More Disney fun

Disney was truly great fun for all. Above, you can see Cinderella's Castle, which I still find breathtaking each time I see it. There are kids' things that are cool, kids' things that are fun, kids' things that are spectacular, and then there's Cinderella's Castle. The only drawback was that it was cold. And I don't mean cool, I mean cold. When we arrived for our character breakfast the first morning there, the rental car thermometer showed 42 degrees. Which would be a real downer if it hadn't been 40 degrees warmer than it was here in Michigan. Here is what the poor, mild-climate-loving Disney workers looked like that morning: All throughout the trip, there were fanciful things to see. I couldn't possibly show them all to you. Here was a waterfall shaped like a dinosaur: We saw a show about birds, a dance show about Beauty and the Beast, a dance show at Cinderella's Castle, at least a couple 3-D movies, and more. Here's a shot from the Festival of the Lion King: And, of course, there were the fireworks. Below is the grand finale of the fireworks over the castle. I had a lot of trouble getting decent fireworks pics, even with the fancy functions on my camera, because apparently a tripod is required. So, instead, I shot a shaky and grainy video: No trip to Disney would be complete without seeing every character possible, eh? Following are the girls with, yep, you guessed it, every character possible. And, mind you, this is only a sampling :)

To privatize or not privatize, that is the question

As many of you are aware, for at least two years now, the district has been examining whether or not to privatize our transportation department. This would mean laying off all our bus drivers, mechanics and their managers, selling our buses, and selling our bus maintenance facility. In lieu of having a district department that would provide this necessary service, we would contract with a private company that would provide the service for an annual fee. Overall, it appears that at least in the short term, some savings would be realized. Our Sup't, Dr. Hawkins, is in favor of privatization. He wrote an opinion piece in the Courier singing its praises (not available online). Though I fully support a thorough investigation into all aspects of running our district more efficiently, and I support looking into ways to save money that don't impact the educational programs we provide, and I support Dr. Hawkins in the good job he does, I disagree with him on this issue. I have been examining this issue myself for over two years. I have reviewed reams of material on the subject that range from pro-union / anti-privatization pieces, to conservative think-tank pieces by organizations such as the Mackinac Center. Having thoroughly analyzed the issue over a substantial period of time, I have become convinced that this is not a good option for us right now, and that the long-term risks of privatization far outweigh the guaranteed short-term benefits. Consequently, I am not likely to support privatization for our district at this time. While analyzing all this information, I tried to distill the issues into a something more manageable, articulating the reasons to privatize, as well as the reasons to not privatize. Here's the list I came up with: Continue reading . . . As many of you are aware, for at least two years now, the district has been examining whether or not to privatize our transportation department. This would mean laying off all our bus drivers, mechanics and their managers, selling our buses, and selling our bus maintenance facility. In lieu of having a district department that would provide this necessary service, we would contract with a private company that would provide the service for an annual fee. Overall, it appears that at least in the short term, some savings would be realized. Our Sup't, Dr. Hawkins, is in favor of privatization. He wrote an opinion piece in the Courier singing its praises (not available online). Though I fully support a thorough investigation into all aspects of running our district more efficiently, and I support looking into ways to save money that don't impact the educational programs we provide, and I support Dr. Hawkins in the good job he does, I disagree with him on this issue. I have been examining this issue myself for over two years. I have reviewed reams of material on the subject that range from pro-union / anti-privatization pieces, to conservative think-tank pieces by organizations such as the Mackinac Center. Having thoroughly analyzed the issue over a substantial period of time, I have become convinced that this is not a good option for us right now, and that the long-term risks of privatization far outweigh the guaranteed short-term benefits. Consequently, I am not likely to support privatization for our district at this time. While analyzing all this information, I tried to distill the issues into a something more manageable, articulating the reasons to privatize, as well as the reasons to not privatize. Here's the list I came up with: Reasons to not privatize: 1. Once this is done, it will be practically impossible to undo. If we sell our buses, sell our maintenance facility and fire our management and labor in the entire department, undoing the decision at a future date will cost us millions. Consequently, each BOE member should be aware that we are binding the hands of future BOEs potentially for decades to come. 2. Nobody has shown that the savings will be permanent. It is clear that we can save approximately $500,000 next year, however, it is unclear whether these savings will continue to indefinitely constitute $500K in structural savings. The presenters at the retreat mentioned that when labor markets tighten up, we could see increased labor costs that would assuredly be passed onto the district. It could very well be that in just a few years that these savings will diminish, possibly substantially, providing little more than a modest benefit to the district after we have completely and permanently liquidated the assets necessary to continue providing the service. 3. Private corporations have a primary duty to maximize the value to their shareholders -- their duty to our district is secondary. If at any time in the future it becomes unprofitable or too costly to run our bus service, the private company can refuse to renew the contract and leave us with no buses, no maintenance facility and no employees. This would put us in an unfavorable bargaining position with other potential contractors who will undoubtedly be experiencing the same market conditions at the time. 4. Private employees can strike. Our current bus drivers can't. If this company fails to conduct proper negotiations with any union that represents the new workers, we bear the brunt of their failures. 