding law that requires that around 40 percent of the state’s budget go to schools. This means that a huge portion of any increase in the state budget would have to go to education, so legislators would have to come up with almost double the money to cover the single-payer plan. To get around this, voters would have to first pass a ballot initiative.”

EM: I cannot find anything at all in the ACA’s Innovation Waiver that says Medicare funds can be used.

FamiliesUSA,Cheryl Fish-Parcham, January, 2016 “ What Advocates Should Know about 1332 State Innovation Waivers

“The 1332 waivers apply only to private health insurance coverage and the marketplace, not to public programs like Medicare or Medicaid. But states can seek multiple waivers from HHS at the same time. For example, they might ask permission to change their Medicaid programs under an 1115 waiver and their marketplace coverage under a 1332 waiver. However, the federal government will evaluate each type of waiver separately – an 1115 waiver must still meet all of the existing standards for Medicaid 1115 waivers, and a 1332 waiver must meet the requirements we describe below. How Could a 1332 Waiver Affect Medicaid or CHIP?

EM: I cannot believe there is anything in Medicare law that would allow such a transfer, and it does not appear to me there is anything in the ACA that even mentions using Medicare funds.

Perhaps someone in here has more knowledge than I have been able to find, but I see no purpose whatsoever in this financing plan from Pollin that relies on funds that cannot be accessed. All this thing does is confuse the issue.

Tags: Comments (21) | |

Senate AHCA Version – Premium Increases and Subsidy Reductions

CBPP has this pictorial analysis of the increased premiums resulting from the Senate version of the AHCA for a 60 year old at 350% FPL with an ACA Silver plan. “For a 60-year-old with income of 350 percent of the poverty level (about $42 ,000 today) facing the average premium on HealthCare.gov, out-of-pocket premiums would jump by an estimated $4,994. Premiums would rise by $ 2,022 for a 45-year-old at this income level, and fall by $75 for a 30-year-old. Premiums would rise by $2,694 for a 60-year old with income of 300 percent of the poverty line, and by $1,903 for a 60-year old with income of 150 percent of the poverty line.”

Premium Increase The Senate AHCA Bill increases Premium Costs .

A sixty year old slightly above 350% FPL would face the loss of thousands of dollars in tax credits. Presently, the ACA covers up to 400% FPL and limits how much can be charged for age to 300%. The AHCA goes to 500% and reduces the subsidy coverage to 350% FPL.

Losses in Tax Credits Senate AHCA eliminates subsidies (difference between total cost of the plan and a percentage of income) for those between 350% and 400% FPL resulting in $thousand of dollars in cost for those in the Individuals Market. Tax-credit subsidies would cover only 58 percent of health care costs, rather than 70 percent as under current law a decrease in actuarial value. People in higher healthcare cost states would have to pay more as depicted in the CBPP chart.

Under either Republican Plan, higher premiums and deductibles would force people into lower level plans covering less at greater cost. Why do this and incite anger amongst constituents when you can just keep on doing what you have done in the past and undermine the ACA with blocking the Risk Corridor program and cut deductible subsidies by killing the CSR? I believe McConnell is thinking along these lines and can shift the blame of the resulting ACA failure to Dems. Dems would take the blame as no one would understand how it came to be and little would be explained by the press.

Senate Bill Still Cuts Tax Credits, Increases Premiums and Deductibles for Marketplace Consumers CBPP, Aviva Aron-Dine and Tara Straw, June 25, 2017

Tags: Comments (2) | |

Chait vs Roy on Baicker not really vs Baicker

Jon Chait has a brilliantly ruthless takedown of the absurd defences of the AHCA (house obamacare replacement) and BCRA (Senate version) . His main point is that Republicans are lying claimiing the huge cuts to Medicaid aren’t cuts to Medicaid and that the huge increase in the number of uninsured will actually be zero.

He also criticizes Avik Roy. This quarrel has become very interesting. Roy praised the BRCA. He refused to answer when Chait asked if he had also written it. Roy will not say if he is commenting on his own work without noting the conflict of interest.

