Blowing smoke to obscure the nonsmoking argument

(This one’s for my SaveShreveport readers. Mayor Keith Hightower needs to start worrying about it, because their linking of one of my columns on its front page drove hundreds of referrals to this blog yesterday, setting a new [well, how old can it be, since this is only about 3 months old] record for daily hits. Its daily traffic must be several times what referrals I got from it.)

Earlier this week the Shreveport City Council postponed District E’s Jeff Hogan’s proposed ordinance that would have outlawed smoking in practically every public venue save those licensed for liquor. (By the way, since Gov. Kathleen Blanco has proposed hiking cigarette taxes, does this mean Hogan and the ordinance’s supporters are being anti-Louisianan by trying to snuff out this potential source of revenue for the state? Just asking ….) It may well come back for a vote, and perhaps even in its same form, in a couple of weeks at the next Council session.

According to published reports, arguments against the ban ranged from the amusing to the uninformed. In the former category came District A Councilman Calvin Lester: “What level of government intrusion are we willing to make? At what point do we stop, or say we've gone too far?” Lester said. (Lester, of course, often has had issues with government intrusion, such as telling him where he has to park, and how he can raise money in his campaigns and lobby the state.)

Less comedic and even less knowledgeable were remarks by one Paige Ham:

"Smokers believe we are personally responsible for our own lives. Isn't that our choice?" she said. "Why does the council feel they are responsible for pushing their values upon the citizens of Shreveport? Smokers can be considerate and not smoke around people. It's OK the way it is. Turn on the news: Everything causes cancer."

Ham seems to have a limited view on exactly who suffers as a result of smoking. Thousands die every year from asthma attacks, one prominent trigger of which is cigarette smoke. With nearly 12 million Americans (1 in 25) suffering from an asthma attack yearly, chances are she’s blown smoke into the face of at least one of these people. And if she’s so confident that smokers will be considerate, the next time she sees a ventilator-dependent person (on or off the vent) come into a restaurant, I invite her to stand up and announce to the assembled smokers, “Hey, everybody, we have to put them out because otherwise this person may go into respiratory distress,” and see the reaction she would get.

Of course, the most ignorant part of her statement is the “pushing values” part. I guess she would agree that government shouldn’t “push” its “values” on the “citizens” when it enacts laws against murder, theft, assault, etc.? That's what the law is, a rendition of a set of values that the majority (in a representative democracy) believes to be the moral code by which life should be led, with government there to enforce it.

You don’t have to rely upon the spotty evidence that secondhand smoke causes cancer to justify banning smoking. Anywhere a breathing-compromised person (some in that condition because they smoked) could be expected to go as part of employment and any public institution (and especially any building containing any health-care providers) should be made smoke free (with the exception of those places indicated under state law). Arguing against this condones selfish behavior of those who would spread the costs of their lack of discipline to other, innocent people.

Amato quits long after Orleans Parish School District did

Orleans Parish School Superintendent Tony Amato dropped out to end a once-promising tenure to turn around the parish’s schools. “Promising,” because Amato had achieved great academic results at another declining urban school system, and because Amato himself had expressed such optimism when he took the job 26 months ago.

But one thing that Amato apparently had not understood was the problems in Orleans schools extend far beyond academic performance. Simply, he got overwhelmed by the financial and managerial aspects of the job at hand, which are part of the dysfunctional culture that has become inbred in the school system.

Some comparative statistics show just how miserable the Orleans system is:

On the state’s accountability tests in the areas of English, mathematics, science, and social studies, given in grades 4, 8, and 12, respectively, 23%, 22%, 29%, and 25% fewer Orleans students score in the top three categories (Advanced, Mastery, and Basic) than do students statewide, meaning that proportion more falls into the lowest two categories (Approaching Basic and Unsatisfactory) than do students statewide. (Spring, 2004)

On the Iowa Basic Test, in grades 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9, Orleans students’ percentile rankings are, respectively, 22%, 17%, 18%, 18% and 15% lower than the state average. (Spring, 2004)

In Orleans, 11% in high school drop out, compared to only 7% statewide. (2003-2004)