5. When we give up our control, we give up predictability. Fifteen years ago, nobody would have believed that numerous major airlines and several large auto parts manufacturers would end up in bankruptcy. If ten or fifteen years down the line our contractor ends up in an insolvency situation, we will be left without buses, without a facility, without a staff, and without recourse to recoup any losses we may incur. 6. In the context of a $50 Million budget, privatization does not save us much money. The savings constitute a mere 10% of our projected budget shortfall next year. Privatizing does not solve our budgetary problems to any substantial degree, either on a one-time basis or on a structural basis. We will be cutting programs whether we privatize or not, and 90% of those cuts will be due to other issues, not due to transportation costs. This paltry contribution to minimizing our projected shortfall does not warrant such a drastic and risky change in the way the district serves the community. 7. The state is responsible for the financial issues that are causing our budgetary problems -- not us. The primary financial benefit that is gleaned from privatization (retirement costs, etc.) results from a state-created problem and should be dealt with by the state. It is unfair to our community to eliminate core district jobs and services for short term gain merely because our statehouse refuses to deal with this problem. This represents a band-aid approach that, if the state comes through in the end, we won't be able to undo. 8. We cannot spend the $600K + that we will get for our buses right away. We have been advised that we should keep that money in escrow in case we want to "undo" the privatization scheme. If we are sufficiently worried about failure that we can't reap the benefits of doing it now, we have no business moving forward with what appears to be little more than a risky experiment. 9. We don't get the benefits of all the savings. The savings we reap represents only a portion of the money saved. Some of those savings represent a profit margin for the company. Consequently, a significant portion of the money saved will go into the pockets of a private company and its executives, not toward enhancing programs here or reducing our projected budget shortfall. 10. We have not been provided with detailed data (only verbal statements and ballpark projections) concerning regionalization / consolidation / cooperation of this service. Governor Granholm is clearly moving in the direction of regionalization, and I would like to see hard data on what could be saved by combining operations between Willow Run, Ypsi and Lincoln. We can always evaluate what happens in this area and re-consider privatization next year. 11. We have not taken care to explore a number of other ways of saving money in the transportation department, such as increasing the distance from schools for which we will offer service and/or examining options with organizations such as AATA. If we are not doing a good job in this area, we need to work on doing a better job before giving it up to a private company. 12. Most of these savings will be at the direct expense of the drivers. For example, they will lose some or all of their state retirement benefits, and they will be offered an inferior health care plan. They will lose their union protections or have to re-negotiate them all over again. I recall when we discussed closing schools that we all bought into the concept that everyone must bear the brunt of cuts. In this instance, we are placing this burden disproportionately on the backs of our transportation workers. 13. Relations with our other unions will suffer. Union support for our current educational leadership will erode, morale will diminish, and all our other employees will begin wondering if they are next in line for privatization. We will not be able to count on support and cooperation with all the other challenges we face this year and in the future if we seek to divide our community in this way. The actual cost of failing to maintian a positive relationship is intangible and hard to put a value on. 14. We are taking this company at its word without a basis for doing so. The only knowledge the BOE has of this company and it's employees is that we met two representatives one time in a public forum. We don't have an established relationship with them, we don't know what it's like to work with them, and we are taking their word for a great number of things that are of great importance to our district. 15. The company we are considering has little to no track record in Michigan. The only place in Michigan this company has provided services was a small portion of Detroit, and their contract was not renewed. 16. We cannot afford another transportation breakdown. Just over 3 years ago, our district suffered a debacle when administration switched over to a new computer-based route system with little or no time to test and ensure it would work. Our transportation system broke down and was front-page news. If we privatize and this transition does not go smoothly, the loss of a mere 66 students will entirely wipe out the savings we stand to glean from the change. Reasons to Privatize 1. Assured temporary structural savings of $500,000, at least for a year or two, perhaps longer, permitting us to eliminate about 10% of our predicted budget shortfall for next year and preserve some educational programs. 2. An additional $600K + when we feel comfortable accessing the bus money and using it, assuming the transition goes well and the contract works out. 3. Diminished responsibility for transportation due to delegation of duties to a private corporation. So, in the end my analysis concludes that there are a lot of reasons to not privatize, and only a few to move forward. The reasons not to involve, to a large extent, unknowns and risks that are difficult to quantify, but that can be disastrous to our district if they are realized. The reasons to privatize are largely mitigated by their temporary nature. If there are things that I've missed, I'd appreciate having them pointed out in comments. We will be taking a "straw vote" to see if we should continue to expend time and resources on investigating privatization at Monday night's meeting. At this point, I think we should stop spending time on this and focus on what cuts will least impact our ability to provide a quality education. UPDATE: At the meeting, the BOE decided that privatization will be shelved for now. The interest isn't there, and the unknowns appear to outweigh the potential benefits. To hear the discussion, check out Sam's blog, where he will have the audio up in the coming days.

