In response to My Texas Blog: Response to AZ Immigration Law
A few points -
"If you aren't illegal you should have nothing to hide" - So do you feel the Police should have the right to search you, your property, or monitor your phone calls and internet activities? Because if you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide? Where do you draw the line?
"If I were to leave the country I would need to have my "papers" on me, big deal, so how is this any different?" - It's different because the people being asked to carry papers are citizens, not visitors. You are assumed guilty until proven innocent.
"Legislators' knew people would immediately bring up race so it's already been built into the bill that a person cannot be questioned based on race." - Do you think an Anglo is going to have their citizenship questioned? Of course not, so therefore they won't be required to carry around citizenship papers. The law is going to require racial profiling by it's very nature.
"Americans have fought for every right we have, and Obama wants to give these rights to people who are bankrupting our schools, hospitals, prisons, and our welfare system." - The rights that Americans have fought for are not rights exclusive to American citizens. To quote Thomas Jefferson "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights...[insert Declaration of Independence & Bill of Rights]"
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
How Much is Too Much?
On April 16, 2010 the Austin Chronicle published a story regarding a $34 million plan to redevelop the Waller Creek district. Furthermore, a separate project to build a tunnel through the area to shrink the flood plain is in the works. The plan envisions transforming the creek area into a centerpiece of Downtown, similar to the River Walk in San Antonio or Millennium Park in Chicago. Initially seeking to improve landscaping, lighting and trails, there are further proposals for promenades, restaurants and shops along the creek. While the idea of improving the Waller Creek area is generally a popular one with voters, the project has been stalled many times over the decades, primarily over questions of funding. While walking near that area recently, I considered that the cost of revitalizing Waller Creek area wouldn't be nearly so expensive if it hadn't been allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair over the decades.
This brought to my mind a recent program aired on PBS called "Liquid Assets". The program documented the importance and challenges of maintaining our water infrastructure. It profiled Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin who has been dubbed the "Sewer Mayor" for her efforts to improve the city's neglected water and sewer systems. It also brought to mind the recent I-35 Bridge Collapse in Minneapolis. Following the collapse, many stories ran investigating the safety of our nation's bridges, with reports of a high percentage of them being structurally deficient. While opinions about this issue were strong immediately following the collapse, it has once again been relegated to the background.
According to and April 21 report in the Statesman, Austin is facing a $28 million budget shortfall. A combination of lower sales tax revenue and a drop in property values has lead to the likelihood of an increase in property taxes. Obviously this is unpopular with homeowners, especially after an increase just last year. It is important to consider however, that this is not so much an increase in taxes paid, but rather an attempt to recoup tax dollars lost due to the recession.
Texas is one of only seven states that doesn't collect State income taxes. The State and Local Tax burden in Texas has been historically one of the lowest in the country with Texas ranking 43rd in 2008, behind states like Alaska, Nevada, and Wyoming. One should note that these states have far lower population densities than Texas and considerably less infrastructure to maintain. A majority of Nevada's income comes from taxation of gaming, with over 85% of the population living in Las Vegas and Reno. A majority of the State of Alaska's income comes from taxation of the oil industry and Federal subsidies. In fact, Alaska collects such a surplus of funds, it pays out dividends to it's residents.
It seems that many Texans take their political model from the idea of a classic Texas rancher, who just wants to lead a self-sustaining life outside of the reach of government. This may be reasonable attitude for someone who lives in Guerra (population - 8), but it is not a very realistic model for someone living in Houston (population 2.2 million.) Almost 90% of Texans live in urban areas. Every day you drive Texas roads. You expect reliable service from local Police and Fire departments. You expect clean water and sanitation. You want your children to receive a quality public education. You might run around Town Lake, swim at Barton Springs, or check out a book from the library. The idea of living your life outside of government and taxes is a fine one, but you can't expect to reap the benefits of the things it provides and not have to pay the cost. You may not agree with the need for all of these things, but they do add to the over all quality of life in Austin, whether you use them or not. All these things cost money. Often the expense is exacerbated by the refusal of the public to pay the cost of upkeep (as the in case with Atlanta's sewers.) This causes the cost to rise exponentially, like the late fees on a credit card. Don't get me wrong, I don't like paying taxes either. But I do see them as necessary. You will get no argument from me that we need to reduce wasteful spending in the Government. There is no doubt that improvements in handling tax dollars can be made. But we also need to we need to consider what we are paying for and the value that has in our lives.