Jonathan Chait‏Verified account @jonathanchait
Update: @avik tells me his policy is to not disclose his role in crafting legislation.

Chait notes that Roy praises the bill for increasing deductibles and also notes that Republicans denounced the Obamacare deductibles — for being too high. This just shows hypocrisy ( ok psychopathic dishonesty) or GOP politiicians. I’m sure Roy believes dedcutibles should be high, and Republicans in Congress have revealed a preference for high deductibles.

Chait also objects to Roy’s claim that Medicaid doesn’t cause improved health. Interestingly I had the same debate with someone on twitter yesterday. In both debates, the case against Medicaid is based on a citation of Baicker et al (2013) the report on the Oregon Medicaid experiment.

Chait (and I) responded by citing Somers Gawande and Baicker (2017) who wrote

Insurance coverage increases access to care and improves a wide range of health outcomes. Arguing that health insurance coverage doesn’t improve health is simply
inconsistent with the evidence.

and

One head-to-head quasi-experimental study of Medicaid versus private insurance, based on Arkansas’s decision to use ACA dollars
to buy private coverage for low-income adults, found minimal differences.11

So is it Chait’s experts against Roy’s experts ?

Not at all. Roy bases his argument on Baicker et al and Chait on al et Baicker. Katherine Baicker PhD (who should know) does not think that Baicker et al (2013) showed that Medicaid doesn’t work.

Indeed she concedes much less than Chait does. He wrote “The study was unable to detect better physical health outcomes.” This is false. The study found better physical health outcomes in the treatment group than in the control group. What Chait should have written was “the study was unable to detect statistically signficicantly better physical health outcomes”.

Treating a statistically insignificant evidence improvement as evidence that there was no improvement is a gross error. It is also almost universal (I have doubts only about the “almost”). In fact Baicker et al found statistically significant effects on access to health care, diagnosis of diabetes, and treatment of diabetes. They did not find new proof that standard treatment of diabetes is better than no treatement. In every other context, this is not treated as an open question. The study did not find statistically signficant evidence that the benefit was smaller than predicted based on other studies either.

But the motto of the New England Journal (and all serious scientific journals) is first make no claims which go beyond the data.

Statistically insignificant is not an assertion. It doesn’t mean zero. It doesn’t mean small. So it is always favored. Then it is read as meaning small or zero.

Chait understands this. He argues that the Baicker et al (2013) study had low power so the fact that “The study was unable to detect better physical health outcomes.” [failed to reject the null of zero effect on physical health] doesn’t tell us much. But even in the context of a discussion of power, he refuses to distinguish zero from statistically insignificantly different from zero. I think there is some rule that people writing for general audiences must not use technical terms like “statistically insignificant”. The result is that they write falsehoods.

Tens of thousands of people a year may die partly because people just will not accept that the Neyman Pierson framework is what it is.

In any case, Roy is reduced to arguing that he understand Baicker et al (2013) and Baicker doesn’t. He is not in great shape totally aside from the question about unreported conflicts of interest.

Comments (3) | |

Blue Dogs in NY State Legislature.

Diane Ravitch points to the New York State legislature in her blog this week. NY is a Blue State having gone Dem in presidential elections; however, the state legislature is divided with the Dems controlling the Assembly and Repubs the Senate.

What makes the New York state legislature interesting is the emergence of a Blue Dog Democrat segment of the State Assembly, which sides with the Senate Republicans on various issues. Blue Dogs (which I kind of like as a descriptor for them) conjures up thoughts of when the US Senate version were negotiating special deals before the ACA was finally passed. Not that there is a relationship between the federal and NY state variety of Blue Dogs, it still fits and the identity of Democrat is a misnomer.

The Senate Independence Campaign Committee (SICC) was formed by the Independence Party and is chaired by IDC chair Senator Jeff Klein. The SICC is a formal party campaign committee. The SICC as a party campaign committee allows donors to circumvent the stricter limits on direct donations to candidates as donations limits to party committees are much higher and the same as the limits on how much party committees can give to candidates.

