Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Thomas Hodgkins for Schenectady Board of Education


Thomas Hodgkins
Schenectady Board of Education

            



Thomas is an economist, public policy analyst and educator that lives in Schenectady with his wonderful wife and their dynamic children. He is committed to a long-term reconstruction of Schenectady’s education system. His experience teaching every age level from kindergarten to graduate students at schools in Cameroon, India, China, the Bronx, as well as at Schenectady High School, uniquely prepares him for service on the School Board. For the past five years Thomas has been working for the NYS Assembly Ways and Means Committee; he forecasts tax revenues and evaluates tax law and tax legislation. His knowledge of economic principles as well as tax policy will assist him as he works with Superintendent Spring to enhance educational opportunities in Schenectady.





Education Reconstruction Platform:

Taxes
* Lower taxes by eliminating tax expenditures unrelated to education policy
* Maintain a balance between educational excellence and modest tax increases

Instruction
*  Create the first district in the State with 100% National Board Certified tenured teachers
*  Lengthen the school day and the school year
* Become a ‘fully implemented Universal Pre-Kindergarten’ district
* Create a broad based student internship program
*  Expand peer-tutoring opportunities
*  Enable excellent afterschool and summer programs for all students
*  Extend the mandatory school age by one year at each end of the spectrum
*  Create student designed and constructed ceramic mosaic murals

            Structure
*  Expand school choice, increase intercommunity cohesion, and reduce bureaucratic and economic inefficiencies by consolidating all school districts with in Schenectady County
*  Construct student designed greenhouse laboratories and reading rooms
*  Ensure safe and welcoming school grounds and playgrounds




;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Thomas Hodgkins

Friday, April 12, 2013

a continuing, massive, year-in, year-out volunteer reading program centered on the city’s 4-year-olds

I agree with Alvin Magid on the need for rigorous early education for all students, but the solution can not rely upon volunteers. The kids most in need of early education would benefit the most from a professionally run 'massive, year-in, year-out' reading program. Volunteers are welcome, but society should not and can not depend upon them for one of the most important tasks for the students and our own well being. Neighborhood watch is a beneficial supplement to a good police force, but it can never replace it. Likewise a volunteer reading program can never replace an organized, professional and dedicated early educational system.  


Re the April 6 editorial, Who will read to, with, Schenectady kids?: Significantly, it neither mentioned nor hinted at the need to deal with the large, mostly underfunded pre-K population in Schenectady.
With or without a volunteer reading program for children already enrolled in district schools, there will be a continuing need to promote reading among the pre-K kids destined to enter the district schools principally at the kindergarten level.
Unless that need is met, massively, there can be little hope that the district will be able to deal with the reading problem. Currently 6,000 students in all grades, nearly two-thirds of the district’s students, are reading below grade level; over time, many of them will likely fall further below grade level in a wide array of courses requiring them to be skilled readers. It’s not unrealistic to expect the number of such students to increase yearly.
Passing through adolescence and adulthood, those without a strong foundation in the written language will find themselves denied the joys and benefits of advanced formal education, wide career opportunities and broad cultural engagement.
It’s time to mount a continuing, massive, year-in, year-out volunteer reading program centered on the city’s 4-year-olds, with key roles played by parents, religious and other social organizations, educational institutions, and the business and arts sectors.
Alvin Magid
Niskayuna
The writer is a professor emeritus of political science at the University at Albany

Friday, April 5, 2013

Tibet 2006



This series of pictures is a quick overview of my 17 days in Tibet in February of 2006. A wonderful people in a dramatic and stark environment, a true testament to the resiliency and beauty of humanity.
I'm sure they do not tolerate upside down flags anymore.

Update: 

One of China's creepier policies in the Tibetan Autonomous Region is a 2011 initiative known as the "nine haves." Some of the nine are about development ("to have roads, to have water, to have electricity"), but one is less about helping Tibetans and more about entrenching Beijing's control in a region that doesn't seem to want it: "to have a national flag." Every house and monastery building would be required to fly the crimson, five-starred flag of China. (Monasteries are also required to display portraits of Chinese leaders.) It was to be a show of submission to Chinese rule and a continuation of Tibet's slow cultural dilution.
The rural Tibetan county of Driru, though, has defied the rule, with villagers refusing to fly the flag. On Sept. 27, Chinese authorities responded by sending in "thousands" of Chinese troops to force up the flags, according to Tibetan exile outlets and Radio Free Asia, a U.S. government-backed outlet that's among the few foreign media organizations regularly reporting on Tibet. Now, a week later, Chinese flags are still not flying.
Some Tibetans initially clashed with the troops when they arrived, precipitating a tight security clampdown. "Groups of seven paramilitary policemen have been stationed at each house and are watching the Tibetans,” an unnamed Tibetan local told Radio Free Asia. “Villagers are not being allowed to tend to their animals, and any Tibetan found loitering in the town is being taken away."
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