This brought to my mind a recent program aired on PBS called "Liquid Assets". The program documented the importance and challenges of maintaining our water infrastructure. It profiled Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin who has been dubbed the "Sewer Mayor" for her efforts to improve the city's neglected water and sewer systems. It also brought to mind the recent I-35 Bridge Collapse in Minneapolis. Following the collapse, many stories ran investigating the safety of our nation's bridges, with reports of a high percentage of them being structurally deficient. While opinions about this issue were strong immediately following the collapse, it has once again been relegated to the background.
According to and April 21 report in the Statesman, Austin is facing a $28 million budget shortfall. A combination of lower sales tax revenue and a drop in property values has lead to the likelihood of an increase in property taxes. Obviously this is unpopular with homeowners, especially after an increase just last year. It is important to consider however, that this is not so much an increase in taxes paid, but rather an attempt to recoup tax dollars lost due to the recession.
Texas is one of only seven states that doesn't collect State income taxes. The State and Local Tax burden in Texas has been historically one of the lowest in the country with Texas ranking 43rd in 2008, behind states like Alaska, Nevada, and Wyoming. One should note that these states have far lower population densities than Texas and considerably less infrastructure to maintain. A majority of Nevada's income comes from taxation of gaming, with over 85% of the population living in Las Vegas and Reno. A majority of the State of Alaska's income comes from taxation of the oil industry and Federal subsidies. In fact, Alaska collects such a surplus of funds, it pays out dividends to it's residents.
It seems that many Texans take their political model from the idea of a classic Texas rancher, who just wants to lead a self-sustaining life outside of the reach of government. This may be reasonable attitude for someone who lives in Guerra (population - 8), but it is not a very realistic model for someone living in Houston (population 2.2 million.) Almost 90% of Texans live in urban areas. Every day you drive Texas roads. You expect reliable service from local Police and Fire departments. You expect clean water and sanitation. You want your children to receive a quality public education. You might run around Town Lake, swim at Barton Springs, or check out a book from the library. The idea of living your life outside of government and taxes is a fine one, but you can't expect to reap the benefits of the things it provides and not have to pay the cost. You may not agree with the need for all of these things, but they do add to the over all quality of life in Austin, whether you use them or not. All these things cost money. Often the expense is exacerbated by the refusal of the public to pay the cost of upkeep (as the in case with Atlanta's sewers.) This causes the cost to rise exponentially, like the late fees on a credit card. Don't get me wrong, I don't like paying taxes either. But I do see them as necessary. You will get no argument from me that we need to reduce wasteful spending in the Government. There is no doubt that improvements in handling tax dollars can be made. But we also need to we need to consider what we are paying for and the value that has in our lives.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Response to "Are all Texan children college bound?"
Chantell at Citizens Actions Toward The Government brings up some interesting points regarding education in her post "Are all Texan children college bound?" The falling graduation rates in the United States, and specifically Texas, are alarming. So is the fact that the U.S. is slipping in worldwide education rankings. Do we want to create a separate curriculum for students not pursuing post-secondary education? Is it better to graduate students by a lower standard rather than have them drop out?
It is common in other countries (such as Japan, Switzerland, or Korea for example) to have different secondary programs for students based on interest or ability. The examples I've chosen are considered to have some of the best educational systems in the world. So I think Chantell's question as to whether or not each student needs to follow the college bound curriculum carries a lot of weight. However, the standards for all students in these other countries are still very high and students are expected to put in significant effort. In the U.S., expectations are far lower, yet the dropout rate is much higher. Perhaps this demonstrates that the issue isn't the difficulty of the curriculum, but the expectations we as a society have on students and the cultural value we place on education. If we lower the standards to get more kids through the system and provide them with a minimal level of education, it will also lower the value of a diploma. It also won't change the fact that these children are being undereducated.