Calling themselves the IDC or the Independent Democratic Caucus, they move to the influence of special interest groups. Now you would think the usage of the word “Independent” in their group name would imply they would not be swayed by any particular interest group, heh? Being the independent swing group in the NY State legislature, the IDC has power to dispense for the right donation regardless of its majority constituency. They could go with Republicans or Democrats based upon interest group influence or ideology. One would hope they would be swayed by the needs and the interests of an entire school population rather than a minority.

Charter School DonationsWhile it is not mystery to find it out, the Alliance for Quality Education (AQE) shed some light upon the IDC’s source of funding. In its report Pay to Play,” the Alliance reveals how the IDC played off Democrats in both the Assembly and the Senate with funding schools, the funding it receives from individuals, foundations, and Pacs, and who the donations went to over a six year period.

From 2011 to 2016, the IDC received $676,850 from charter school political interest groups and individuals which was spread amongst multiple recipients. The detail of who donated and to whom it went to can be found in the first table.

NYS Student EnrollmentNew York State Charter school students make up 5% of the total student population. 2.6 million students across the state attend Public schools and approximately 100,000 students attend privately run charter schools.

In 2006 the COA ruled that state government was consistently underfunding schools in a lawsuit filed in 1993 (Campaign for Fiscal Equity). The court ordered the state to provide a remedy. The state legislature and Governor Spitzer “replaced the 30 funding formulas with a needs-based, wealth equalizing formula known as the Foundation Aid, and committed to providing a $5.5 billion increase in operating aid to schools across the state over the course of four years. Only two years of the phase-in were completed and most of the funding was cut during 2010 and 2011. The state currently owes approximately$3.6 billion of that money

Tags: Comments (3) | |

Kaiser Health News on lead and baby foods

From Kaiser Health News points to other general sources of lead than paint and water:

The Environmental Defense Fund, in an analysis of 11 years of federal data, found detectable levels of lead in 20 percent of 2,164 baby food samples. The toxic metal was most commonly found in fruit juices such as grape and apple, root vegetables such as sweet potatoes and carrots, and cookies such as teething biscuits.

The organization’s primary focus was on the baby foods because of how detrimental lead can be to child development.

According to the FDA, lead makes its way into food through contaminated soil, but Neltner suspects that processing may also play a role.

“I can’t explain it other than I assume baby food is processed more,” Neltner said.

The Environmental Defense Fund report notes that more research on the sources of contamination is needed.

FDA has set guidance levels of 100 parts per billion (ppb) for candy and dried fruit and 50 ppb for fruit juices. The allowable level for lead in bottled water is 5 ppb.

Concern over fruit juices flared up in 2012 when Consumer Reports found that 1 in 4 samples of apple and grape juices had lead levels higher than the FDA’s bottled-water limit of 5 ppb.

The Environmental Defense Fund report was ultimately directed at the food industry and FDA in the hopes of getting limits and standards updated.

Comments (0) | |

PBS and school privatization

Via Naked Capitalism comes Brett Robertson’s Why Is PBS Airing Right-Wing-Sponsored School Privatization Propaganda? (Media Matters).  I like Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me and sometimes Car Talk while driving to places, if they happen to be on. Otherwise I tend to avoid listening to Marketplace and the news segments. This has been true for me for a decade anyway.  MA rejected increasing the cap on charter schools.   I found many unaware of the lack of oversight and accountability.  There are charter schools directly supervised by public officials, but I could not find many publicly discussed.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her department have pushed for an expansion of privatized school choice programs in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2018, particularly in the form of private school vouchers. Now a propagandistic three-part documentary series called School Inc. will help DeVos in her efforts to gain public support for expanded private school choice options. The series has already aired on PBS stations in some markets and will be shown on more this month.

A majority of people across the partisan spectrum oppose private school vouchers, programs that redirect public education money to pay for private school tuition. Vouchers are problematic for many reasons, including their history of allowing for discrimination against LGBTQ, disabled, and special education students, their impact on reducing public education funding, and their ineffectiveness in boosting academic achievement.

Despite these problems, private school vouchers are a long-standing priority of the corporations and right-wing funders backing the education privatization movement. The late Andrew Coulson, long-time head of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, was the driving force behind School Inc. The Cato Institute is a right-wing, libertarian think-tank that calls for the elimination of public schools in support of greater “educational freedom” to choose from a free market of privately run schools.

