US Department of Education Report Card

The Department of Education, was created by laws passed in 1979 and it began official operations on May 4, 1980. Here are its own statistics (ie, From the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences on their website: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/).

These are the average scores for 17-year olds about to graduate from high school. (Note: The first scores are for the earliest years reported by the website.)

Reading ("Average Scale Scores"):
1980: 285
1992: 290
2004: 285

Writing ("Average Scale Scores"):
1998: 150
2007: 153

Math ("Average Scale Scores"):
1980: 300
1992: 307
2004: 307

Science ("Average Scale Scores"):
1996: 150
2005: 147

Reading scores are the same today as the day ED, the Department of Education, started operating. It's true that the scores increased slightly between then and now to a peak of 290 but it's a pretty small peak and scores have decreased steadily since then.

Writing scores are the only ones that increased but it wasn't much and to the extent what we see written in opinion pages, general media, advertising, and other sources is an indication of competency in grammar and general expression, the writing ability of our high school and even college graduates is none too impressive.

Math scores haven't improved since the early 90's. We got a little value out of ED before then but nothing since.

Science scores decreased slightly since the early 1990's. Considering that high tech endeavors are increasingly driving the economic engines of successful countries this is very discouraging.

Test scores in all areas of learning did increase substantially and consistently(!) for grade school and middle school children in all areas of learning but what good is that if such increases cannot be sustained through high school since, at graduation, they become the students' tools in the real world. For that reason I haven't included those statistics. High school graduates' scores are the ones that matter as a tool for measuring likely success as adults and those are the scores that stagnated at least 20 years ago.

An important point to make is that all the hubbub over pre-kindergarten education and 'getting children ready for grade school' is way overblown based on test results that show CONSISTENT increases for all for pre-high school grades. I have a revolutionary idea, why don't we pay more attention to the areas in which test scores show there is an actual measurable need? Duh! That would be, drum roll, high school! Hello? With all grades except high school making improvements, by what warped logic can anyone claim pre-kindergarten (or any other pre-high school level) is where we need to focus? The education 'experts' tell us with their own data(!) that all grades except high school are improving and then they say that where we need to focus is getting children better prepared for grade school. Grade schools are improving and high schools aren't so we need to fix grade schools? Say, what? These are supposed to be our smart people fixing this. With thinking like this is it any wonder our high school graduates aren't any more skilled than those from 20 years ago or more? And with logic like this, what are the chances it'll improve any time soon?

Indeed, intuition and annecdotal information also strongly speak to multiple needs highschoolers have that aren't being met besides strictly academic ones. I strongly disagree with the focus I hear from mostly liberal circles that we need more emphasis on pre-kindergarten education or, for that matter, on kindergarten, grade school or middle school either. Why not fix what's wrong at the high school level first since their own test results show that's what needs fixing? Could it be that this pre-kindergarten education need is actually tax-payer funded day care masquerading as 'education reform'?

An Inconvenient Document

The Declaration of Independence made our founding fathers' intentions clear. This was to be a Republic. Separate writings and the Pledge of Allegiance attest to this too so it's undeniably true. What that means is that all citizens are supposed to have fair representation. To fully understand what that means one has to read other writings. They were dead set against control by one political party.

Unfortunately we do have one-party control now because Democrats lock our elected Republican representatives out of the room when creating legislation and they steamroller their bills through the legislature. In fact, Democratic leaders in the legislative and executive branches declared openly that "we won ... we get to do it OUR way, period". Brazen? Oh yeah. Arrogant? Definitely. It's wrong in any regard but especially in the context of that apparently insignificant and pesky little document called The Declaration of Independence. That document declared this to be a Republic whose government is a government of, by and for ALL The People. How do Democrats square their behavior and principles with that founding document? Obviously they can't. It is, therefore, an Inconvenient Document and is clearly antithetical to their aims and even principles.