It was a six-day fun marathon . . .

The girls and I spent the long holiday weekend at Disney, visiting Orlando, Florida, where my parents are renting a place. My sister's family also visited, and they shared the marathon of fun with us! We went to all four theme parks: the Magic Kingdom, Disney - MGM Studios, Disney's Animal Kingdom, and Epcot. The picture, taken at the airport as we waited for our luggage last evening, sums it up well:

Ways you can help the victims of the fire

Mark Maynard has a good list of ways you can help the victims of the Paradise Manor fire. If you are so inclined, please take a look at it right now, and do what you can to help out.

Heritage Newpapers embarrasses the Ypsilanti Courier yet again

So, who's the nitwit (apparently in New Jersey) that writes the stupid, right-wingnut, unprincipled and unsubstantiated editorials for the Courier anyway? (Be careful about clicking on the link, as the Courier now has totally annoying audio ads that automatically play when you view their web page.) This week, Heritage Newspapers graced the editorial page of the Courier with a right wingnut piece blaming the closing of Pfizer here in Ann Arbor on the filing of "frivolous lawsuits." Of course, there was no mention to be found of the fact that Pfizer can't be sued for drug liability in Michigan, as we have the strongest "tort reform" in the country. There was also no mention of the fact that Pfizer is closing much of its Michigan operations due to its own poor business planning (i.e. failing to come up with new drugs to replace the ones for which it is losing its patents). There was also no mention of the fact that Pfizer had been offered up to $84 Million in tax and other incentives to stay here in Michigan. Oh, and I almost forgot that, not being able to find a good example of a "frivolous lawsuit" against Pfizer that "caused" it to close here in Ann Arbor, the example cited in the editorial was of a lawsuit in California that was filed the same day as Pfizer's announcement of its closings. Which, of course, means that the lawsuit cited in the article didn't have thing one to do with the decision to lay off employees and close down operations. I don't know who is writing the editorials for Heritage or who is deciding to put them in our newspaper, but he/she is clearly one of the dimmer bulbs on the tree. I guess it's time to cancel the subscription.