As our economy shifts from an industrial to a technological base, so shift our educational needs. We can't (nor should we want to) compete with countries like China or India in manufacturing. These are developing economies, with a much lower wage structure than ours. As a developed nation, our jobs need to be innovating and creating the products those countries manufacture. We can't afford to let the world pass us by in these areas. Additionally, a strong parallel exists between a nation's quality of life and it's education. Beyond the economic benefits, levels of education also affect societal problems (crime rates and teen pregnancy for example.)
Many question whether TAKS and the No Child Left Behind Act are the most effective way to raise our schools' standards. The arguments against these programs are legitimate, but I think it's important to remember that the reason these programs exist in the first place is to reestablish skill levels that our schools have been failing to meet. When trying to reach universal proficiency, what level of proficiency is expected? Chantell argues that we need to bring back the minimum plan so that "so that all children, regardless of their academic abilities will have the chance to graduate with pride." Pride is something we feel when we earn something, not when something is given to us. The whole point of education isn't to make students lives more difficult in the short term, but to make their lives easier in the long term. I understand her reasons and respect her argument, but I think we need to be very careful when lowering our academic standards. While I agree that bringing back the minimum plan may address some immediate concerns, I'd hate to see us headed in the wrong direction.
Like so many problems, there is no simple solution to this issue. We as a nation need to reevaluate our education system. We need to understand that the only way to remain the most economically powerful country in the world is to make education a priority. That doesn't just mean pushing children to excel in their studies, but also improving systems to support students dealing with issues like poverty and pregnancy, insuring that they don't slip through the cracks. It means increasing school budgets instead of trying to make our educators make do with less. It also means increasing the wages of teachers and finding ways to make the field more competitive.
Regardless of the standards we set or how we measure them, we can't expect the state of education to improve as we consistently try to find ways to spend as little as possible on it. Clearly, Texas has a long way to go.
It is common in other countries (such as Japan, Switzerland, or Korea for example) to have different secondary programs for students based on interest or ability. The examples I've chosen are considered to have some of the best educational systems in the world. So I think Chantell's question as to whether or not each student needs to follow the college bound curriculum carries a lot of weight. However, the standards for all students in these other countries are still very high and students are expected to put in significant effort. In the U.S., expectations are far lower, yet the dropout rate is much higher. Perhaps this demonstrates that the issue isn't the difficulty of the curriculum, but the expectations we as a society have on students and the cultural value we place on education. If we lower the standards to get more kids through the system and provide them with a minimal level of education, it will also lower the value of a diploma. It also won't change the fact that these children are being undereducated.
As our economy shifts from an industrial to a technological base, so shift our educational needs. We can't (nor should we want to) compete with countries like China or India in manufacturing. These are developing economies, with a much lower wage structure than ours. As a developed nation, our jobs need to be innovating and creating the products those countries manufacture. We can't afford to let the world pass us by in these areas. Additionally, a strong parallel exists between a nation's quality of life and it's education. Beyond the economic benefits, levels of education also affect societal problems (crime rates and teen pregnancy for example.)
Many question whether TAKS and the No Child Left Behind Act are the most effective way to raise our schools' standards. The arguments against these programs are legitimate, but I think it's important to remember that the reason these programs exist in the first place is to reestablish skill levels that our schools have been failing to meet. When trying to reach universal proficiency, what level of proficiency is expected? Chantell argues that we need to bring back the minimum plan so that "so that all children, regardless of their academic abilities will have the chance to graduate with pride." Pride is something we feel when we earn something, not when something is given to us. The whole point of education isn't to make students lives more difficult in the short term, but to make their lives easier in the long term. I understand her reasons and respect her argument, but I think we need to be very careful when lowering our academic standards. While I agree that bringing back the minimum plan may address some immediate concerns, I'd hate to see us headed in the wrong direction.