 One of the first things that the Chinese government ensures is available for usage on the new electric grid is TV, which is only in Chinese, although it is a second language for the locals. Out in the countryside one would see electric lines to villages and a broadcasting tower dominating the valley. I did not see one Tibetan language TV program when I was there, but I did see Disney's the Fox and the Hound dubbed in Chinese. The Tibetans loved it; there were close to a dozen of them huddled around one of the few TV sets in the village watching.

Chinese Propaganda; Tibet rejoices the opening of the superfluous on-ramps. The objective of the Chinese government is to transform Tibet into a Chinese speaking prefecture. After I left, the government forbid the Tibetan language in the schools. 

"Yes, your sides of yak are on their way commander."

Typical Tibetan roof in the countryside

The jagged tooth that is Everest; peak on the left

Woodcarver and cabinet maker on the Barkor

Kora inside the Jokhang

Compassion for all sentient beings is paramount
Kora kids

A friendly monk who invited me to his room for a visit
Chinese informational poster; misshapen monk heads learning from the wise committee man with their friend the army officer


Countryside kids



Pango Chorten, Gyantse

Turquoise swastika inlaid into the threshold of one of the most significant temple rooms in Buddhism @ Tashilhunpo Monastery; swastika is an ancient symbol "to be good" a symbol of auspiciousness; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika for a primer;






I could go for some of that yak butter tea right about now; along with more of her joyous energy



I was was scampering around the mountain next to a monastery when this boy and his brother, who were also playing on the mountain, invited me back to their house for some yak tea, tsampa and a game of cards with their parents.
Roof of the Jokhang

Chinese vision of Tibet portrayed in one of their propaganda posters; levitating highways; glass office buildings and a bullet train




Thursday, April 4, 2013

Modernize Schenectady Government; Direct Democracy and Consolidation

This is a good piece written by a researcher and author; Schenectady would benefit immensely from consolidation and more measures of direct democracy; create a modern government; countywide constitutional convention











Bashing Cuomo, Ducking Mergers
by Bruce Fisher

For Upstate mayors, scapegoating is easier than regionalizing

Next week in Toronto, a policy institute will host a session that every Upstate New York mayor, county executive, comptroller, and chamber of commerce leader should but probably won’t attend. The panel is called “Municipal Mergers in Montreal and Toronto: Is Bigger Better?” and it will feature economists, planners, and other people who know how to count the many ways in which those two cities crunched lots of squabbling little municipalities into big, successful, efficient, regional governments that have helped turn big urban economies into gigantic regional economies.
They’re polite enough to pose the issue of local-government merger and consolidation as a question, but there really isn’t any question about whether it has worked for the big cities. The only question remaining is how well it has worked for the medium-sized cities. (Hint: See answer number 1.)

Meanwhile, back in the land of permanent fiscal crisis, the mayor of Syracuse and the New York State comptroller are slamming Governor Andrew Cuomo for his new deal for the cash-strapped cities of the old Empire State rust belt. Cuomo, eager to clean up the devastation of Hurricane Sandy so that the economic engine of the state recovers, offered a deal to Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica-Rome, Schenectady, and all those other Upstate cities that complain about their police, fire, and municipal-worker pension obligations. Cuomo’s budget wonks put forward an optional plan that would let these shrinking cities stretch out their employee pension payments, borrowing long-term to enjoy some short-term savings, on the very reasonable assumption that in coming years the tab for new employees that have new, less-generous benefit packages will cost less than today’s benefit plans.

“Gimmick,” the critics are saying. “Give us more money,” the mayors are saying. In response, Cuomo dispatched his lieutenant governor, former Rochester Mayor Bob Duffy, to tell recalcitrant mayors that they had a choice: Either take Cuomo’s offer or get a control board just like Buffalo has.
What Cuomo is not saying, at least not yet, is that the structural fiscal distress of Upstate’s cities, counties, and school districts has a Toronto solution, a Montreal solution, indeed, a New York solution: Hang together instead of hanging separately.

