by | May 14, 2013
With a sweeping education reform package currently being worked on by a bi-partisan Conference Committee at the Statehouse, some potentially damaging information about how the state is representing student achievement is coming to light. Late last week the citizen group Iowalive released a report that would, if true, give all Iowa parents and legislators cause for grave concern.
The crux of the report is Iowalive’s claim that the standards our Department of Education is using to report student proficiency levels is misleading. This, according to the group, stems from Iowa having adopted a lower standard to measure student learning called the “40th National Percentile Rank”. This current set of standards was adopted a decade ago by the then Governor Vilsack administration and is different from a more “honest” standard used by other states known as the “65th National Percentile Rank”. The 40th National Percentile Rank standards that we use now apparently do not actually require a student to be proficient in various skills at their grade level to be deemed as such. The obvious problem here being that if this is the case, parents are being told their child is succeeding at their grade level when in fact they are not. If true this is absolutely unacceptable.
Between long declining national education rankings, the misrepresenting of graduation rates at some Des Moines High Schools, and the entire Nancy Sebring debacle–the education system here in Iowa hasn’t exactly built a huge reservoir of trust recently. Despite this, and despite the fact spending on K-12 has increased $650 million since 2002 (+35.4%), the legislature is potentially poised to yet again increase the dollars flowing into this institution by almost $200 million any day now. If the claims of Iowalive have any merit it’s long past the time to say enough is enough–the river of funds needs to be damned until the system functions honestly and properly.
More To Come
This issue will be looked into further by this website in the coming weeks, including a specific explanation of the two sets of standards. At first glance the source–Iowalive–appears to be legitimate group with expertise in education and statistics (I was unfamiliar with them prior to late last week). In the meantime I encourage you to visit their website (link here), and become informed on their general claims. If everything they say checks out, this level of brazen misrepresentation and deception to Iowa parents will be a massive outrage. If a teacher tells a parent their child is performing “at a 3rd grade level” in a subject, that better mean exactly that–anything else would be totally unacceptable.
Without a doubt Iowa legislators from both parties and both chambers should demand an explanation from Jason Glass and the Department of Education. If it turns out they have been “cooking the books” with a deliberately low standard to enhance our schools perceived performance, then the reform bill currently being discussed should be tabled immediately.
Below is an excerpt from the Iowalive report, here is a link to the report complete with tables and source data, and more can be found at their website. Though the information is not presented in a lively way, these are serious charges that demand being responded to by our elected and unelected government officials. We as Iowans must have answers on this very, very soon.
————————————————————————————————————————–
GROSS MISREPRESENTATION OF % OF IOWA STUDENTS, THEÂ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REPORTED PROFICIENT
Greetings, Governor Terry Branstad and all—
Finally, at 3:34 PM, Friday May 10, (to make it nearly impossible to make the Sunday Papers) the Department of Education provided Percent Proficient data Iowalive requested on Jan.14, 2013. The data would not have been provided at all except for prodding from State senators and the State Ombudsman—who are gratefully thanked for their help.
As shown in the table below, the Department of Education reported to parents, students, legislators, taxpayers and others that 74.4% of Iowa 4th graders are Reading Proficiently (Expertly) at the 4th grade level, when in fact the Department of Education just admitted only 40.3% are actually reading at the 4th grade level, when tested. This equates to an 85% inflation, or misrepresentation, of student achievement—perpetrated by use of the bogus 40th National Percentile Rank (NPR) Proficiency standard, adopted by the Department of Education, under Governor Vilsack and the ISEA teacher union.
Similarly, the table shows parents, students, legislators, taxpayers and others were told 78.2% of Iowa 4th graders are doing Math Proficiently (Expertly) at the 4th grade level, when in fact the Department of Education just admitted only 40.1% are actually doing Math at the 4th grade level, when tested. This equates to a 95% inflation or misrepresentation of student achievement.
Similar misrepresentations for 8th and 11th grade reading and math are shown in the table. It must be stated that the Department of Education made NO corrections for cheating, as if none exists, despite gross cheating already under investigation in Davenport.