Then there's the Constitution. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that our founding fathers intended for this to be a two-party (at least) system. Not only was the Constitution constructed for that but for a balance of powers among the three branches of government. Clearly they sought BALANCE of power among parties and branches. What do you think they'd say to one party's leaders saying "we won ... we get to do it OUR way, period"? What would they say to some 40% of Americans not having their concerns voiced, much less debated, on the floor of the House or Senate? What would they say to a $1 Trillion spending bill being passed without a single representative in the House or Senate having time to read the bill, much less understand and digest it? It was passed not because it was a good bill (because no one can know without reading it) but for partisan, agenda-serving and special interest-serving reasons. This was a bill that began significant government reform AND committed record amounts of national debt, yet The People weren't given a chance to hear what was in it much less express their will. This bill was totally the will of one party. Well, doesn't that fly in the face of the Constitution and constitutional principles expressed by our founding fathers? How do Democrats square their behavior and principles with that founding document? Obviously they can't. It ALSO is, therefore, an Inconvenient Document and is clearly antithetical to their aims and even principles.

So much for fair representation. Remember what we told the Iraqis about forming their government ... that their government MUST include the interests of Sunni's, Shiites AND even the small minority Kurds? They were told that there must be fair and representative OUTCOMES in legislation too. We're good at telling other countries what's fair to their citizens but arrogant control prevails within the ruling party in America. Ruling party? Doesn't that sound kinda like a dictatorship or autocracy? Even if you're a Democrat, doesn't that sound like it's probably not good for our country?

Planning The Fly Fishing Trip With Matt Is Progressing

Pics: Mighty Mo (Missouri River), Son Matt

Matt (who lives in Rathdrum ID with his wife, Heather, and pup, Johnny Cash) and I will be off on a fishing trip in the Helena MT area Sept 17-19 using our 26' Nash trailer for lodging. We have a half-day guided float trip planned the afternoon of the 17th, the day we arrive, followed by a full-day guided float the next day. Both will most likely be on the Missouri River, an excellent fishery. We'll decide what to do (chilling, fishing, whatever) the first half of the 19th when we drag ourselves out of bed and I'll return Matt to his wife later that day.

Fishing the Missouri River can be a lot of fun. There are plenty of good-size trout in the river and they put up a good fight. One never knows how the fishing will be but the time Matt and I have together will be sweet no matter how well the fish are cooperating. We haven't done anything like this together before just the two of us. (The move from PA to San Jose doesn't count cause that wasn't just chillin' and doing 'guy stuff'.)

How I'm going to get up there from here in Roseburg is a whole other adventure with my wife that will be a good subject for another blog.

(Note: Might Mo photo courtesy of Missouri Riverside Outfitters in MT.)

Planning The Fly Fishing Trip With Chris Is Progressing

Pics: Upper Sacramemto River, Son Chris

(Note: I'm planning fly fishing trips with both of my sons, Chris and Matt. The one with Matt is later in the year and a blog is coming on that one as more details are known.)

Chris and I will find ourselves on the Upper Sacramento River in early June using our trailer for lodging. I'll be arriving in the area a week or two ahead of him in order to find a good campground, get the trailer set up and scope out the best places for us to spend our time fishing.

Originally we were going to the Quincy CA area (an hour's drive East of the Sacramento River) where I have more fishing experience but environmental concerns have led CA's Dept of Fish & Game to stop stocking rivers in much of Plumas County there. I've heard lots of good reports about rivers in other areas of NorCal so I'm comfortable trying them out. Like a lot of things in life, this unexpected need to change plans will probably work out better. Whatever happens, time with Chris is its own reward as it will be with Matt too when we hit the Mighty Mo together in September.

Since Chris and I are fishing in an area unfamiliar to both of us I decided on one day of guided fishing and picked the Upper Sacramento River which I've always wanted to check out. When I've used guides on other fishing excursions it was always for a float trip by boat. This time we'll be walking which is good because we both prefer that over fishing from boats. The guide, Michael Caranci (The Fly Shop in Redding CA), says we'll be 'pocket fishing' which is also a little different for both Chris and me. It's good to expand our horizons and learn something different so we're looking forward to the experience.