Like so many problems, there is no simple solution to this issue. We as a nation need to reevaluate our education system. We need to understand that the only way to remain the most economically powerful country in the world is to make education a priority. That doesn't just mean pushing children to excel in their studies, but also improving systems to support students dealing with issues like poverty and pregnancy, insuring that they don't slip through the cracks. It means increasing school budgets instead of trying to make our educators make do with less. It also means increasing the wages of teachers and finding ways to make the field more competitive.
Regardless of the standards we set or how we measure them, we can't expect the state of education to improve as we consistently try to find ways to spend as little as possible on it. Clearly, Texas has a long way to go.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Perry Calls For Virtual Textbooks
On April 7, the Austin Statesman reported a proposal by Gov. Rick Perry that Texas abandon traditional textbooks in favor of computer technology. Gov. Perry was attending a computer gaming conference when he announced this proposal, which he hopes to explore when the Legislature meets in 2011. The primary reason stated was that this would allow students access to the most up to date material. The Bryan-College Station Eagle reported that Perry stated that the switch would have to be done cost effectively and he was unsure whether the move would save money. "There's obviously opposition [to switching to totally computerized material], but there's always opposition to change," Perry said. Additionally, KVUE reported that the Gov didn't have a cost comparison between books and online educational materials.
Should Texas switch over completely to ebooks and computer technology? In addition to having the most current material, an interesting possibility of switching to ebooks would be ending the controversy over what should be in them. If a student's parents wanted their child's book to include mention of intelligent design for example, it wouldn't require changing the text of every student. It would also be much easier to adapt the reading material to address students individual needs. However, I think it will take a while for teachers and students to effectively use the new technology. There is also a question of whether all this technology can be more of a distraction than a help.
The Columbus Dispatch reports in a story about an Ohio textbook bill, that ebook costs are half or less than that of traditional books. If using ebooks will save 50% off the cost of teaching materials, it would seem that would be a good investment. For K-12, you have to consider the necessity to provide laptops or some sort of e-reader to every student. That would be very expensive. Not to mention the maintenance and eventual replacement of this equipment or the need to improve school's IT systems. I think, especially initially, these costs would be prohibitive. In principal, switching to the new technology is a good idea and plans need to be made for it's eventual adoption. I'm not sure how we can make this happen right now, when the schools are already underfunded. We can have all the ideas in the world to improve our public schools, but they are meaningless if we don't fund them. Perry complains that since he took office in 2000, some schools have used textbooks saying Ann Richards was governor. Perhaps this is an indictment of his administration's funding of public schools.
On the college level, the move towards ebooks is already happening and the cost is already on the students. I see no reason to mandate ebook use exclusively, I think that should remain the choice of the student.
But why are textbooks so expensive in the first place? A quick search on the book used for this class has the price ranging from $68.46 for a used copy to $132.41 for a new copy. This is for a softcover book of less than 300 pages. I went to the self-publishing site Lulu.com and found that I could publish this book in the same format myself for $8.90. That is for a single copy with Lulu's markup. Let's say for argument's sake that the publishing cost is actually $5. $132 is a 2500% mark up! Obviously there are other costs involved including the authors need to be paid. However, this is the case with all books, yet the cost isn't nearly as high with them. Also, I don't think that the authors of these textbooks are making any higher percentage on these books than other authors, so I would assume that any extra money coming in is going to bookstores and publishers.
Something else that is interesting about textbooks is how often they are revised and new editions are put out. Our textbook is in it's third edition, the first being published in 2000. A quick search on Amazon and Textbook.com shows this to be pretty standard, a new edition every 2-3 years. It could be argued that this is to correct errors, reorganize, and add new information. Fair, but I suspect however that a major reason is the fact that after 2-3 years there are so many used copies floating around that it starts cutting deeply into new book sales.
Now, I make no claim to understand the in's and out's of publishing. There could be any number of reasons why the prices of textbooks are so much higher than other books. An article for Psychologicalscience.org makes a good case placing the blame on the used book market. The point is, I think we can agree that the high prices of textbooks has nothing to do with the cost of manufacturing.
