tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post6461855978640993820..comments2024-03-26T14:44:37.985-04:00Comments on D-Ed Reckoning: help deskKDeRosahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-33731627161310815232007-01-01T12:22:00.000-05:002007-01-01T12:22:00.000-05:00I should add that I don't blame parents for not kn...I should add that I don't blame parents for not knowing the definition of "cost" according to economists. I didn't know it myself until yesterday. (If <a href="http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/cost">this website is wrong</a> I don't know it today, either.) <br /><br />However, I do blame our superintendent. If she does not herself understand that all spending involves trade-offs, she needs to recruit people who do and take their advice.<br /><br /><I><B>Cost</B><br />In the widest sense, the measure of the value of what has to be given up in order to achieve a particular objective.<br /></I>Catherine Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-88425271089463422802007-01-01T12:13:00.000-05:002007-01-01T12:13:00.000-05:00rightwingprof
wow
rings a bell<B>rightwingprof</B> <br /><br />wow<br /><br />rings a bellCatherine Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-8700825501843601102006-12-31T09:41:00.000-05:002006-12-31T09:41:00.000-05:00Here's our central PA school board controversy:
h...Here's our central PA school board controversy:<br /><br />http://www.statehighvision.org/rightwingprofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12419372059353408855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-57637282365886939742006-12-30T16:06:00.000-05:002006-12-30T16:06:00.000-05:00just found what may be a useful Glossary of Politi...just found what may be a useful <a href="http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/trade-off">Glossary of Political Economy Terms</a>Catherine Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-5439779329304932332006-12-30T16:04:00.000-05:002006-12-30T16:04:00.000-05:00Here is a portion of a letter explaining trade-off...Here is a portion of a letter explaining trade-offs that appeared in the Enterprise:<br /><br /><I>....However, I cannot support the proposal. Too many questions remain unanswered and I am less than satisfied with some of the answers that have been provided.<br /><br />First and foremost is the question of budget trade-offs. The Board has persistently denied that passing the fields initiative would affect academic budgets. They state that funds for the Bond are entirely separate from annual budgets. Money for the fields would be in a separate “pot.” From that perspective, the academic budget, which comes from the annual budget, would be unaffected. <br /><br />This explanation is problematic because it addresses the budget question from the perspective of the School Board, not from the perspective of the taxpayer. Funds for the school, whether in the designated “pot” for the fields or in the annual budget “pot” come from the taxpayers. Most of us have finite incomes. If we spend more money for fields, we will have less money for the next tax increase that will undoubtedly be needed to cover academics: rising teacher salaries, health insurance, pensions and curricular improvements.<br /></I>Catherine Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-29942980926119695352006-12-30T16:02:00.000-05:002006-12-30T16:02:00.000-05:00There are many aggravating aspects of the situatio...There are many aggravating aspects of the situation, not the least of which is the principal taking a strong public stance in favor of one set of parents and against another.<br /><br />Now he and the superintendent have told a reporter that one set of parents understood the proposal while another set of parents did not.<br /><br />The whole situation is untenable. <br /><br />In so many ways.<br /><br />The one ray of light is that the Board did <I>not</I> elected to tell reporters that people who voted 'no' are uninformed.<br /><br />The Board president told the Enterprise reporter simply that "the voters have spoken."<br /><br />Perfect.Catherine Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-57259754074351938002006-12-30T15:57:00.000-05:002006-12-30T15:57:00.000-05:00Michael
The administration asked the community to...<B>Michael</B><br /><br />The administration asked the community to vote on a new $4.8 million dollar 15-year bond proposal to fund improvements to the two athletic fields at the high school.<br /><br />Improvements were to include artificial turf for the football field, stadium lights, new track, 4 tennis courts, and the reconfiguration of the football field to bring it closer in size to a regulation soccer field. <br /><br />The most vocal element of the 'no' vote was the "books or bats" contingent. ("Books or bats" was an anti-Bond slogan some parents came up with two years ago when the proposal had a price tag of $9 million.)<br /><br />The pro-academics voters wanted to know how an increase in spending on athletics would affect spending on academics. <br /><br />What would the trade-offs be?<br /><br />The administration's answer was that there were no trade-offs. <br /><br />It's against the law to spend bond money on teacher salaries or books; one can spend bond money only on capital improvements. <br /><br />Therefore spending on the fields would not affect spending on academics. <br /><br />The "Team Irvington" people also pushed this line, expressing irritation and even a touch of moral indignation that anyone would speak of "books or bats."<br /><br />"We can have both," these people said.<br /><br />Ironically, at the same moment the bond proposal was being put forward the PTSA launched a campaign to raise money to buy books for the school libraries.<br /><br />We don't have books in our libraries!<br /><br />(Apparently this year the administration actually removed several shelves from the high school library to make the missing books less obvious.) <br /><br />I had assumed that the administration <I>knew</I> there are always trade-offs in any spending, and was simply spinning the voters.<br /><br />However, the fact that the administration is <I>still</I> pushing this line in the wake of the bond's defeat makes me think they may not understand core principles of economics.Catherine Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-61170638846690134752006-12-30T15:40:00.000-05:002006-12-30T15:40:00.000-05:00wow!