In terms of ranking schools, 8.6% of Orleans’ rank as five-, four-, or three-star schools compared to 23% statewide; 18% compared to 60.4% rank as two- or one-star schools, and 73.5% compared to 16.7% fall into the “academic warning” or “academically unacceptable” categories.(2003-2004)

In progress towards satisfactory school accountability, Orleans had 45.8% of its school show no progress compared to 35.1% in the state; 46.6% make incomplete progress compared to 41.7%, and only 7.6% met their growth progress compared to 23.2% statewide (and over three-quarters of Orleans high schools made no progress while none met their target). (Spring, 2003)

Such miserable performance occurs without any great lack of relative financial resources. Revenues per pupil are only $53 less than the statewide average (although expenditures per pupil are $335 less), and the average teacher salary there, at $37,133, is only $33 below the statewide average. (2003-2004)

In terms of Orleans’ fiscal impact on the state, with about 9.33% of the state’s students, it gets about 9.77% of state education dollars for public schools. It does differ significantly in proportion of federal dollars received, about 3 percent higher than the stat average. (2002-2003)

In student population terms, over the past five years Orleans enrollment has dropped a stunning 21% (while the state’s has declined 5%), while over the past three years Orleans’ population as a whole dropped 3.2%. This means the public school student population makes up only 14% of the parish’s total, whereas statewide it is 16% (although its number of employees has barely budged). (2003-04)

While over 97% of Orleans’ students are racial minorities, only about two-thirds of the parish residents are. But of the around 25,000 students in nonpublic schools (meaning 37 percent of all Orleans students are in nonpublic schools in the parish), almost half are racial minorities. The public school system here may well be the most segregated in America. (2002-2003)

Worse, the statewide figures given here include Orleans. The achievement gaps would be even larger if it were excluded from the state average.

We must also understand that the failure in Orleans has been system-wide in all phases. It’s not just been in education, but in the administration of education, reflective of a broken, irreparable culture whose impact damages the whole state. Even with a mostly-new school board to hire the new superintendent, it’s probably too late for any substantial change to come any time soon.

In fact, even though within a couple of years many of Orleans’ schools may be taken over by the state, perhaps even more drastic action should occur given failures are both academic and administrative. Maybe it’s time for the state simply to take over the entire school district. As badly run as Louisiana state government can be, the Orlaans Parish School District has shown it can be done worse.

Blanco wants to raise taxes without demanding much greater government efficiency

It’s official, Gov. Kathleen Blanco followed through with her election eve “no-no-new taxes pledge” by saying she’ll ask the Legislature to raise them $120 million. She’ll use the argument that they are acceptable because they’re “sin” taxes and for teacher’s raises, but even giving them this moniker and purpose doesn’t delete the underlying point that such raises may be unnecessary or are counterproductive without demanding more meaningful accountability out of teachers.

Republican legislators are moving closer to opposing these because they feel more efficiency can be wrung out of government before raising any taxes. Some points they should make to bolster this argument should begin with the fact that, by 2003, Louisiana was 43rd of the states and the District of Columbia in personal per capita income. Therefore, would it not be logical to expect that government spending to be in that neighborhood? Should not government spend what it can relative to the resources it can draw upon, its people’s economic activity?

Not according to the following statistics (from 2000):

In terms of overall per capita spending in government, Louisiana ranks 30th

Several things explain this higher level of spending that resources typically would bear, one being that it ranks 24th in government administration costs per capita

Another is its bloated retirement system (in desperate need of reform of which some may be on the way) which ranks the state 13th per capita

Finally, perhaps the worst offender is our misutilized health care system which ranks 4th among the states per capita (which the governor does seem to be getting a clue on)

And how is it that Louisiana government can live so high off the hog? Because it taxes its citizenry way above their relative ability to pay; the latest 2005 figures (are you reading this, Vic Stelly?) placing Louisiana 16th in state and local tax burden.

GOP lawmakers need to run with these figures and show they are the party of efficient government by using their numbers to block these tax increases and force Blanco to look for even greater efficiencies in government. If she’s done it for health care, why not elsewhere?