More info coming as more details are worked out. (By the way, the Upper Sac River photo is courtesy of The Fly Shop in Redding CA)

Materialism and Greed Got Us Into This Trouble - It Won't Get Us Out

We cannot spend our way out of this economic nightmare. Not by any level of spending ... federal, state and local government, company or individual. Greed and materialism got us into this. More insane spending won't fix the underlying cause and the problem will only get worse.

We've built an economy on debt with American enterprise and work ethic as collateral. A little debt is helpful to grow the economy if we use it to invest in our future. However, spending like crazy just to have better 'stuff' than the next person is economically sick. It doesn't say much for our values and principles either. Whatever happened to living within one's means? Being in debt used to be thought of as something to be avoided. It would be best for us to get back to those kinds of principles.

Now the President is encouraging us to just 'spend' to get our economy going again but that isn't the answer. We don't have the money to spend. It's gone. So how does more debt help fix this problem? If we could go cold-turkey on mindless spending and credit card debt our economy would recover faster and in a much healthier way. Problem with that is it means the obvious pain of companies going out of business because they've become so dependent on Americans going into debt to buy 'stuff'. But people, even the President, don't seem to understand that just 'spending' is even more painful because this level of debt in our country (especially if we increase it by trying to spend our way out) will kill our economy for farther into the future than we can possibly imagine.

The best solution is practicing better fiscal responsibility at all levels ... government, companies and individuals. Restrained spending and more saving (ie, living within our means) will be really, really good for us in the long run. Swallow the bitter pill now for a much healthier future.

Unrepresentative Government

Regarding my previous blog about Congress and the President not representing the people, consider the following comparison and the implications.

Take the Iraq government for example. There are approximately twice as many Shiite's as Sunni's in Iraq and Kurds represent a very small minority of its citizens. We all know how well publicized it was that our government insisted on fair representation of not only the two large groups but of even the SMALL Kurdish minority as well. (This is consistent with a republic form of government which ours is ... or at least was as founded.) The recent history of Iraq's new government is very clear that while the Iraq government was being formed and while Iraqis' elected representatives were considering historic government and economic reforms, our government (Democrats, Republicans, the State Department, and President) INSISTED ON fair and balanced participation, consideration and OUTCOMES that included the interests of all three groups of people, including the small minority Kurdish population.

Compare that with what's going on in our own country. Republicans are not even being allowed in the room while leading Democrats decide the contents of legislation and what nature of legislation gets pursued. In fact, the Democratic leaders in the legislative and executive branches made a point multiple times of saying(!) "we won so we get to say what's in legislation [regardless what Republicans want]". In fact, bills' voting percentages SCREAM that Republicans aren't being allowed ANY semblance of a voice in what becomes law in our country ... even for these large and sweeping reforms currently under way.

Our government insisted on fair representation of ALL groups in Iraq's government and instisted that the outcome include fair representation of all people's interest. Yet we allow one party complete control over sweeping government, economic and other reforms, including record mind-boggling debt that ALL Americans will have to pay for, not just the Democrats who are creating that debt.

We (arrogantly?) held our own constitution and republic-based principles up to the Iraqis as the standard. Not only do our current actions show us for the hypocrites we are but it shows in dramatic fashion how far we've strayed from our own republic-based principles as contained in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

This is wrong, simply wrong! How can any American citizen stand for this? What's going on in our own legislative and executive branches is unconscionable, demonstrably unconstitutional and definitely not consistent with the principles of a republic that our founding fathers intended nor that they in fact created vis a vis the constitution and other documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

I, for one, am outraged! I fear great harm can come to our country running it this way.

Congress and President: How Can This Be Called Representing The People and The Constitution?

Why don't they get it? We The People Want AND The Country NEEDS:

1. NO EARMARKS in any bill at least until one year after the economy recovers.
2. REDUCED GOVERNMENT SPENDING ... across the board so that income exceeds outgo for at least one year.
3. REDUCED TAXES to prime the economic pump where most jobs are created most effectively ... in small to medium size companies.

