The Doctor Is In

Mar 25th, 2008 by Dave

In today’s News-Journal, some internet hack diagnoses the state government and writes a prescription.

Posted in Change, Election 2008 - Delaware, Me, Revolutionary Reform

24 Responses to “The Doctor Is In”

on 25 Mar 2008 at 8:25 am1noman

You have to rise up, look those people dead in the eye and say: not anymore.

John Edwards called - he wants his stump speech back.

Actually, I didn’t find much to disagree with in the article. I see you are no longer telling Delaware workers that the state is in trouble because their paychecks are too big. I see you have dropped your call for vouchers and shifting resources out of regular schools and into charter schools. I also didn’t see a call for tax cuts. I also didn’t see anything about cutting state services to fund the TTF.

Congratulations - I think you are coming around!
on 25 Mar 2008 at 8:34 am2Dave

I only had 700 words, and those five items would be Day One if I were Governor.

I don’t think I ever called for vouchers, but we’ll be talking plenty about charters in the very near future, and about Markell & Carney’s refusal to commit to them in light of their passionate lust for the DSEA’s approval.

Prevailing wage is a huge scam and a problem, but we already spent a month on that.

Tax cuts are coming next month.

We wouldn’t have to fund the TTF if the counties handled the roads.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 9:13 am3noman

Well, I’m pleased to hear the details are coming next month. Otherwise people might think you were pulling a “Mike Castle” and trying to conceal your hard-right policies by putting out moderate positions in the press.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 9:52 am4Perry Hood

Dave, I support the thrust of your well written article.

One concern I have is your idea to decentralize DelDOT. There must be a model in other states to which we can look that could guide us to the badly needed reform DelDOT requires. With regard to Sussex County at least, decentralization would turn the responsibility over to a yet more dysfunctional government under the undue influence of Rick Collins’ Positive Growth Alliance from which infrastructure issues are usually their lowest priorities. Moreover, transportation issues must be addressed on a state-wide basis in order to interleave the programs successfully as well as to take advantage of the economies of scale.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 10:21 am5Dave

Perry — If you gave the counties power over the roads, it would go a long way towards balancing growth. The county could require the road improvements before development is approved. They do a great job now with sewer, which is planned well into the future, and I imagine they’d do so with roads given the authority. Plus, if they screw up, you can vote them out. Smaller, more manageable, local control.

Hell, we’re not getting the roads now as it is. Why not a little dose of revolutionary reform?
on 25 Mar 2008 at 10:51 am6Dave

Also, Perry, in many states the counties handle the roads already, including Maryland.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 11:30 am7Al Mascitti

I think most states fund state roads and leave the local roads to the smaller jurisdictions. For what ought to be obvious reasons, you don’t want Sussex to have to pick up the tab on, to pick one example, the new Indian River Bridge. Major roads benefit the entire state; it makes sense to spread the costs. It would still go a long way toward trimming back DelDOT, and the local roads are the ones most heavily impacted by development. Side benefit you didn’t mention: We could discontinue the Suburban Street Fund, or whatever we call it now.

Tax cuts? Tell me you’re kidding. Doctors used to prescribe leeches for their patients with anemia, too. Cured the anemia, for sure — unfortunately by killing the patient. This is what happens when you have a “philosophy” instead of common sense.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 11:35 am8Perry Hood

Dave, my perception, DelDOT used to be great. I can remember years ago driving into NCC from Philly and finding roads, road signs and traffic control to be far superior to PA. Why can’t we restore that greatness?

Perhaps you are right about the effectiveness of county control of road building; I just don’t know. However, I have the concern mentioned before about the dysfunctional SCC.

“Plus, if they screw up, you can vote them out.”

Not very easily done, as Dukes, Jones and Phillips seem pretty well entrenched. I think Jud Bennett will defeat Lynn Rogers this time around, but it has proven difficult to find viable candidates like Jud, let alone to get Adams to bring the two at large candidate bill to the Senate floor for a vote, as he now has the third bill safely tied up again in the Executive Committee.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 11:36 am9Al Mascitti

“I see you have dropped your call for … shifting resources out of regular schools and into charter schools.”