Lincoln Parish lake interests growing more desperate

Slowly but surely, the media seems to be catching up to the lake-building frenzy story. Perhaps that’s what’s prompting either second thoughts or covering activity by state Rep. Hollis Downs in his request for public opinion surveys about spending tens of millions of dollars to build a lake in Lincoln Parish. (This isn’t the only thing he’s doing to shore up lake support – he’s introduced HB 123 to create a government body with powers to start building the thing, joining state Sen. Robert Barham’s SB 47 that inflicts a similar fate onto Morehouse Parish.)

But it all seems very (please pardon the expression) fishy. While Downs and others, most notably freelance hit consultant Michael Thompson keep (again, my apologies) afloat this story that the lakes are needed for “economic development,” the main concern in this case would seem to be the lake providing a water supply for the dwindling Sparta Aquifer. In fact, there seems to be little evidence that much potable water could come from such a development, and now these policy-makers are accused of trying to promote the lake’s building using this faulty rationale.

Thus, the need for a public opinion survey to back up the policy-makers in light of growing criticism from the local and statewide (new) media. Their case would be stronger if they could produce objective, unbiased evidence that the public supported them on the basis of economic development.

But apparently their pollster isn’t on the same page as they. Louisiana Tech Associate Professor of Sociology Gary Stokley let slip that its purpose was to poll the public as well as “educate” them of the facts, those being that “[n]inety percent of this is for economic development, and not saving the Sparta. If we get that clear, that's really important," he said. Further,

Although he admitted there can sometimes be a fine line between "education and propaganda," he denied that the motivation for the survey is to promote the reservoir. He said some people will assume it is propaganda, but it is not the case when conducted by professionals.

Having been a research associate in a university polling operation and having conducted them myself, I can tell you one thing, that a “professional” never would have described the purpose of his polling as educating. Especially on this issue when he’s already been quoting saying “[w]e are using too much water, and if we don't do something we are going to be in trouble,” in reference to the Sparta Aquifer. And particularly because the survey is being paid for by proponents of the lake plan.

In short, there’s very little surface credibility to this survey from the start, even if performed in an unbiased way, given the politics surrounding this exercise. What Downs needs to do to have any hope of having anybody accept any results showing support of building a lake for economic development purposes is to release the question wordings of the instrument used and the raw data collected for independent analysis. Otherwise, we cannot be sure that it won’t be “propaganda” and yet another tool to serve special interests trying to rake off resources from the state's taxpayers.

Stop throwing money at teachers, start demanding they perform

So not only is Gov. Kathleen Blanco trying to find ways to give $1,000 raises to teachers (and others working for schools), she’s being told it’s not enough. "Throwing a few bucks at it has only gotten us to the problem we're in," says the president of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, the learned Steve Monaghan.

Oh, really? A review of some vital statistics is in order, ranking the state along with the other 49 plus the District of Columbia:

Louisiana rank on 4th grade reading scores: 48th (tied)
Louisiana rank on 8th grade reading scores: 47th (tied)
Louisiana rank on 4th grade mathematics scores: 47th
Louisiana rank on 8th grade mathematics scores: 47th (tied)
Louisiana rank on per-pupil spending for current operations of schools: 42nd
Louisiana rank on per-pupil spending for instruction in schools: 41st
Louisiana rank on per-teacher spending for salaries in schools: 46th

Seems to me there’s a little underperforming going on here expenditures relative to performance (and this with the new accountability programs in place). So before teachers’ unions go shooting off their mouths about how so much more money is needed, shouldn’t we expect to see some improvement in educational achievement by state students at least up to the same level at which it is financially supported, relatively speaking?

What the governor should do is make a deal. Tell the teachers’ unions that she will, in fact, boost every teacher’s pay at least $1,000 – in exchange for instituting a performance pay plan for teachers. It’s not like it’s a totally alien concept; several states already have them or are adopting them. Teachers should be tested to see that they actually know what they are talking about in the classroom.

It’s not pay increases that will really improve educational performance in this state, it’s making sure teachers are exerting themselves to perform at a higher level. Indirectly, school accountability as a whole does this, but a more direct approach will make education in this state even more efficient.

