I attended the first annual Legislative Policy Summit last week and thought Utah Policy readers who could not attend may be interested in some of the dominant themes and takeaways. Here’s a quick recap with some commentary.

The audience was packed with Utah thought leaders, including elected officials, CEOs, professors and other working professionals. Hosts Zions Bank and The Exoro Group treated attendees to a smorgasbord of heady public policy issues and data. The morning started in a fog that cleared by mid-day, providing a suitable metaphor for the clarity that came as we all listened and learned.

The overall theme was how to reconcile falling tax revenues with increasing demand for government services. I left with a better understanding of the issues and a greater appreciation for those in public service.

Utah Foundation Executive Director and seasoned public policy analyst Steve Kroes revealed the most shocking data of the Summit. Utah’s commitment to education as a percent of our economy has dropped from a ranking of seventh among states in 1995 to 34^th among states today. What used to be a bragging right in terms of our commitment to our future workforce is now a black eye for us. I have heard a lot of depressing news over the past 18 months, but none so dangerous.

Jenny Robinson with the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Utah brought hope to the education question by sharing the most recent survey data on Utah tax and expenditure policies. The poll showed overwhelming support for education – a harbinger for the future? The poll also showed significant support for a tobacco tax increase.

Sen. Stephenson, who as a legislator and leader of the Utah Taxpayer Association has championed a lower tax burden his entire career, made clear that the reduction of the sales tax on food was a mistake and that there are better ways to provide targeted help to low income Utahns. Rich Kendell, a business and education leader, was more blunt. He called the reduction “stupid.” Legislative Analyst Phil Dean, who gave a presentation on Utah’s tax system, made it clear that the reduction of sales tax on food has increased volatility in our tax system. It caused me to pause and ask the question: Could revenue volatility be more harmful to low-income Utahns than the reduction in food tax is beneficial?

The governor repeated his decision to not raise taxes saying that it would cast a “wet blanket” on top of the spark of recovery. I agree. A general tax increase is nothing more than a transfer of money from private hands to public purposes. What’s better for the economy right now? I’m with those who argue that at a time of the largest employment contraction in more than seven decades, when upwards of 90,000 Utahns are out of work, and when businesses are closing or just hanging on, it’s best to leave the money in the private sector. Better days are ahead and a general tax increase for education would be better after the economy recovers.

The revered Washington Post columnist David Broder opened the day with a message that I think was a great closer for the day. He summarized the intensely partisan atmosphere in Washington, D.C. He said that what is most important – solving problems – becomes secondary as our elected leaders make primary their self interest and partisanship. It’s a state of governance that isn’t worthy of the moment and a good lesson for us all.

Today the Obama Administration is hosting 50 top private business leaders at the White House Forum on Modernizing Government. It starts at 11:45 a.m. Utah time, and the proceedings will be streamed live at www.whitehouse.gov/live. Pres. Obama will provide opening remarks.

The forum will focus on using technology to streamline government operations, transform customer service, and manage technology return on investment.

Which is all well and good. We all certainly want modern, efficient government.

But the government modernization steps that would really pay off the most would be decentralization, devolution and fiscal discipline. The federal government should operate like modern successful businesses whose management structures are flat, decision-making is pushed down to appropriate levels, and spending matches income.

Today, the federal government operates like an old-fashioned mainframe computer, with all the power at the center, pushing one-size-fits-all mandates down to states and localities, without regard for local conditions. This out-of-date management model stifles innovation and creativity. Most states, for example, are not developing innovative solutions to the health care crisis because they know anything they do will likely be rendered irrelevant by federal reform mandates.

With decentralization, states could operate like intelligent, powewrful, networked PCs on the Internet, collaborating, learning "best practices," and creating true innovations in government operations. Such creativity and energy will never be spawned by the top-down, mainframe approach of Washington. Decentralization hould really be the focus of a government modernization program.

We need balanced federalism in this country not for partisan or ideological reasons, but because it's by far the best governance model in the Knowledge Age.    