Thanks so much - all of these are so useful....wow!<br /><br />Thanks so much - all of these are <I>so</I> useful.<br /><br /><B>Mark</B> - <I>fantastic</I><br /><br />btw, the examples Mark gives are completely legal (this came as a surprise to me)<br /><br />Last year Ed talked to the head of the main urban reform group in NYC; this is a group attempting to reform the public works system, which is based in "Authorities" (such as the Port Authority, which controls the World Trade Center buildings & grounds)<br /><br />The president told Ed that <I>the</I> book to read on local politics & the way things work is Robert Caro's autobiography of Robert Moses. Ed has now plowed through the entire thing, and I may give it a go.<br /><br />I'd say it's changed Ed's life. That may not be much of an exaggeration. He's always been intensely "pro-government"; now he's morphing into a small-l libertarian before my eyes.<br /><br />The Caro book explains the bond situation exactly as Mark explains it, though Caro added some other details, such as eternally "rolling over" bonds into new bonds so that nothing was ever paid off.<br /><br />It's legal to borrow money for a particular project and then spend that money on other things. In essence, bonds function as legal slush funds.<br /><br />That has happened here. <br /><br />We're now $55,000,000 in debt, this in a town of 6500 (school district maybe 13,000?) All of this debt has been racked up in the past few years. <br /><br />I believe it was the last bond issue that included a plan to build tennis courts.<br /><br />The courts were never built and now we have a million-dollar item in the new "Fields" bond that is to be spent on tennis courts.<br /><br /><B>Text</B> - Actually, I'm glad to have the terrorist example; I thought I had that article (or one like it) on my hard drive, but then didn't find it.<br /><br /><B>Michael</B> - sheesh - I wrote an over-long post & still didn't include the back story<br /><br />(I'll put it in a separate comment)Catherine Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03347093496361370174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-92156529108136558882006-12-30T14:57:00.000-05:002006-12-30T14:57:00.000-05:00Opportunity costs can run deeper than "if I spend ...Opportunity costs can run deeper than "if I spend all my time playing soccer then I can't do my homework" or "if I spend all my money on food than I have no money left for the rent." Sometimes opportunity costs represent missed opportunity.<br /><br />For example, if I close the office today because I have no appointments on the books, I might miss a new walk-in client who will instead see someone else. Or, a true example from my college days: a professor needed a student assistant for an overseas research trip (the previous assistant having fallen suddenly ill days before they were to leave); but my friend couldn't go because he had no passport and couldn't get one in time. And last, perhaps relevant to your situation: if you don't have playing fields, then you can't have a top notch team as they will have noplace to practice, and you won't be able to host tournaments that will theoretically bring competitors and their families to spend money in your community. I realize this last one borders perilously on "if you build it they will come," a premise I do not beleive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-42640223029497475372006-12-30T08:47:00.000-05:002006-12-30T08:47:00.000-05:00"Money is fungible" means that if I put extra mone..."Money is fungible" means that if I put extra money in the grocery fund to buy steak, it frees up money that was already in that fund to buy cookies. "Opportunity cost" means that if I choose to eat the steak for dinner tonight, I am not able to eat chicken tonight, nor am I able to eat the steak tomorrow. These illustrations are off the top of my head with little coffee.<br /><br />It would be easier to have a telling example if I knew exactly what point you were trying to communicate (you talk around it, but never quite say it).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-58315397961371260602006-12-30T08:22:00.000-05:002006-12-30T08:22:00.000-05:00Re “money is fungible” I thought this was a good i...Re “money is fungible” I thought this was a good illustration. It comes from the WSJ and it is critical of court rulings on donating to terrorist organizations that sometimes engage in humanitarian activities.<br /><br />“The notion of distinguishing between funding a terror group's terrorist and nonterrorist activities is a fatuous one. Money is fungible; every dollar you give to the Osama bin Laden Day Care Center frees up a buck for al Qaeda to spend on its next massacre. The Ninth Circuit's ruling, if it stands, could make a mockery of efforts to stop the flow of money to terrorist groups.”<br /><br />http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004382<br /><br />Oops, on second thought this might not be such a good example considering the volatile situation In your town. (Yikes! The school is terrorizing our kids!) But I still think it’s a good example.<br /><br />Sorry!<br /><br />TexAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-66589657951821190582006-12-29T23:25:00.000-05:002006-12-29T23:25:00.000-05:00"Opportunity cost" is even easier. The basic idea..."Opportunity cost" is even easier. The basic idea behind opportunity cost is that you can't spend the same dollars twice.<br /><br />In this case, the idea would be that if the town is/was willing to spend $X on the schools, money spent on one thing for the schools (say, the band) is unavailable for other things (say, new constructivist math books).<br /><br />Opportunity costs sneak in when you aren't looking for them (unless you have learned to think like an economist). For example, spending time watching TV has an opportunity cost in that the time spent watching TV isn't spent doing something else. Even though it doesn't cost you any *money*, you are still spending *time*.<br /><br />-Mark RouloAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-35606351865595281732006-12-29T23:22:00.000-05:002006-12-29T23:22:00.000-05:00"Money being fungible" means that you can't tell o..."Money being fungible" means that you can't tell one dollar from another. As an example: you pay some taxes. On *which* items were your specific tax dollars spent (as opposed to everyone elses)? You can't tell, and the question is basically meaningless.<br /><br />In *practical* terms, it often means that bond measures for item "X" don't wind up finding item "X".<br /><br />As an example, consider a town currently spending $100M per year on its libraries out of the town's general funds. Townsfolk like libraries and will vote for bonds to pay for more books for the library. Townsfolk hate paying for parks (remember, this is just an example). The politicians running the town want to spend more money on parks. How can they do it?<br /><br />One way to do it is to ask the townsfolk to vote a bond to improve the parks, but this is a bad idea because the bond measure will fail.<br /><br />A better (sneakier) way to do this is to ask the townsfolk to vote a bond for the libraries. After it passes, they can then *reduce* the amount of money being spent on libraries from the general fund (say, down to $75M per year) and spend this money on parks. The money spent on libraries could still go up (say, because the library bond was for $50M/year), just not by as much as the bond measure would have caused on to expect (unless one is cynical, like me).<br /><br />-Mark RouloAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com