Let’s examine this statement. The only “resources” charter schools take from public schools is the per-pupil state funding that would otherwise go to the public school the child no longer attends. As I understand it, this is bad because it would leave special-needs kids behind somehow. In essence, your position (and Dana’s, for that matter) is that all kids should be educated the way DSEA would like because otherwise there might not be enough money for special ed.

What you’re failing to acknowledge, of course, is that special-needs kids take more money to educate. I have no problem with paying for it. I have a major problem with saying my child can’t be educated the way I think would serve him best because of some vague fear — and that’s all it is, there’s no evidence I’ve heard of to show charters lead to a decline in special ed spending — of everyone not being treated equally. To put this as politely as possible, get bent.

I’ve got news for you: The easiest way to treat everyone equally is to treat everyone shabbily. Stop using these kids, who have real needs, to further your agenda of kowtowing to the DSEA.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 11:47 am10Randy Nelson

Dave,

Excellent op-ed piece today. The problem is the county approves development, but doesn’t have to pay for the roads or most of the infrastructure that comes with it. Instead, the state foots the bill with little or no control over which projects move forward other than making “recommendations.” in fact, the state pays 88% of all infrastructure costs. So while the county reaps financial rewards for approving development, the state has to pay for the infrastructure to support it. If the county’s were responsible for the roads, my guess is there would be a more responsible approach to planning and development and who pays for it. Moreover, it would force one of the main issues - tax increases or impact fees - to the forefront. How will future road projects be funded and who foots - taxpayers or developers?

If the county believes that local government can better serve the people, than I am certain they would believe that local government can handle the roads and other infrastructure needs better than the state, right? I would imagine they can better handle the finances as well. Unless, that is, the current situation allows development to continue with both sides able to point the finger at each other. And unless the county would be forced to either raise fees on developers or raise your taxes if this change were to move forward. I would imagine that’s a prospect they have no interest in.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 12:09 pm11noman

Everything you say about the advantages of charter schools is undeniably true - at a small scale. Charters can slice off a little money, and the regular schools can suck it up and keep working with the special ed kids and the kids who don’t get into charters. It will probably all work fine for a while, and the charter proponents will look like geniuses. After all, Dave is correct in pointing out the school system is awash in money, so there is room for both - for a while.

And I don’t want to hear bull about how taking a kid’s funding has zero effect, because the school no longer has to educate that kid. That kind of thinking shows an ignorance - deliberate, I think - of operational management. If the result of losing that funding is that you have to fire the music teacher, then every student loses.

I don’t want to send my kids to some converted factory building halfway across town. I want to send my kids to an intact top-quality neighborhood school, together with the smart kids, the dumb kids, the special ed kids - and all their funds. (Too freakin’ bad that Al, Dave, and the GOP have given up on that vision. ) I don’t want my kid to go to a school with demoralized teachers and tumbleweeds blowing down the halls where the smart kids used to be.

And if charter teachers unionized I think Dave’s love affair with charter schools would be over.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 1:38 pm12Dave

The big problem is the funding formula itself that funds every kid equally. Scrap that, too, and create a weighted student funding formula that attaches the funding to the kid and adjusts monthly.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 1:42 pm13Dave

And my “love affair” with charter schools has nothing to do with teachers being non-union. It has to do with decisions being made in the building. Public-school principals have discretion over $0 of their budget.

What the state ought to do is decide what the standards are and let the principals and teachers figure out how to get there.

And I care very deeply for the unionized teachers in this state. I just wish their union leaders did, too, and focused on improving the quality of the teaching environment instead of waging jihad on every form of school choice and competition while acting as professional bodyguards for the status quo.
on 25 Mar 2008 at 7:48 pm14Perry Hood

We’re interleaving two important issues here: schools and roads

On schools, I would like to see us return to the neighborhood schools concept for both public and charter schools, provided there are the prerequisite additional resources made available to address the special problems of the urban schools. This requires the formation of more neighborhood alternative schools to serve those students who do not fit in to a traditional or charter school. Along those lines, we need charter schools to participate in generating alternative schools. The charters will be more motivated if they are forced to accept any student who wishes to attend.

Dave, your idea about more local control is like making all public schools the equivalent of charter schools with regard to their autonomy. I think that has merit.

Randy, on roads, you make an excellent point, that there really is little leverage at the county level to build roads as they pass the responsibility off to the state while the developers get too much of a free ride. So yes, the responsibility should be shifted more to the county. Moreover, as Jud Bennett states, the roads (and other infrastructure) should be in place before the first house is built.