It is with great interest and amusement that I have followed a Boston Globe article written in December by guest columnist, Kara Miller. Miller teaches at Babson College in Wellesley, MA. She has also taught at Tufts and served as an application-reader for Yale’s admissions office. Her article was brought to my attention through my good friend, Dave Saba's blog, Edbiz. So why exactly did it catch my attention? I found the article in and of itself very intriguing, but it was the response to the author's comments that amused me the most. Read on and see whether or not you agree with her remarks. 

Miller set off a firestorm with her words. In an article titled "My Lazy American Students" (a title chosen by the publication's editors), she dared to question the work ethic of American college students stating, "Teaching in college, especially one with a large international student population, has given me a stark - and unwelcome - illustration of how Americans’ work ethic often pales in comparison with their peers from overseas. My “C,’’ “D,’’ and “F’’ students this semester are almost exclusively American, while my students from India, China, and Latin America have - despite language barriers - generally written solid papers, excelled on exams, and become valuable class participants." Speaking of her international students she said, "But their respect for professors - and for knowledge itself - is palpable. The students listen intently to everything I say, whether in class or during office hours, and try to engage in the conversation. Too many 18-year-old Americans, meanwhile, text one another under their desks (certain they are sly enough to go unnoticed), check e-mail, decline to take notes, and appear tired and disengaged."

Is she right? Well she is correct about American children being outperformed by their international peers. International test results tell us they are. To make her point Miller shared some of these facts in her article. "Too many American students simply lack the basics. In 2002, a National Geographic-Roper survey found that most 18- to 24-year-olds could not find Afghanistan, Iraq, or Japan on a map, ranking them behind counterparts in Sweden, Great Britain, Canada, Italy, Japan, France, and Germany. And in 2007 the American Institutes for Research reported that eighth graders in even our best-performing states - like Massachusetts - scored below peers in Singapore, South Korea, and Japan, while students in our worst-performing states - like Mississippi - were on par with eighth graders in Slovakia, Romania, and Russia." (You can find comparison scores on international tests at utaheducationfacts.com.)

She then stated what is really the focus of her article, "We’ve got a knowledge gap, spurred by a work-ethic gap." "Success is all about time management, and in a globalizing economy, Americans’ inability to stay focused and work hard could prove to be a serious problem. Nowhere, sadly, is this clearer than in the classroom."

My friend Dave Saba agrees with her as well. He offered this assessment in his blog, "The most pampered generation is not used to being told to work and work hard. They are used to receiving trophies for showing up. So college is becoming more of a shock to these students."

But apparently the outrage to her assessment was just as strong as the support. Within a couple days, “My Lazy American Students” was the most e-mailed article on the Globe’s website. By late Monday, it was the most e-mailed article in the last 30 days, even though it had been online for less that 48 hours. Hundreds of comments piled up on Boston.com; on Wednesday, there were nearly 500 and the numbers continued to climb.

In response to the many comments she wrote a follow-up column "Lazy American Students: After the Deluge". In it she made some clarifications saying, "I wrote about how teaching in college has shown me that international students often work harder than their American counterparts. Though this is emphatically not true across the board, the work ethic and success of Asian, European, and South American students – who have to compete with a classroom of native English speakers – can be astounding." But she held fast to her original assessment - "There are, though, the facts. Studies show that American students know less about math, science, and geography than peers in many other industrialized countries. By rejecting criticism, we are doing a disservice to our students. It is not anti-American to point out flaws in our educational system; it is both patriotic and necessary."

I think this article provides great food for thought. It inspires some reflection on our part. Why did so many readers reject the criticism and denounce her comments as horrible (putting it mildly), prejudiced, full of stereo-types, disgraceful? Today's students have to compete in a 21st century global economy. How are they going to fare? How will the future of America and its economy fare if they can't compete. Miller's article may provide some insight into answering those questions. College students are currently working side by side with international students, and the evidence indicating who is outperforming whom doesn't bode well for us; not if Miller's experience is prevalent in higher education. Burying our heads in the sand, like we do with so many blatant problems in our education system, will ultimately alter America's place as a "shining city upon a hill" to a secondary country with a dimming light. Kara Miller is right; acknowledging the flaws of our educational system is both "patriotic and necessary".   