Of course, these very same teachers’ unions spiked this idea 15 years ago. No union ever educated a child; they’re there only to preserve teaching jobs and to transfer as much wealth from taxpayers to teachers as possible. And the only people who have to fear a system which rewards teachers for their mastery of what they teach are those who aren’t very competent in the first place.

Committee slaps Odom's hand; he still wants to keep it in your pocket

Well, I can’t always be fully right, like I was in yesterday’s post about the post previous to that. Guess I’ll settle for being half-right regarding what the Legislature’s Agriculture Committees would do concerning Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom’s attempt to become czar of gasoline prices and affect a neat transfer of wealth from consumers to certain sellers of retail gasoline.

I thought there was no chance either committee would vote to deny Odom rulemaking power he asserted over enforcing the ridiculous law that says retail gas must have at least a 6 percent markup. Believe it or not, the Senate version actually rebelled, and even Odom stalwart Chairman Mike Smith went against his patron (only Butch Gautreaux chose not to rescind). By contrast, the chairman of the House version Francis Thompson, who with his brother is all about boondoggles to help his allies at the taxpayers’ expense, said his gang would have voted for it (not surprising since this committee has almost all Democrats on it). Thompson’s son, of course, works for Odom (isn’t it great how the Thompson family all sticks together in trying to run this state into the ground?).

The way it works now Gov. Kathleen Blanco has the chance to allow this to stand by not choosing to override the committee vote no later than 14 days from yesterday. But Odom won’t give up, essentially telling the governor to do something anatomically impossible and he’s going to go running to Attorney General Charles Foti to get confirmed that he has the authority to do this. Even though Foti’s own subordinate testified at this hearing that Odom had exceeded his authority, so don’t expect that gambit to work.

Caddo schools paint stripes on a horse, call it a zebra

That was quick; as I wrote yesterday’s post, the Caddo Parish School Board revised its admissions policy (at least temporarily) for magnet schools. It did exactly the right thing for Middle Magnet – got rid race or anything else entirely for admissions after things like the sibling exception.

But it stumbled when it came to the magnet elementary schools. In order to maintain “diversity,” rather than go with the Middle Magnet standard (which it does for half of the applicants), now it is reserving half of the places for students that meet a minimum cutoff that historically has been well below the average white student score for successful applicants, who would ordinarily be attending a “high poverty” school.

I’d like to know what qualifies under the guidelines as a “high poverty” school, but it’s almost certain that most of these children are going to be black. Using reduced and free school lunch programs as a surrogate measure for poverty based upon qualifying students in a school for the school to receive Title I funding (because Title I status automatically qualifies for the lunch program), blacks (who comprise five-eighths of total enrollment) comprise about five-sixths of children in poverty in Caddo public schools.

Caddo Superintendent Ollie Tyler argues that the non-merit standard half would be split about half white and black. But that seems unlikely unless Tyler creates a very broad definition of what is a “high poverty” school. Let’s say she goes a somewhat below the Caddo average of around 58 percent in the free/reduced lunch program and puts it at 50 percent. Of schools that have at least 50 percent of their students in the program, only about a fifth of their students are white, meaning for Tyler’s math to work at this level four times the number of white students would have to qualify among white students than qualifying blacks among blacks.

Is it true that four-fifths of those hitting the minimum score among all of these schools are white? If not, then blacks will be disproportionately assisted by these rules and it still makes it a quota system – a diluted one, but still one designed to favor applicants of one race.

But let’s say Tyler is right about this. The new rules still discriminate, but now on the basis of income and geography, and thereby indirectly by race. The fact is, a white student from wealthier east Shreveport can score higher on the entrance exam than a black student from north Shreveport yet the latter will take the former’s spot in a magnet elementary school because the former goes to the wrong school where there aren’t enough poor students.

And how can an appeal to “diversity” justify this? Let’s say the percentage of “disadvantaged” children in a typical magnet elementary school goes from 10 to 20 percent as a result of this. Is this doubling from this base really going to “broaden” a non-disadvantaged student’s horizon beyond what it already was?