50 years of avoidance

Regional failure results when cities and suburbs are governed separately within urban regions. That’s because all those little self-ruling municipalities—former Albuquerque Mayor David Rusk called them “iron boxes”—work as hard as they can to steal taxpayers from one another, with the active connivance of the bankers and real-estate developers who make big campaign contributions to the politicians. Cuomo knew that the iron boxes were breaking cities, but he also knew that no governor can impose a new structure from on high. So what he did was to embrace two very centrist ideas: a property tax cap and an optional consolidation bill.

The tax cap was a political necessity, because the property tax—which funds school districts, cities, villages, towns, and counties—is everybody’s gripe. In places where the market value of real estate rises, the gripe is harder to sustain, because paying a lot of taxes on an asset that an owner can cash in is just a part of the deal that still favors the owner. Paying a growing share of income for taxes on a modest, non-appreciating asset—like a median-value $110,000 house in Erie County—is a harder deal to sell.

Everybody wanted to cap annual tax increases at two percent, so Cuomo got out ahead and embraced it. But with an irreducible cost of providing services, and some rising costs, some of these municipalities and school districts started feeling the pinch this past year. In the Buffalo area, the Kenmore-Tonawanda School district has been sounding the alarm that a combination of rising employee-benefit costs and shrinking enrollments would force service cuts. In Cheektowaga, the five separate school districts have been holding consolidation talks, because the price of going it alone—with five separate sets of school administrators and no sharing of high-cost services—is eating up budgets.

More than a decade ago, an Erie County executive candidate defeated a three-term incumbent by campaigning on consolidating the two largest Buffalo-area governments, the city and the county. Almost a decade ago, a Monroe County executive candidate was crushed for suggesting that Rochester needed to merge with Monroe County, so that there would be one big government, with one set of employees, with a single, county-wide tax base against which to spread the costs of employee salaries and pensions, and the rest of the cost of providing services. Since those campaigns, nobody in politics in New York State has talked about merging cities and counties. Incremental mergers of school districts are being discussed, but only a little: There are 28 school districts in Erie County, but only five of them are discussing any structural change at all.

The issue, by the way, is not anything fiscal or legal. As our draft legislation and legal research showed almost 10 years ago in Erie County, Article 1 Section 9 of the New York State constitution allows cities and counties to merge under what’s known as the “alternative” county law, with the resulting city-county merger resulting in a county-wide government, which is a logical way to organize things, since the next step—combining town governments into the county—would be a finger-snap.
The issue, of course, is that the status quo enriches some bankers, some developers, and some other politically connected folks who profit handsomely from keeping everything sliced up expensively, illogically, and inefficiently. Racism is a principal tool for separatism, but so is the suburban mentality of escape, and the urbanite tendency to regard suburbanites as irredeemable racists. Parochialism is not mandated by law, only by self-interested profiteers and their elected servants.

More crunch coming

But the crisis ahead may be too great even for the resilient, 50-year status quo of the developer-financier-politico class to endure.

The New York State comptroller surveys all the local governments. He publishes a “fiscal distress” monitor, and lots and lots of reports. The latest is entitled “Financial challenges facing local governments: Federal and state aid shrink as a share of revenues.” There’s nothing new here. Everybody in the governing business can recite the conclusions, if not the numbers, and here they are: Buffalo is so unable to pay its own bills that it has a fiscal control board; Syracuse is so unable to pay its own bills that its mayor wants a politically impossible escape from the rules that govern every other city, town, village, school district, and county; Utica and Rome are in free-fall; ditto every other Upstate urban entity except Rochester, which is scraping by notwithstanding the demise of Kodak.
That’s not news. What is new is that there is a governor in Albany who understands two issues. First, he knows that governments have the option of combining instead of going it alone. Second, he knows that he controls their bailout money.

Right now, Cuomo is fresh out of extra money, due to Hurricane Sandy. He has succeeded in negotiating new contracts with public employees. He also succeeded in creating a new pension tier, so that future public employees won’t have it so good.

Former Governor Mario Cuomo, like Malcolm Wilson before him and George Pataki after him, convened blue-ribbon commissions that all recommended that Upstate regions regionalize their local governments. On at least three occasions when Cuomo came to Buffalo promoting his consolidation legislation while attorney general, he told audiences that he was extremely supportive of the great preparatory work done by the city-county consolidation commission chaired by late UB President Bill Greiner.