The cost of publishing an ebook is $0. Outside of possibly some editing, I can think of very little that significantly changes the file from the author's computer to the file of the student that purchases the book. Honestly, 50% of the price still seems like a lot to me, considering all the publisher is doing is allowing a file to be copied. My suspicion is that the price of ebooks will actually not go down as they become more and more accepted. Sales will be impacted by the fact that students will share files (much like what has happened in the music industry in the past decade.) Why pay $50 for a file you only plan on using a few months when you can have that exact file for nothing? I think that while the savings are significant, they are also as artificial as the cost. The cost is determined by how much money is needed to maintain the outdated business structure and profit margins. I think the publishing world is going to be hit with the same reality that hit the film and music industries. The old business models do not work in this new world.
Should Texas switch over completely to ebooks and computer technology? In addition to having the most current material, an interesting possibility of switching to ebooks would be ending the controversy over what should be in them. If a student's parents wanted their child's book to include mention of intelligent design for example, it wouldn't require changing the text of every student. It would also be much easier to adapt the reading material to address students individual needs. However, I think it will take a while for teachers and students to effectively use the new technology. There is also a question of whether all this technology can be more of a distraction than a help.
The Columbus Dispatch reports in a story about an Ohio textbook bill, that ebook costs are half or less than that of traditional books. If using ebooks will save 50% off the cost of teaching materials, it would seem that would be a good investment. For K-12, you have to consider the necessity to provide laptops or some sort of e-reader to every student. That would be very expensive. Not to mention the maintenance and eventual replacement of this equipment or the need to improve school's IT systems. I think, especially initially, these costs would be prohibitive. In principal, switching to the new technology is a good idea and plans need to be made for it's eventual adoption. I'm not sure how we can make this happen right now, when the schools are already underfunded. We can have all the ideas in the world to improve our public schools, but they are meaningless if we don't fund them. Perry complains that since he took office in 2000, some schools have used textbooks saying Ann Richards was governor. Perhaps this is an indictment of his administration's funding of public schools.
On the college level, the move towards ebooks is already happening and the cost is already on the students. I see no reason to mandate ebook use exclusively, I think that should remain the choice of the student.
But why are textbooks so expensive in the first place? A quick search on the book used for this class has the price ranging from $68.46 for a used copy to $132.41 for a new copy. This is for a softcover book of less than 300 pages. I went to the self-publishing site Lulu.com and found that I could publish this book in the same format myself for $8.90. That is for a single copy with Lulu's markup. Let's say for argument's sake that the publishing cost is actually $5. $132 is a 2500% mark up! Obviously there are other costs involved including the authors need to be paid. However, this is the case with all books, yet the cost isn't nearly as high with them. Also, I don't think that the authors of these textbooks are making any higher percentage on these books than other authors, so I would assume that any extra money coming in is going to bookstores and publishers.
Something else that is interesting about textbooks is how often they are revised and new editions are put out. Our textbook is in it's third edition, the first being published in 2000. A quick search on Amazon and Textbook.com shows this to be pretty standard, a new edition every 2-3 years. It could be argued that this is to correct errors, reorganize, and add new information. Fair, but I suspect however that a major reason is the fact that after 2-3 years there are so many used copies floating around that it starts cutting deeply into new book sales.
Now, I make no claim to understand the in's and out's of publishing. There could be any number of reasons why the prices of textbooks are so much higher than other books. An article for Psychologicalscience.org makes a good case placing the blame on the used book market. The point is, I think we can agree that the high prices of textbooks has nothing to do with the cost of manufacturing.
The cost of publishing an ebook is $0. Outside of possibly some editing, I can think of very little that significantly changes the file from the author's computer to the file of the student that purchases the book. Honestly, 50% of the price still seems like a lot to me, considering all the publisher is doing is allowing a file to be copied. My suspicion is that the price of ebooks will actually not go down as they become more and more accepted. Sales will be impacted by the fact that students will share files (much like what has happened in the music industry in the past decade.) Why pay $50 for a file you only plan on using a few months when you can have that exact file for nothing? I think that while the savings are significant, they are also as artificial as the cost. The cost is determined by how much money is needed to maintain the outdated business structure and profit margins. I think the publishing world is going to be hit with the same reality that hit the film and music industries. The old business models do not work in this new world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