You can paint stripes on a horse and call it a zebra, which is what the Caddo schools have done in reference to their quota-based admissions policy to magnet elementary schools. Sounds like something that may have to be taken to court, unless the “permanent” rules that should come out in the near future correct this inequity.

Race rather than merit part of Caddo's education problems

Yesterday I gently rebuked John Hill. As an opinion writer, he draws upon a vast knowledge and makes logical arguments so I respect him even when we disagree. On the other hand, some opinion writers display rather an incomplete grasp of the issues about which they write but, worse, their argumentation is specious if not downright illogical.

That’s what we have here with Gregory Hudson’s lame attempt to criticize the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that forces a lower court to consider that a race-conscious admissions policy by Caddo Middle Magnet School, and thus any such policy for any school admission, is unconstitutional.

Let’s begin with this model of discombobulation:

While most people agree every child deserves the very best education possible, it shouldn't be achieved at the expense of another child. That I agree with. However, that is not truly the case. Just because a black child is admitted into one of the "desired" magnet programs, that doesn't mean a white child's place is being taken. I say "desired" programs because there have been career-related magnet programs established at Booker T. Washington, Green Oaks and Fair Park and there has been virtually no white interest.

This is convoluted, but it appears he’s trying to advance the argument that because not many whites take places in magnet programs at majority-black schools they somehow are voluntarily “forfeiting” their chances at a magnet program and therefore, even if higher scorers than blacks wanting admission into majority-white magnet programs/schools, they should be denied entrance to those program/schools in favor of the blacks.

If so, notice the lack of credibility in this by comparing to job-seeking in the private sector. Assume that there are two employers, but one is considered to offer a much more desirable job and workplace to prospective applicants. Just because the worse of the two offers a white applicant a job doesn’t mean this applicant automatically loses the opportunity to get a job with the better employer, assuming both are basing hiring criteria solely on merit and this applicant is assessed to be a high-quality candidate. If you are truly admitting by merit, his argument makes no sense.

But that’s because “merit” isn’t a part of Hudson’s plan:

Part of the problem with the public perception of this issue is that somehow black students who are enrolled at schools such as Caddo Middle Magnet, Eden Gardens, South Highlands and Caddo Magnet High do not deserve to be there …. Contrary to the accepted myth concerning affirmative action-type policies, black children are just as qualified to be admitted as any other student.

Notice how he tries to shift the argument towards “desert” and “qualification” rather than what the court sees as the constitutional imperative, merit. In his view, you get admitted because you meet some kind of minimum standard, not because you rank high enough relative to all other applicants. This is a standard trick of defenders of affirmative action in how it has evolved: redefine “merit” to mean it specifies an arbitrary level, and then if too many applicants are there for too few spots, use other criteria such a race to decide who gets in, rather than acknowledging the competitive aspect that the X most meritorious applicants take the X number of spots regardless of other factors.

Of course, the admissions policy in Caddo Parish to the magnet schools is more complicated than this, but also is more blatantly discriminatory by race. Before any decisions are made on the basis of merit, other non-merit factors shape the eligible pool. But once those are out of the way, the school district very openly creates a double standard where whites for admission are forced to get higher scores just because they’re white with no mitigating circumstances whatsoever to justify this. (And the Court ruled even if Caddo Middle Magnet’s policy still were under the consent decree, the discrimination was so blatant it still would have found it unconstitutional.)

None of this makes a difference to Hudson who in fact is bothered that anybody would see a problem with this at all:

Some people recklessly suggest that for every black child admitted to these schools, some deserving white child has to look elsewhere for education. That is not true, but that is part of the perception problem perpetuated by some.

Again, he tries to push forward this “desert” standard rather than the appropriate concept of merit. And while a turned-away applicant can go to another school, the simple fact is, on the basis of merit, this rejected white applicant had a greater moral claim on the slot but was refused it only because of his race. That is not perception nor reckless; that is fact and perceptive.

Trying to salvage the argument, Hudson presents a pair of pieces of evidence to show that, miraculously, no anti-white discrimination occurs by this admissions policy:

The school at the center of the court challenge is 82 percent white in a school district that is more than 60 percent black. Do those numbers really suggest discrimination against white applicants?