Now we have the tax cap, the 50-year legacy of suburban sprawl without regional population growth in every single Upstate metro area, and every kind of technology, from customer-relations databases to just-in-time dispatches to remote GPS tracking devices, to enable and encourage efficient regional service delivery. Cuomo evidently got tired of telling local government leaders that they could restructure, merge, do shared services agreements, maybe even regionalize the way that Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton, and faraway, exotic places like New York City, Indianapolis, Louisville, or Nashville have. Now, one guesses, he’s waiting for some of these mayors and county executives to come to the realization that all the tools they need are at hand, requiring only the dawning recognition that they can’t go to the governor for money—but they might be able to ask him for some help.

Bruce Fisher is a former deputy executive for Erie County and currently director of the the Center for Economic and Policy Studies at Buffalo State College. His recent book, Borderland: Essays from the US-Canada Divide, is available at bookstores or at www.sunypress.edu.


modern government structure


this person makes some good points in favor of consolidation; very applicable to Schenectady

...
The long-term solution is still consolidation. I’ve made this argument many times before. So if you don’t like my reasons, consider another data point offered by UB Prof. Bruce Fisher. Writing in ArtVoice, Fisher points to the success the cities of Toronto and Montreal have had with regionalization — merging small inefficient local governments into their regional structure. (See “Bashing Cuomo, Ducking Mergers“)
Let’s review the facts:
Current jurisdictional lines–city, village, town and even county boundaries–no longer reflect current demographic and technological conditions. They lead to underutilized equipment and personnel, to gaps and duplication, to bureaucratic and political infighting, poor management, fraud and the bottom line poor service delivery.
Those who oppose consolidation are the primary beneficiaries–those whose personal pockets are lined with cash today and in retirement. They get to act like kings and queens in the name of their subjects. I thought we’d gotten rid of royalty two hundred fifty years ago!
Consolidation can result in lower taxes and better services. Examples abound (see Fisher). But we’re not just talking about something that would be nice to have happen. For Upstate New York, consolidation is a necessity!
In review, lots of individuals and business owners in Upstate New York would rather be elsewhere. To keep them where they are taxpayers are taking on the chin. In order to make Upstate desirable we need fewer 
government entities, lower energy prices and lower taxes. Consolidation gives us two out of the three.

The State Department and our friends at the Government Law Center of Albany Law School and the Rockefeller College are doing their best to help local governments face the music, but the progress is too slow. Read the Comptroller’s audit reports of local government financial management and you’ll see that too many tax dollars are being mismanaged if not outright stolen.

The solution: Increase the incentives AND the penalties for not consolidating. Also, we need political leaders who will carry this water. Tell your constituents that they’re putting nails in their communities’ coffins every day they delay in merging with other jurisdictions. That includes some counties which ought to merge given how few people live within their borders.

Final point: Isn’t consolidation a solution both NYSUT and the Business Council could agree on? Wouldn’t both win with stronger school districts and a friendlier climate for the business community?

http://www.empirepage.com/2013/2/21/consolidation-is-still-the-best-solution

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

International Comparisons of Early Education Investment




I am glad early education is getting more press after Obama mentioned it as one of his goals for the country. From the studies I have read it has broad economic benefits for society as well as transformative impacts for the children receiving early education. Once one weighs the evidence, it is quite clear that it is a great folly, at the very least, to underinvest in early education as we are currently doing as a nation, state and community.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/business/studies-highlight-benefits-of-early-education.html?_r=0