Ypsilanti Burning

The apartment complex on Michigan, down where 1st ends was ablaze this afternoon. As I returned to Ypsi from taking a deposition in Dearborn, I noticed a large cloud of smoke as I passed Belleville. I didn't become concerned until I arrived at the Huron Street exit, from where the cloud appeared much closer and much bigger. As I traveled down Harriet to 1st, I became extremely worried, as the cloud of smoke appeared to be coming from the vicinity of where both of my daughters attend an after school program. Turns out the fire was nary two blocks away. I sure hope nobody was hurt. Regardless, these people will undoubtedly need some help to recover from this disaster. Whatever it takes, I hope the community will extend its generosity to help. You can definitely count me in. UPDATE: Video here (special thanks to Laura for the link). UPDATE: Forget about the video. As quick as it went up, it went down again. UPDATE: Tragically, it appears three children may have been killed. UPDATE: Five families have been displaced as well. The Red Cross is accepting donations.

If the playing field isn't even, can you call it "competition?"

U.S. Dept. of Education Secretary Spellings has made her recommendations for updating and retaining the so-called "No Child Left Behind" Act. Along with her changes, she ought to consider renaming it, "No Private School Left Behind Act," or, "Let's Just Close the Public Schools Act." One of the key recommendations is -- yep, you guessed it -- vouchers. Vouchers are the silver bullets that Republicans have been pushing for years to fully and finally, once and for all, kill public education. When they show up here in Michigan, the end will be near. Vouchers promise "competition" and purport to provide "choices for children trapped in failing schools." The trouble is, however, it's not the kind of competition you think it is. Competition implies an even playing field, with everybody equally bound by the rules. The "competition" vouchers promise is a completely different kind, the kind that aims to use economic disadvantage to roll back the progress made by Brown vs. Board of Education. Fear not -- I have a solution -- a solution that is actually likely to work. But I doubt it will get anywhere, since it involves the application of common sense and equity to the problem. Continue reading . . . U.S. Dept. of Education Secretary Spellings has made her recommendations for updating and retaining the so-called "No Child Left Behind" Act. Along with her changes, she ought to consider renaming it, "No Private School Left Behind Act," or, "Let's Just Close the Public Schools Act." One of the key recommendations is -- yep, you guessed it -- vouchers. Vouchers are the silver bullets that Republicans have been pushing for years to fully and finally, once and for all, kill public education. When they show up here in Michigan, the end will be near. Vouchers promise "competition" and purport to provide "choices for children trapped in failing schools." The trouble is, however, it's not the kind of competition you think it is. Competition implies an even playing field, with everybody equally bound by the rules. The "competition" vouchers promise is a completely different kind, the kind that aims to use economic disadvantage to roll back the progress made by Brown vs. Board of Education. Fear not -- I have a solution -- a solution that is actually likely to work. But I doubt it will get anywhere, since it involves the application of common sense and equity to the problem. First, let's do an experiment. Let's take a look at a district that performs well and that has a high percentage of students that go to college -- say, Bloomfield Hills. Let's look at how much they spend on a per student basis for instruction. Next, let's look at Ypsilanti, which sends a fair number of kids to college, but fewer by percentage than Bloomfield Hills. Let's look at what we spend for instruction of students and compare that with Bloomfield Hills. You may (or may not) be surprised to find out that Bloomfield Hills spends over 50% more than Ypsilanti on instruction. This is in no small part because Bloomfield Hills is given over 50% more per student by the State of Michigan than Ypsilanti is. Oh, and I forgot to mention that by federal standards, over 50% of Ypsi students are "economically disadvantaged" yet only 4% of Bloomfield Hills students are "economically disadvantaged." Out of curiosity, if you had to guess whether economically disadvantaged students were more or less expensive to educate than students who are not economically disadvantaged, who would you pick? It is at this