Democrats in Washington are clearly on the defensive right now, providing Republicans a significant opportunity to make gains in Congress this election year. But Republicans are ascending not necessarily because citizens like their agenda and philosophy, but mostly because Democrats are self-destructing. It's not enough to just be the party of NO, as Peggy Noonan points out in this Wall Street Journal Essay:   

Republican political professionals in Washington assume a coming victory. They do not see that 2010 could be a catastrophic victory for them. If they seize back power without clear purpose, if they are not serious, if they do the lazy and cynical thing by just sitting back and letting the Democrats lose, three bad things will happen. They will contribute to the air of cynicism in which our citizens marinate. Their lack of seriousness will be discerned by the Republican base, whose enthusiasm and generosity will be blunted. And the Republicans themselves will be left unable to lead when their time comes, because operating cynically will allow the public to view them cynically, which will lessen the chance they will be able to do anything constructive. ...

Political professionals are pugilistic, and often see politics in terms of fight movies: "Rocky," "Raging Bull." They should be thinking now of a different one, of Tom Hanks at the end of "Saving Private Ryan." "Earn this," he said to the man whose life he'd helped save.

Earn this. Be worthy of it. Be serious.

Meanwhile, Republicans have a little matter of dealing with a civil war within their ranks, with a segment of the base attempting to cleanse the party of candidates and officials deemed not conservative enough. The civil war is playing out in Utah as Sen. Bob Bennett faces a fight for the GOP nomination. Another battle pitting Republican against Republican is in Florida, where moderate Gov. Charlie Crist is in a tough race for the U.S. Senate nomination against Marco Rubio, a more conservative contender. Here's an excerpt from a lengthy New York Times Magazine article: 

It is not uncommon for a party out of power to undergo an identity crisis and an internal bloodletting, and it is Crist’s bad luck that his race in 2010 fits the frame of a philosophical debate that has been fulminating in the Republican Party for several months. The race, and the national debate, pits the governing pragmatists against the ideological purists. The purists say that a Republican revival depends on hewing to conservative ideas, resisting compromise and generally taking a dim view of government. Tea Party rallies are filled with such purists, whose populist icons — Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News’s Glenn Beck — tend to be unburdened by the pressures of governing through a recession.

Not long ago, Jim DeMint, a Republican senator from South Carolina, summed up the purity side this way: “I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.” ...

Crist represents the governing pragmatist who was once seen as a winner who could reclaim the political center for Republicans. He was a popular governor with crossover appeal among Democrats and independents. For a time, Arnold Schwarzenegger fit this mold in California. So did, to a degree, Mitt Romney, when he was the governor of Massachusetts, and Mike Huckabee in Arkansas, though each worked to present himself as ideologically pure in his presidential run.

(Note: David Harmer is a former Utahn who ran for Congress in California last year.)

Already two months have passed since the election. Since then, I've been reflecting on why I ran, what we accomplished, and what lies ahead. May I share some of my thoughts with you?

When the vacancy occurred in California's 10th Congressional District, I understood the odds. The district boundaries had been drawn to dilute Republican voting strength, dividing my city, my county, and my school district. It worked: fewer than 29% of the district's registered voters were Republicans, and no Republican congressional candidate had gotten more than 35% of the vote.

But motivated by love for my family, our country, and the Constitution, and desiring to do my part to help preserve the freedoms that I perceived as under siege, I ventured to beat the odds.

I chose to run because I love freedom, and I'm alarmed by Congress's encroachments upon it. Freedom means that we enjoy the fruits of our own labors, with government entitled to only the minimal share necessary to fulfill its constitutional duties. Freedom means that we make wise choices and enjoy the rewards of success, or make foolish choices and suffer the consequences of failure -- but they're our choices.

Now federal policy is trying to prevent failure. But we can't suppress the freedom to fail without commensurate suppression of the freedom to succeed.

I am appalled by the bailouts begun under the Bush Administration and accelerated under its successor. In essence, the greatest failures in American industry stood arm in arm with the U.S. Treasury and said to the taxpayer: "We're going to make you a deal you can't refuse: heads we win, tails you lose. We're going to take imprudent risks, employ extravagant leverage, or mismanage our businesses into insolvency. So long as the risks pay off, we pocket the profits. When they blow up, you cover the losses."