Investments in Education May Be Misdirected



James Heckman is one of the nation’s top economists studying human development. Thirteen years ago, he shared the Nobel for economics. In February, he stood before the annual meeting of the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Industry, showed the assembled business executives a chart, and demolished the United States’ entire approach to education.
The chart showed the results of cognitive tests that were first performed in the 1980s on several hundred low-birthweight 3-year-olds, who were then retested at ages 5, 8 and 18.
Children of mothers who had graduated from college scored much higher at age 3 than those whose mothers had dropped out of high school, proof of the advantage for young children of living in rich, stimulating environments.
More surprising is that the difference in cognitive performance was just as big at age 18 as it had been at age 3.
“The gap is there before kids walk into kindergarten,” Mr. Heckman told me. “School neither increases nor reduces it.”
If education is supposed to help redress inequities at birth and improve the lot of disadvantaged children as they grow up, it is not doing its job.
It is not an isolated finding. Another study by Mr. Heckman and Flavio Cunha of the University of Pennsylvania found that the gap in math abilities between rich and poor children was not much different at age 12 than it was at age 6.
The gap is enormous, one of the widest among the 65 countries taking part in the Program for International Student Achievement run by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
American students from prosperous backgrounds scored on average 110 points higher on reading tests than disadvantaged students, about the same disparity that exists between the average scores in the United States and Tunisia. It is perhaps the main reason income inequality in the United States is passed down the generations at a much higher rate than in most advanced nations.
That’s a scandal, considering how much the government spends on education: about 5.5 percent of the nation’s economic output in total, from preschool through college.
And it suggests that the angry, worried debate over how to improve the nation’s mediocre education — pitting the teachers’ unions and the advocates of more money for public schools against the champions of school vouchers and standardized tests — is missing the most important part: infants and toddlers.
Research by Mr. Heckman and others confirms that investment in the early education of disadvantaged children pays extremely high returns down the road. It improves not only their cognitive abilities but also crucial behavioral traits like sociability, motivation and self-esteem.
Studies that have followed children through their adult lives confirm enormous payoffs for these investments, whether measured in improved success in college, higher income or even lower incarceration rates.
The costs of not making these investments are also clear. Julia Isaacs, an expert in child policy at the Urban Institute in Washington, finds thatmore than half of poor 5-year-olds don’t have the math, reading or behavioral skills needed to profitably start kindergarten. If children keep arriving in school with these deficits, no amount of money or teacher evaluations may be enough to improve their lot later in life.
Much attention has focused lately on access to higher education.
A typical worker with a bachelor’s degree earns 80 percent more than a high school graduate. That’s a premium of more than $500 a week, a not insubstantial incentive to stay in school. It is bigger than ever before. Yet the growth of college graduation rates has slowed for women and completely stalled for men.
The Economic Report of the President released last month bemoaned how the nation’s college completion rate had tumbled down the international rankings, where it now sits in 14th place among O.E.C.D. countries.
The report restated the president’s vow to increase the number of college graduates by 50 percent by 2020, and laid out how the federal government has spent billions in grants and tax breaks to help ease the effects of rising tuition and fees. Last year the government spent almost $40 billion on Pell grants, more than twice as much as when President Obama came to office.
Mr. Heckman’s chart suggests that by the time most 5-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds reach college age, Pell grants are going to do them little good.
“Augmenting family income or reducing college tuition at the stage of the life cycle when a child goes to college does not go far in compensating for low levels of previous investment,” Mr. Heckman and Mr. Cunha wrote.
Mr. Heckman and Mr. Cunha estimated that raising high school graduation rates of the most disadvantaged children to 64 percent from 41 percent would cost 35 to 50 percent more if the assistance arrived in their teens rather than before they turned 6.
Erick Hanushek, an expert on the economics of education at Stanford, put it more directly: “We are subsidizing the wrong people and the wrong way.”
To its credit, the Obama administration understands the importance of early investments in children. The president has glowingly cited Mr. Heckman’s research. In his State of the Union address, the president called for universal preschool education.
“Study after study shows that the earlier a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road,” Mr. Obama said at a speech in Decatur, Ga., in February.
But the fresh attention has not translated into money or a shift in priorities. Public spending on higher education is more than three times as large as spending on preschool, according to O.E.C.D. data from 2009. A study by Ms. Isaacs found that in 2008 federal and state governments spent somewhat more than $10,000 per child in kindergarten through 12th grade. By contrast, 3- to 5-year-olds got less than $5,000 for their education and care. Children under 3 got $300.
Mr. Heckman’s proposals are not without critics. They argue that his conclusions about the stupendous returns to early education are mostly based on a limited number of expensive experiments in the 1960s and 1970s that provided rich early education and care to limited numbers of disadvantaged children. They were much more intensive endeavors than universal preschool. It may be overoptimistic to assume these programs could be ratcheted up effectively to a national scale at a reasonable cost.
Yet the critique appears overly harsh in light of the meager improvements bought by the nation’s investments in education today. A study by Mr. Hanushek found that scores in math tests improved only marginally from 1970 to 2000, even after spending per pupil doubled. Scores in reading and science declined.
“Early education is an essential piece if we are going to have a better education system,” Barbara Bowman, an expert on early childhood education in Chicago who has advised the Education Department. “We’re inching in that direction.”
Education is always portrayed in the American narrative as the great leveler. But it can’t do its job if it leaves so many behind so early.

E-mail: eporter@nytimes.com;
Twitter: @portereduardo