I would be interested in knowing how much profit these developers typically make, to get some idea of how much additional expense (impact fees) the developers can be charged without lowering their profits below reasonable levels which would drive them out of business. Maybe our friend Rich Collins can weigh in on this issue!
on 25 Mar 2008 at 9:23 pm15Steve Newton

Al,
With reference to comment 9, there is evidence whether you happen to have seen it or not: the 2007 Western Michigan University study done for DOE on the effects of charter schools on the rest of public education in Delaware.

Here’s the link to my coverage of it: http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/01/lets-talk-data-about-delaware-charter.html

Within that you can find the link to the actual report.

Two sections are worth quoting here:

“In essence, the report concludes, Delaware is creating separate, but unequal charter schools.”

“According to Cullen, who served as project manager, the team found “substantial differences in student demographics,” both among charter schools and also between charter schools and surrounding traditional public schools. On the whole, the study finds that traditional public schools have higher percentages of low-income students, students with special education needs and students who have limited English proficiency.”

As for your contention that anyone who raises the question of how charter schools affect special needs or low-income students is stooging for the DSEA (”Stop using these kids, who have real needs, to further your agenda of kowtowing to the DSEA.”), in the most polite terms I can muster: get bent.

The fact that someone agrees with one argument made by the DSEA only qualifies as “kowtowing” to someone who cannot separate ideas from organizations.
on 26 Mar 2008 at 5:43 am16andy

Also, Perry, in many states the counties handle the roads already, including Maryland.

Correction
In Maryland the State Handles maitenance for State Designated roads the Counties for County Roads and the Towns and Cities for their Roads that includes Snow removal
In some cases the same road could have stretches where part of it is state part county part town/ city
on 26 Mar 2008 at 6:04 am17Steve

So if we had to build another state road throughout all 3 counties, who would build it? Each county? What if one county had the money, but the other didn’t? What if they differed on where this road should go? Would the road be built or would we be forever in negotiation between the counties?

I don’t know…I like some of the ideas in the article. I think there could be a meaningful discussion about the points made.
on 26 Mar 2008 at 6:56 am18Dave

“So if we had to build another state road throughout all 3 counties, who would build it? Each county? What if one county had the money, but the other didn’t? What if they differed on where this road should go? Would the road be built or would we be forever in negotiation between the counties?”

That’s all part of the conversation. I would imagine the state would handle construction of any road that travels through all three counties, but the maintenance could be handled by either the state or the counties.

Andy — That’s what I meant, but I wasn’t clear. Many counties across the nation handle their own roads, but most states handle the state highways.
on 26 Mar 2008 at 3:09 pm19Nancy Willing

Living on the outskirts of Newark, I am a few minutes travel from MD and PA. The roads are continuous and they stay maintained, Miracle!

In PA, through the boroughs and townships you can see where they have money and spend it or don’t. People still manage to get around.

This is a great idea, the only thing standing in the way is the free-reigned corruption within DelDOT and county/state land use planners.
on 26 Mar 2008 at 6:09 pm20jason330

He at one time was considered a possible candidate for governor.

For some reason that just cracked me up. Anyhow…they failed ot mention in your little bio that you are also a registered lobbyist.
on 26 Mar 2008 at 9:48 pm21Dave

You mean a registered good-government lobbyist, right?
on 26 Mar 2008 at 10:10 pm22jason330

Hmm… I was thinking more a “one-time-Wind-power-supporter-lobbyist-whose-balls-are-now-the-bought-and-paid-for-property-of-Charlie-Copeland” type.
on 27 Mar 2008 at 6:20 am23Dave

Bought and paid for? That’s quite a charge.
on 27 Mar 2008 at 8:53 am24andy

Andy — That’s what I meant, but I wasn’t clear. Many counties across the nation handle their own roads, but most states handle the state highways.

Dont Forget the smaller municipalities (Cities and Towns) they dump in their share also In MD The Counties have very little say so concerning a town/ City and their affairs

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

DelawarePolitics.net

24 Responses to “The Doctor Is In”

Leave a Reply

Our Sponsors

Get DP.net via Email!

Latest Comments

Topics

Blogroll

Contributors

Tags