The executives, shareholders, and bondholders who took imprudent risks should suffer the consequences. Instead, federal policy subsidizes them. When we subsidize irresponsibility and waste, we get more of them. When we penalize independence, integrity, industry, self-reliance, thrift, prudence, and discipline, we get less of them -- and less freedom.

A similar dynamic is at work in the pending health-care reform bill. Suffused with mandates, taxes, and penalties, it illustrates Mencken's dictum that the urge to save humanity almost always cloaks the urge to rule it.

Likewise, the so-called stimulus isn't stimulating anything but federal spending -- leading to record-shattering budget deficits and an unprecedented rise in the national debt, impeding economic recovery now and burdening generations to come.

I ran for Congress because I wanted to grow the economy, not the government. I wanted to balance the budget by controlling spending, not raising taxes. And I wanted to liberate small businesses from excessive taxation and regulation so they could once again prosper and create new jobs.

Most of all, I ran to be able to tell my children that when the opportunity arose, I did everything within my power to keep them free.

Michael Bassis is the President of Westminster College. He recently had a short essay published in the online version of Business Week entitled, Reining in College Costs - Higher-education costs are spiraling out of control, and quality leaves much to be desired. The surprising solution, argues a college president: online learning. In it he discusses the potential of online learning stating, "While almost every industry has made great strides over the last two decades in lowering its costs and increasing its productivity, our colleges and universities have not. The problem is that conventional wisdom in academia posits a direct relationship between cost and quality...There is another way to define quality that actually makes more sense. That entails thinking of quality in terms of outcomes rather than resources—focusing on student learning instead of the size of the endowment." He also provides insight into how Westminster College is adapting to the impending technology wave by sharing details about their new hybrid teaching model being developed. 

This article is a must read for all those who want a clear picture of what the future holds for education, both Higher Ed and K-12. Finally! In the world of education the technology train has left the station and there's no stopping it. Thank goodness, because with this technology comes one-on-one tutoring capabilities that have the potential to finally do what has eluded traditional methods of education for decades if not centuries; provide individualized, student-centered learning that focuses on outcomes for every student. No more one size fits all. An associate of mine who shares my enthusiasm and support for online learning sent the article to me asking for my input. The following is my assessment.

I agree wholeheartedly with what President Bassis has outlined regarding the future of online education. I agree with his assessment of quality and all of his key points. He hits the nail on the head when discussing the shift between a subject matter expert vs. the teachers role in the "learning paradigm". I, of course, feel that everything he is saying applies to K-12 as well. 

The argument for online learning will always win on it's merits, but much like vouchers those opposed will work to undermine it. The opposition comes from those more interested in protecting a system than serving the needs of students; an entrenched system with a great deal of money involved and incentives for those who reap the benefits to keep it the same. It's a very comfortable monopoly as it is currently structured. 

Education, both K-12 and Higher Ed, should always be first and foremost about student outcomes. We have a difficult battle fighting the entrenched interests. However, I believe with every fiber of my being that technology's time in education has come and cannot be stopped. It will happen just as Clayton Christensen describes in his book Disrupting Class as a "disruptive innovation". It will circumvent the keepers of the status quo much like Terry Moe & John Chubbs describe in Liberating Learning. As aptly explained by Christensen, "They then move relentlessly upmarket, becoming progressively more capable of doing sophisticated things, until they completely displace the companies that formerly had dominated their industries." I am witnessing this progressive sophistication firsthand as Board Chair of the Open High School of Utah, an online public Charter school. It is remarkable to watch this nimble school both adapt and accelerate in it's abilities to deliver a tailored education to the students. 

Virtual learning no longer looks like textbooks online. It is becoming as sophisticated as the technology industry itself. It has, in fact, sparked an entire new industry creating innovative products and solutions that are making online learning even more engaging and dynamic than what can be found in a bricks and mortar environment. It's free-market capitalism at it's finest. You know, that maverick principle and value that made America great, the principle lacking in the current education model. The technology medium itself is more familiar and comfortable to today's student than ever before. It is indeed their comfort zone. It's how they communicate and interact with one another. It's a natural fit for them to utilize technology to learn. It challenges them and provides them with individualized attention to meet their unique learner needs.