In addition to School Inc.’s roots in the radical, libertarian Cato Institute, education historian and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch found that the film was funded by a number of arch-conservative foundations with ties to the “dark money ATM” DonorsTrust and the Ayn Rand Institute. Ravitch has prescreened School Inc. and provided this scathing review to The Washington Post:

This program is paid propaganda. It does not search for the truth. It does not present opposing points of view. It is an advertisement for the demolition of public education and for an unregulated free market in education. PBS might have aired a program that debates these issues, but “School Inc.” does not.

Comments (5) | |

Is Trump’s Apprenticeship Program Like His Infrastructure Program?

Is Trump’s Apprenticeship Program Like His Infrastructure Program?

It looks like it might be in a crucial way.  Both involve lots of rhetoric about expanding programs that many support, apprenticeships and infrastructure.  However, on looking at them closer to the extent we can see anything specific aside from the rhetoric, it looks like they involve actual cuts in funding support for existing programs related to both apprenticeships (and more broadly worker training and retraining) as well as for in-process infrastructure projects such as those funded by CIG, in favor of vague plans for  some sort of private support for these programs, apprenticeships or infrastructure.

As it is, it looks like the rhetoric and privatization proposals for apprenticeships are much vaguer than those for infrastructure.  For the latter we have had the specific proposal to privatize air traffic control, a proposal that has previously gone before Congress only to draw opposition from GOP senators, not all of those  yet on board, along with supposed tax breaks for privatizing other parts of the infrastructure.

What is supposed to constitute the support for the private replacement for  the currently publicly supported apprenticeship programs is much less clear, although one suspects that it will be the usual GOP panacea, some tax breaks.  I  suspect that we shall have to wait and see, which is ironic given that supposedly Trump was pushing this recently at least partly to distract us all from his self-incrminating tweets, but those tweets have so distracted his own administration that they seem increasingly unable to formulate any sort of detailed or  concrete plan for any real policies, if they ever were able to do so.  And this latest rhetoric on apprenticeships is just another embarrassing example of this floundering incompetence.

Barkley Rosser

Comments (6) | |

Backstepping

No, not the Control Theory version of Backstepping developed around 1990 by Petar V. Kokotovic. In the Marine Corp there was a Back Stepping cadence. The entire squad or platoon would move in 15 inch steps backwards after coming to a complete halt.

It appears DOE Secretary has started to backstep on her comments on allowing states, Charter schools, and parents decide what is acceptable discrimination. The Senate Committee on Education was not too happy with her comments about letting states and schools decide. One problem still remaining is cutting the funding for the Department of Education and it’s Office of Civil Rights. This will curtail the oversight the DOE has today on local schools.

“Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Tuesday said she will pursue allegations of discrimination “in any form,” pushing back against criticism that the Trump administration might allow private and religious schools to accept federal funding while at the same time rejecting or discriminating against LGBT students.”

Who would have thought the Michigan billionaire-iron-lady of the DOE could be moved by so called “hurtful” remarks about her very apparent indifference to discrimination? In a follow-up comment, Betsy lamented;

“’Anyone who knows me knows that they (the Senate Committee) couldn’t be further from the truth,’ she said. ‘Discrimination in any form is wrong. And I’ve said before and I’ll say again: the department is committed to ensuring that every child has a safe and nurturing environment, and we are and will be continuing to pursue allegations of discrimination in any form as well. So that has been a really hurtful thing for me personally, because it’s not who I am.’”

I guess I do not know her either and my Vulcan Mind-Meld is not working on her to find out what she is really like. Sorry Betsy, we have to take you at your word or what you do not say too! A case in point as to the impact of Betsy Devos’s efforts with school choice and the results of it can be found in Holland, Michigan very close to the DeVos homestead. “Betsy DeVos and the Segregation of School Choice.” Ms. DeVos knew what was happening in Holland and the rest of the state all along. Michigan is the laughing stock of the nation when it comes to Charter Schools.