This is specious: if there were no double standard, the proportion might be 90 percent white. (The Court calculated a 10 percent bias in favor of nonwhites.) And,

Contrary to the accepted myth concerning affirmative action-type policies, black children are just as qualified to be admitted as any other student. If they or any other student can't cut the curriculum they will not pass.

Of all the illogic in this column, this may be the prime example (again note a third attempt to equate “qualify” to “merit”). The point of a merit-based, rank-ordered admissions program is to create the highest possible quality pool of students because then, in the aggregate, they have the best chance of passing the curriculum. It’s a waste of resources to admit less-capable students who therefore have a greater likelihood of flunking out and thereby perform a disservice to the rejected applicants who would have passed. It squanders the educational function’s full potential, deprives worthy students of the opportunity, and sets up unworthy students to fail where they would have succeeded if lesser demands were placed upon them. Rather than demonstrating the argument, it reveals the bankruptcy of it.

While Hudson’s Swiss cheese argument replicates received wisdom among the fuzzy-thinking, disingenuous defenders of policies such as the one in controversy, at least the justices of the Fifth Circuit saw clearly through that. And we wonder why Louisiana's educational system has ranked so dismally? With Caddo Parish 35th in Louisiana?

Minimal government means maximal protection of life

My friend John Hill is a bit upset at state Sen. James David Cain for his introduction of SB 40. I think he’s creating a tempest in a teapot.

Essentially, the bill makes the denial of food and water for those in a terminal and irreversible state medically unable to procure it themselves and to communicate impermissible aside from medical exceptions or the explicit wish of the person involved that no such sustenance be given when that person is in that condition. Or, as its text neatly describes:

It is the policy of the legislature that human life, including those individuals with disabilities, is sacred and should be afforded dignity from birth to natural death. When a person's condition is terminal and irreversible, any ambiguity should be interpreted to err on the side of life.

John argues that this bill exemplifies government meddling as part of “one of the new battle cries from some in the religious right” which “will be, in effect, injecting politics into the a patients' treatment rooms, which should be as private a sanctuary as one's own home.” But state government already does that – extensively, which this law tweaks.

If government is going to “inject politics,” a great place to do it is when the state as the power of life and death over an individual as in this case. And let us never forget that “politics” itself is what governments choose to do or not to do, so when government chooses to respect life in a world where it is so disrespected (with abortion on demand being the lead indicator), that can only be positive.

To make this intervention even more effective, government can promote efforts to execute living wills such as the one John describes. Already, at the federal level states are required to make available, in the provision of certain services, voter registration cards, so why couldn’t Louisiana also have available this form at these venues?

Minimal government always is preferable (which makes humorous, if not hypocritical, objections to this bill when far greater expansions of government into areas it has no constitutional authority occur with nary a peep) and it the true purpose of its existence. Thus when involved are the least of us who cannot speak for themselves, who have not stated a different intent previously, government’s obligation is to protect one of the things the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence identifies as integral to man and supremely obligating government to provide – life.

Odom reaches into your pocket; says he's putting money there

Can Agriculture Secretary Bob Odom make things any worse for himself? He’s wanting to take more tax dollars from Louisianans to build superfluous sugar mills while simultaneously injuring employees and increasing the state’s risk. Now, as if gas prices aren’t high enough, he’s looking to push them even higher.

While minimum markup laws sound good in theory by preventing monopsonistic forces from controlling a marketplace, this politically-inspired belief is way short on facts showing this actually happens. In reality, competition in retail gasoline (and practically every other business) is so open with low barriers to entry that the real impact of these laws is to aid those in the business, not consumers.

Which makes Odom’s support of such a law unsurprising. His political style is to operate in the shadows of the public view, in areas that are of vital concern to special interests but (normally) uninteresting or obscure to the public even if the activities have a direct impact on it. The building of sugar mills in Lacassine and Bunkie are perfect examples. Only a few sugar processors benefit from these deals directly, the state operates them a below market cost to put private mills into distress, and when competition has been reduced, ownership passes to the processors who are currently in league with Odom.