The problem is: Iowa’s low 40th NPR ‘proficiency’ standard considers 4th graders scoring at the 3.1 Iowa grade level to be ‘proficient’ or expert 4th grade readers! Similarly, Iowa’s low standard considers 8th graders scoring at the 6.9 Iowa grade level to be ’proficient’ or expert 8th grade readers, and 11th graders scoring at the 9.2 level to be “proficient” or expert 11 grade readers. The same applies to Math–and all grades tested. This is nearly double the number actually Proficient. And it is going on in grades 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, & 10 as well.
Large Iowa media news editors have failed, and stubbornly refuse, to report these shameful, if not outright fraudulent, conditions to Iowans.
Governor Branstad, you’re a lawyer—if this misrepresentation isn’t fraudulent, what is?? What are you going to do about it? This happened on your watch—even though it started under Governor Vilsack!  DE Director, Jason Glass, could have stopped using the bogus 40th NPR Proficiency Standard and replaced it with the honest 65th NPR, but he did not, Governor. How come?
(Read Report With Tables)
by | May 13, 2013
Last Week Steven Colbert said the results of Tuesday’s special election to fill a South Carolina House seat ‘scared him to his core’—I couldn’t agree more.
Of course he was referring to disgraced Republican Governor Mark Sanford completing his political comeback by beating Colbert’s sister Elizabeth Colbert Busch (54% to 45%) on Tuesday night. Sanford’s victory came despite him being less than four years removed from weaving a web of lies that included cheating on his wife and leaving the country during his term as governor to be with his mistress.
What were they thinking?
The only justification for voting en mass for such a man was that palmetto Republicans didn’t at all like Ms. Colbert Bush. I’m not saying I blame them since even though she tried to run as a moderate, she was a terrible candidate and was clearly anything but (think Christie Vilsack). Having said that there is no way Sanford should have had the support to win this seat, and this result puts a temporary nationwide stain on Republicans.
While voting for someone who has been unfaithful to their spouse is bad enough—Louisiana Senator David Vitter comes to mind—Sanford’s situation was even worse. Not only did he cheat on and lie to his wife, he abandoned his state entirely by actually leaving the country while on the job. Either of these should disqualify him from being in Congress, let alone a combination of both of them at once.
Ideally this situation should have been taken care of before the general election in the 16 way Republican primary that Sanford placed first in. At this time there was no “lesser of two evils†dynamic for Republican voters. It’s inconceivable that another Republican in the district wasn’t more qualified to forward Republican principles than this guy. Even if Sanford was the only candidate who could win the general election, on principle Republicans in the state should have lost this House seat and been proud of doing so. The truth is right now this seat isn’t at all crucial, and they very likely would have won it back in two years anyway. It would have been a far more reasonable alternative to this shameful outcome.
This Trend Much End
How can the Republican Party stand on such high-minded pillars as morality, responsibility, and accountability and elect a guy like Mark Sanford? No matter how bad the alternative—the answer is we can’t. Beyond the general stamp of approval this victory represents, sending someone with such a proven and utter lack of self-control to make our most important decisions is insane.
I would like to believe Iowa Republicans wouldn’t allow such a thing to happen if presented with a similar candidate—and I’d be pretty stunned if they did. The scary thing here is that, especially since Democrats are notoriously unwilling to morally judge their candidates, we now can’t be surprised should we see a John Edwards comeback. I know right now you’re saying ‘no chance’…but nobody would have predicted this Sanford embarrassment either.
Republicans may have won a U.S. House seat last week but we lost yet another chunk of moral high ground. Oh what a ridiculously wicked web we weave these days.
by | May 8, 2013
(The following is a guest piece from Polk County GOP Co-Chair Chad Brown)
The political season in Iowa never ends, and the county leadership of Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District is on the move to organize. The harder we work to organize the counties, both Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District and RPI will grow in strength. Some of my activist friends have wanted an explanation of the District Executive Committees, so I wrote this explanation to detail their role.
District Executive Committees have traditionally been a vital ingredient to the success of the Republican Party in Iowa. Their important role is detailed in the RPI Constitution. Traditionally, the Republican Party is built as a grass roots Party that was always strong because it had a firm foundation and was built from the ground up. Unfortunately, the District Executive Committees were deactivated within recent years and that vacuum was filled by powerful single issue groups that dominated the leadership selection process by preventing Republican County leaders from talking to each other and promoting leadership from the grass roots. We want to restore the grass roots to the Republican Party and include more people. This is why people used to refer to the G.O.P. as The Big Tent.