Comments (18) | |

“Flat Earthers”

President Trump has proposed budget cuts to programs and the departments running them. Amongst those departments impacted by Trump’s proposals is the Department of Education and it’s Office of Civil Rights. “ The DOE Department of Civil Rights function is to investigate discrimination complaints in school districts across the nation and create standards for responding to allegations of sexual assault and harassment.” Trump’s decreased budget would force cuts in departmental staffing making it more difficult to investigate complaints and also enforcing the law.

As the new Secretary of the DOE, Betsy DeVos proposes giving more power to states and communities in an effort to allow them to make decisions based upon local needs. This sounds good in the telling of it as people living in these communities would probably know what is needed for their schools. Often times what is ignored in state policy, is the favoring of wealthier districts over poor districts, majority citizens over minority citizens, the disabled, and those needing special education in order to learn. These are costly additions to a budget and local citizens do not like to pay taxes. Nowhere else can this be seen more vividly as it is in DeVos’s home state of Michigan where Detroit and Flint needs are played off against richer school districts. In her recent appearance in front of the Senate Education Committee, DeVos is proposing a “leap-of-faith” proposal of states getting the needs of public and private school educational correct without oversight or direction by the DOE.

In a “Return of DeVos-2″ visit to the Senate Education Committee, she discusses along similar lines a proposal of allowing states to determine if private schools accepting publically funded vouchers can be allowed to discriminate amongst students. Again DeVos claims the states know better than the DOE about what is needed and necessary locally. In which case, why would we need a DOE Office of Civil Rights if states protected the needs of all students? That is sound reasoning; although historically, states do not protect all students and many fall through the cracks without the oversight.

Not liking the pushback from Democrats and those arguing back against her push to expand school of choice with no oversight, DeVos goes on to call those who oppose the program “flat-earthers” accusing those who find fault with and question her programs lacing vision and refusing to face the facts.” Some of her comments during this last meeting with the Senate Education Committee were quite revealing. Perhaps if during her nomination process, if these remarks she made had come out then, others might have voted against her. A Big If for Republicans . . .

Some of Betsy DeVos’s ideology:

1. Should states have the flexibility to decide whether private schools that accept publicly funded voucher students have the ability to discriminate amongst students for any reason?

Rep. Katherine M. Clark (D-Mass.): One private voucher school in Indiana says it can deny admission to any LGBT student or a student who comes from a homosexual or bisexual family. With regard to federal funding, Rep. Clark posed a question to Ms. DeVos of whether she would tell the state (Indiana) it could not discriminate in that way and extended the question to include involved African American students.

DeVos: “Well again, the Office of Civil Rights and our Title IX protections are broadly applicable across the board, but when it comes to parents making choices on behalf of their students …”

Rep. Clark: “This isn’t about parents making choices, this is about the use of federal dollars. Is there any situation? Would you say to Indiana, that school cannot discriminate against LGBT students if you want to receive federal dollars? Or would you say the state has the flexibility?”

DeVos: “I believe states should continue to have flexibility in putting together programs . . . ”

Rep Clark: So if I understand your testimony — I want to make sure I get this right. There is no situation of discrimination or exclusion that if a state approved it for its voucher program that you would step in and say that’s not how we are going to use our federal dollars?”

Me: Going back and forth with Ms. Devos claims it was a hypothetical question, Rep. Clark countered with it not hypothetical and her allotted time ended.

DeVos: “I go back to the bottom line — is we believe parents are the best equipped to make choices for their children’s schooling and education decisions, and too many children are trapped in schools that don’t work for them. We have to do something different. We have to do something different than continuing a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach. And that is the focus. And states and local communities are best equipped to make these decisions.”

Rep. Clark: “I am shocked that you cannot come up with one example of discrimination that you would stand up for students.”

Me: Except in many cases, states have not made those decisions and often times the decision-making dies in the legislatures who will not spend the money or make a political decision impacting themselves.

2. States should have the flexibility to decide whether students with disabilities who are using publicly funded vouchers to pay for private – school tuition should still be protected under the IDEA federal law.

Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-NY): In voucher and voucher-like programs in which public money is used to pay for private school tuition and educational expenses, families are often required to sign away their IDEA protections, including due process when a school fails to meet a child’s needs. Lowey asked DeVos if she thought that was fair.

DeVos: “Each state deals with this issue in their own manner,”

Tens of thousands of disabled students attend private schools in Florida. Florida requires voucher recipients to give up their IDEA rights.

Me: There was a time, you could not sign away your legal rights and protections. Individuals should not have to do this.

3. High-poverty school districts get more funding than low-poverty schools.

Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA): Proposed education budget’s Title I plan reduces funding to high – poverty schools, according to numerous experts. Rep. Roybal-Allard asked DeVos whether she believes that high – poverty school districts should get “more funding resources” than schools with lower levels of poverty.

DeVos: “Yes, I think the reality is that they do receive higher levels of funding.”

Rep. Roybal-Allard: “Just to be clear … you do agree that high – poverty schools should receive more federal resources than lower levels of poverty schools? Was that your testimony?”

DeVos: “Yes, I think that this is the case.”

Rep. Roybal-Allard: “They don’t.”

It is clear, Ms. DeVos does not know whether schools in higher poverty areas receive more funding or not. It is relatively certain most states and local government make no additional exception for schools in higher poverty area either.

Me: Betsy lives about as far away from Detroit and Flint as she can get. Detroit schools were under State of Michigan management and were released from it in almost the same fiscal shape as when they started. Uncertified teachers can instruct in Detroit as determined by the state.

4. The administration is not shifting money for public schools in the budget in order to fund school choice experiments.

DeVos: “It is. If there are cuts to public schools, and there is new money going to school choice, that can’t mean anything else.”

5. DeVos would not say whether private and religious schools accepting students paying with public funds should be accredited or held accountable in the same way that traditional public schools are.

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI): On teaching practices, private schools taking public dollars claim students could learn how to read by simply putting a book in their hands. Asking DeVos if she was “going to have accountability standards” in any new school choice program.

DeVos: “States should decide what kind of flexibility they are going to allow.”

Me: I have seen similar happen in Michigan. Charter Schools may or may not offer a better education than a public school and often times the results are worse. The standard is not the same for both types of schools and there is a need for accountability. Ms. DeVos will not be bringing the much needed improvements to public education any time soon and may indeed hurt it more.

Five startling things Betsy DeVos just told Congress” Valerie Strauss, The Washington Post, May 25, 2017

The Impact of Cutting Public School Funding and How It Pays Out in Oklahoma Emma Brown, The Washington Post, May 28, 2017

Tags: Comments (9) | |

Boring Comment on Kabaservice

Lifted from Robert’s Stochastic Thoughts:

Boring Comment on Kabaservice

Have I come up with a title less attractive than “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative” ? I certainly don’t expect anyone to read this post. Also I advixe against reading it — it is a waste of time.

I am commenting on this NYT op-ed “The Great Performance of Our Failing President”. My first thoughts are that it is too kind to Trump and displays shocking ignorance of history (Kabaservice is a historian who’s op-ed harshly condemns Trump). My later thoughts are about me, myself, Robert Waldmann and my reactions to the conventions of the essay (or more exactly the op-ed).

I got stuck for many minutes objecting to this sentence

President Trump won the election in large part because he was one of the few candidates from either party to address terrible problems in the left-behind parts of the country, including the drug epidemic, declining labor force participation rates and the rising cost of health care.

I think it is both appallingly vague and clearly false. Before typing on, I want to start with myself. I understand that the passage is a to be sure passage

1) it’s role in the essay is to avoid monotony.

2) The denunciation of Trump is made more interesting by suggesting that promise was betrayed.

3) Kabaservice is trying to prove that he isn’t a knee jerk Trumpaphobic by noting some appeal of Trump.

4) Exactly because Kabaservice is conceding a tiny bit to Trump supporters here, he doesn’t feel any need to be careful in the claim. It is a concession. It isn’t really an assertion he is making in his voice.

As often, I find myself fiercely objecting to a “to be sure” passage.

Comments (2) | |