This statement in President Bassis article truly defines one of the most exciting potentials of online learning, "Ultimately, it is not the technology but the new practices that the technology enables which will revolutionize learning. These new practices entail a shift in attention away from what is taught (the "teaching" paradigm) to what and how a student learns (the "learning" paradigm)." Subsequently followed by this, "So instead of working only to master the subject matter of a course, students are developing the skills to learn on their own. They no longer wait to be taught -  they come to realize that, if they are to succeed, they must take a good deal of responsibility for their own learning." Brilliant!

It will still take time to change the way online education is perceived. He is correct in his assessment about letting go of certain pieces of the traditional model. The socialization aspect is misunderstood by those who revere the delivery of such things as sports, activities and daily face to face interaction within traditional schools as a priority equal to subject mastery and student outcomes. Ultimately once the employers start seeking the online learners to fill their positions because they possess the skills they are seeking, that is when the traditional providers will realize it's sink or swim. That and obviously the fact that more and more of their customers will leave them to choose an online option.

I am a passionate supporter of online education, so it comes as no surprise that my passion is elevated by an article such as this. I love to discover another comrade! I encourage you to read it and become more educated about "the potential of online learning". 

The Tribune did a nice story over the last weekend about the Open High School of Utah, one of the truly innovative and promising education initiatives in the state. Read the Tribune story here: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14108595. Here is a short description provided by the Open High School: The Open High School of Utah is a public charter school designed to meet the needs of the 21st century student. As an online school, we combine state of the art curriculum with strategic one-on-one instruction. Indeed our methods could be described as "one-on-one tutoring for every student in every subject". Instruction is individualized allowing students to work at their pace. Our delivery of education is structured to provide maximum flexibility that is student-centered; responsive to the needs of each learner, eliminating the negative aspects of a one size fits all system. Our technology sets us apart. It is data-driven, providing real time information that instantaneously tracks the student and their performance. Unique to OHSU is our commitment to share the curriculum we have developed as an open educational resource useable by anyone at anytime. All of these elements combined make the Open High School of Utah the future of education. We are the face of innovation. Here is a link to a slide show, with audio, about the school: http://ohsu.ed.voicethread.com/share/733187. The same technology used for the slide show is also used regularly with the students.

What are the the big legislative battles facing the Obama administration in 2010?

Here's a list, displayed in a slide show, at Huffington Post.

With Congress and the administration continuing to centralize power at the national level, I'm seeing a renewed interest in balanced federalism.

The nation's founders clearly intended states to be co-equal players in the federal system and to resist federal encroachment on state sovereignty. Today, however, states have lost all their tools to push back against the federal government. Thus, Washington policymakers barely even consider the role of states and whether issues should be dealt with at the national level or state level.

States need a few tools to resist federal power so they once again become full players in the federal system. In an excellent Wall Street Journal column, two prominent Washington-based attorneys suggest that states be given the power to directly propose constitutional amendments. This would give states an important tool.

It is a proposal that has been around for many years. When I worked in the Leavitt administration in the early 1990s, we suggested it as part of the Conference of the States initiative.

A number of Utah leaders have expressed interest in advocating for a proper balance in the federal system. Some good work is already being done by Rep. Carl Wimmer and others. I'm helping put together a framework of what needs to be done and how it can be accomplished. We welcome suggestions by all interested parties. We'll provide regular updates through Utah Policy Daily.      

 

The U.S. Congress is held in very low esteem by a vast majority of Americans. Congress can’t control its spending; its members are concerned about re-election above all else; Congress is out-of-touch and is so partisan it spends most of its time in gridlock.

So why aren’t we hearing more calls for term limits? We need to resurrect the term-limit movement.

I am a big fan of congressional term limits if they are applied across the board. It would be foolish, however, for Utah to unilaterally impose term limits.

As long as power in Congress is amassed in its most senior members, Utah needs to play that game or be badly disadvantaged.

But term limits for all makes sense. Term limits would inject fresh blood; term limits would make members think about that’s good for the country, not just what’s good for their re-elections.

Term limits would dramatically improve Congress.