It’s unfortunate that these long-standing Committees were deactivated and silenced, but the new counties’ executive leadership in the 3rd Congressional District are getting back to basics! We are here to improve and unify the Republican Party and get more people involved. The executive leadership of the county-level central committees of the Republican Party of Iowa located within the Third Federal Congressional District of the State of Iowa have called for its first official meeting to be held on May 7 to discuss and consider certain specific matters.
This is an exciting time as we begin to restore an important tradition of grass roots to the Republican Party in Iowa.
Chad Brown, Polk County GOP Co-Chair and 3rd Congressional District Executive Committee ————————————————————————————————-
Article VII, paragraph 1 of the RPI Constitution states:
Article VII District Executive Committees
1. The District Executive Committee shall consist of the Chair and Co-Chair of each County in the Congressional District plus one additional representative for every fifty thousand (50,000) population in that County based on the most recent federal census. The additional County representative sh…all be elected by the County Central Committee.
2. The District Committee shall: (1) direct and coordinate Republican activities in the district, including organizational, candidate recruitment, and finance efforts; (2) coordinate the congressional and legislative campaigns in the district for the duly selected Republican nominees; (3) perform all of the duties relating to any election to fill a district vacancy on the Republican State Central Committee; (4) advise the congressional district’s representatives on the Republican State Central Committee; and (5) do all other things which serve to promote the welfare of the Republican Party and the orderly and successful conduct of the election campaign in the congressional district.
by Art Smith | May 6, 2013
Former US Attorney Matt Whitaker announced today that he intends to be a candidate for the US Senate seat being vacated by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), and will make the official announcement on June 3. Â He made the announcement today on WHO Radio’s Simon Conway show.
Whitaker is currently the managing partner at Whitaker Hagenow Gustoff LLP.  He served as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa from 2004 to 2009, and previously worked for two other law firms and SUPERVALU as corporate counsel.  in 1998, Whitaker graduated from the University of Iowa College of Law and also earned his MBA there.
Matt Whitaker is the first Republican to announce an intention to run for the seat currently held by Harkin. Â Bruce Braley, a Democratic Congressman, has also indicated he will run for the open Senate seat. Â It is expected now that Representative Steve King has declined to run, several other Republican candidates will step forward.
Senator Harkin has been in the US Senate for 28 years, and when he retires will have spent 40 years in Washington DC as a Congressman and Senator. Â Republican opponents to Harkin in 5 US Senate elections have averaged a 12.2 point loss, with the closest to winning being Jim Lightfoot in 1996 (5 points) and the farthest being Chris Reed in 2008 (26 points). Â Tom Harkin has always come across as likable and reasonable to the public, and has always had a substantial war chest when campaigning. Â Running against anyone but Tom Harkin will likely be considered a relief by Republicans in this election.
by | May 6, 2013
Last week liberal blogger John Deeth scored an interview with Democrat Rep. Bruce Braley as he embarks on a bid for the U.S. Senate. Though you may not agree with Deeth often on policy (or ever)—he is an excellent writer out of Iowa City and he knows his stuff.
Most of the interview was standard liberal fare (read here), but on the topic of immigration reform Braley made a pair of false claims, the second of which was a real whopper that could haunt him later in this campaign.
Why No Reform?
When asked generally what’s happening with immigration reform and how it will be resolved Braley said this:
“One word has kept us from having meaningful immigration reform, and that word is amnesty. That is always thrown out as an excuse for not moving forward. Where I grew up “amnesty” was where you broke the law and there were no consequences. The reform that I have supported and that many others in both the House and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats support, is something where there is accountability. If you break the law you are required to pay a fine, accept the consequences, be placed on probation, and if you satisfy the terms of your probation you get an opportunity for a pathway to citizenship.â€
So according to him the one word preventing legislation from passing is “amnestyâ€, and moreover Republican confusion on the word’s true definition. Point of correction here—there are two words that explain why no bill has passed and they are “government incompetenceâ€. More specifically the public’s utter lack of faith Washington will deliver on border-security promises has been this efforts downfall, not mere Republican opposition on the merits—allow me to prove the point.