Why can't government do what all citizens are having to do right now ... reduce our budget/spending? Why do they care more about political agendas than our economic stability? Why don't they understand that they work for us and do not have a right OR responsibility to tell us what to do?

This is supposed to be a representative form of government. That means:

1. They have a constitutional responsibility/duty to find out what We The People want them to do then do that.
2. They have a constitutional responsibility/duty to ensure fair participation of all political parties represented by membership in the house and senate.
3. By way of #1 and #2 above, they are constitutionally prohibited from putting party, politics, agendas, etc ahead of either the will of the people, the welfare of our citizens or the best interests of our country.
4. By way of #1 and #2 above, they are constitutionally prohibited from locking minority parties out of fair and representative participation in the legislative process.
5. They're obliged to honor their oath of office by which they swear(!) to serve the people and the constitution. The constitution and people do not serve their desires, period!

The principles at the heart of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution aren't complicated and neither is their oath of office. So what's going on here?

Bailing Out Companies In This Much Trouble In This Kind Of Economy Is A Fool's Errand

As many of us conservatives have been saying since September, trying to bail out companies in that much trouble, especially when the economy is in this much trouble, is a fool's errand. We said then and we say now that throwing money at the problem does three (BAD) things:

1. It creates only an illusion of helping solve the problem. Makes one feel like he's 'doing something'. Of course 'something' must be done. While it's unattractive in the absolute sense and is certainly painful, a structured bankruptcy has to be considered more seriously.
2. It creates the false hope that severe economic pain can be avoided. There are elements of our society that are highly invested in avoiding pain, no matter the cost and no matter how much a waste of time, energy and resources it is. Pain is unavoidable. But pain is good because it helps us be more effective and resolute in preventing it the next time the same circumstances start materializing that caused the pain before.
3. Turning off the money spigot is extremely difficult when the companies come crawling back for more. And they will because the spigot and, perhaps, the reservoir itself aren't big enough. The bucket we're pouring that money into has at least a couple of holes in the bottom. One is the product and how it's been managed in a way that helped create the problem. Another hole is the bad economy. Another way to look at it is we're throwing money at the symptoms while the root problems go unresolved for the most part. We're treating symptoms (money is a nice bandage) while the disease (holes in the bucket) continues killing the patient.

Businesses can't and don't survive using this kind of model (throwing mind-boggling amounts of money at a problem) but federal bureaucrats in government don't have to concern themselves with keeping the bottom line healthy. After all, they can just print more money!

When companies start developing a new product they start by committing significant money to the project. What managers of successful companies know is that it's better to kill the project when the money being spent no longer appears to be capable of producing a desired result. What they know is that the money spent so far is sunk cost and should have NO bearing on a decision whether to continue funding the project. They look at the options ahead of them and do a cost/benefit analysis of each. What's been spent is spent. They can't do anything about that now. Often, heading off down a different path than they started down is the best option for the FUTURE of the company. They can walk away from something that turned out to be a bad decision and feel good about it because it's the right thing to do now. They're more interested in the survival of the company and don't live in denial like people with political agendas do.

There's even an old saying about pouring even more money into something that's not working out: throwing good money after bad. Stopping an effort when it begins to look fruitless is also called cutting your losses. Sure, it hurts to have spent all that money and get nothing for it. But pursuing the folly hurts more! You can't avoid pain at that point but you get to choose which pain you're willing to suffer. The folly of keeping up a hopeless effort and the huge price one pays for doing that are key lessons learned in Business 101 ... by those who paid attention.

I Enjoy Windows OS Updates Almost As Much As A Tooth Extraction

Installing the SP2 update to XP was such torture. It took three attempts trying different approaches to disabling stuff and removing some old 3rd party software. The SP3 update isn't going any better even though I'm doing everything Microsoft's website recommends for preparing my computer for that update. After two failed SP3 update attempts I'm giving up. After many, many hours wasted on these two updates I'm inclined to just leave it at the SP2 level and not voluntarily undergo this torture again.

There It Goes Right Down The Crapper!

Hear that sound? It's our economy AND and the Constitution's two-party representative principles being flushed right down the toilet.