point in the discussion that I would like to pause to sarcastically and cynically issue a less-than-heartfelt "thank you" to Proposal A for making this inequitable funding structure a provision in our state's constitution, making inequity the chosen, voted-upon educational policy of Michigan. But I digress. Next, to continue on with our experiment, let's switch the funding between the two districts. For the next four years, give Bloomfield Hills what we get, and give us what they get. What do you think would happen? Obviously, the initial problem would be that the Bloomfield Hills district would lapse into receivership, as they would have no experience in educating students with grossly inadequate funding. As families took their students out of the school district and put them either in neighboring districts, charter schools or private schools, the district would be bound to fail. Next, layoffs would ensue, schools would close -- you get the idea. The second thing that would happen is that property values in Ypsi would skyrocket once people realized that not only did we have the experience to do a lot with a little, but that we were about to get a lot on top of that. Having the privilege of spending more than our neighboring districts, students would bolt the adjacent districts that we "compete" with, enrollment would increase, and we'd have to open up the schools we mothballed a year-and-a-half ago. But of course, we don't really need to conduct the experiment. It's obvious that funding is correlated with performance, despite the unsubstantiated opinions of the wingnuts who irrationally despise unions and seem to think we can run schools on a song and a prayer. This is precisely why vouchers and "competition" can't and won't work given our current political and legal landscape. Districts with more political clout start out with more resources, and those with less political clout start out with fewer resources. Under these circumstances, those with the economic ability to live in districts with resources will, and those without such ability won't. So, the "competition" that you hear about ubiquitously in the NCLB model isn't really competition between schools. It's competition between rich or upper middle-class people and people who aren't rich or upper-middle class. And it's not competition between schools, because competition implies an even playing field. It's competition between communities, with those with higher funding bound to excel, and those with lower funding bound to accomplish what they can with what they have. So, to the extent that Spellings wants you to believe that kids are "trapped in failing schools," the reality is that they are trapped in underfunded and under-resourced schools. And they are trapped there because the government has made a decision to underfund and under-resource some schools and not others. The solution? There's only one way to solve this problem, and those in the know are fully aware of it. They just don't have the political clout to make it happen. Either you allocate resources where the need is greatest (the opposite of what Michigan is doing), or, at the very least, you give everybody exactly the same amount. In other words, we need to start everybody at the same starting line. Only then can we actually measure who got to the finish line first, as in a real "competition." We need to return equity to the process of funding our public schools. Our children deserve no less from us, and certainly no less from our elected officials. When a healthy dose of common sense is infused into the analysis, can there be any real doubt why Michigan's model for funding public schools isn't working?

I didn't really expect him to take my advice . . .

Today, a Bush Administration official did the right thing. I'm not really sure what to make of it. I never really thought he'd actually take my advice, but I'm glad he did.

Mesa Boogie Stiletto Ace

Just a few weeks ago, I got one of these as a special Christmas present to myself. I've gotta tell ya'll -- it rocks . . . 2 channels, one primarily clean and crunch; the second mainly high-gain, fluid drive tones, both channels with a choice of either tube or diode rectification. All with EL-34 power tubes and 12AX7 pre-amp tubes. It has an all tube FX loop, with footswitching between channels and a solo function to boost output, and a closed-back cabinet. The touch sensitive dynamics are amazing, particulary with higher signal pickups, as are the abundant harmonics that the high-gain stages exude. The sounds that spill from this tasty tone machine make it the best amp I've ever played through. So, who wants to jam?