• Though 51% of Republicans oppose a “path to citizenship†in theory and without conditions, when asked about eventual citizenship with the conditions of passing a background and paying back taxes (which are in the bill) a whopping 73% of Republicans said they would support this. (NBC/WSJ 4/5-8/2013) (ABC News here)
• (USA Today poll 4/18-21/2013)—“Which problem concerns you the most: the problem of preventing illegal immigration in the future or the problem of how to deal with illegal immigrants already in the U.S.?” – 55% responded “prevent in future†to 33% “ones already here.â€
• (ABC News/Wash.Post poll 3/27-30/2013)—80% support “stricter border control to reduce illegal immigration in the futureâ€, only 17% opposed. This reflects the findings of several other polls asking the same general question.
• And here is the cementing detail—in most polls a whopping 80% of Americans say they don’t believe the federal government will fully secure the border even if reform is passed that promises it. Only 27% say our borders are more secure than 5 years ago, and pollster Scott Rasmussen conducted a poll in April in which only 9% said our government would succeed in sealing the border.
The Real Problem with Reform
This proves the hurdle facing pro-immigration reform efforts is a glaring lack of credibility by those offering it—Washington politicians. This skepticism is both a hopeful sign and completely logical. It appears Americans are not dense enough to forget the reason we are having this debate now is because true amnesty was delivered in the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill along with promises of border security—and of course since then at least 11 million more individuals have over-stayed visas or snuck into the country. If Bruce Braley really wants to advocate for this bill he better start selling Americans on the specific security measures it contains, and more importantly, admit the ’86 effort was a failure and explain why this time will be different.
While it is true that a decent segment of Republicans will never support a bill that leads to citizenship (about 20-25% in most polls), the real news is that if the feds delivered a secure border going forward over 70% of Republicans would swallow hard and sign on. What Republicans are certain on is that they want the border sealed (supporting this 93% in some polls), and they rightfully don’t envision it happening.
It’s good to know that Mr. Braley has great faith in the federal government—and with its stellar track record who wouldn’t right?—but the fact of the matter is he is way out of touch with the vast majority of Americans who have a microscopic level of faith in the federal enterprise. When you look at the situation it’s hard not to notice the delicious bit of irony that liberal Democrats would be able to accomplish a major political goal of theirs relatively easily—if only the behemoth institution they built and believe in was a capable and trusted one.
He Said What?
Now on to the real stunner offered by Braley in the interview. Extolling the virtues of passing a bill he said the following:
“So that says to me that reasonable people should be able to get their handle on how we bring people out of the shadows, get them paying taxes at the state and federal level, paying into Medicare and Social Security, to stabilize those programs. To me there’s a lot of huge upside benefits.â€
Yes you read that correctly and yes this is fully in context. We’ve heard some real beauties from Liberal Democrats recently—“we don’t have a spending problemâ€, unemployment checks “create jobs faster than any other initiative you can name” etc.—and this one ranks right up there.
You see the solvency problems we have with Social Security and Medicare can be addressed by legalizing 11-15 million illegal aliens, the vast majority of which are low-income earners. I honestly don’t even know where to begin with this. Let’s start with some statistics on the population we are talking about that even the most partisan wouldn’t dispute, after all illegal immigrants aren’t “doing the jobs Americans won’t†because they pay too well:
• Average median family income for non-citizen in 2010= $36,401 compared to $50,288 for native born Americans (2010 US Census)
• Per person median household income for non-citizen=$12,991 compared to $28,185 for American citizens (though this is a CIS study, an anti-amnesty group, the numbers are similar to less partisan studies)
• 24.8% of Hispanics (citizens and non-citizens) are living at the poverty level (2010 Census via government office of OMH)
• Hispanics in the U.S. are the single biggest group currently without health insurance with 30.7% uninsured (Office of OMH)
Look, there are several legitimate positive arguments for granting citizenship to this group—some cultural and some economic—but implying that 11-15 million low-income workers being legalized will help any entitlement program is absurd. And to be clear this has nothing to do with ethnicity, it would apply to any group with similar income traits if they hailed from Canada, Australia, or Europe instead of Mexico.
The only conceivable way Braley’s statement could be parsed to have a shred of truth is if he was referring only to the small number of years after legalization was granted and before benefits were claimed. I know politicians are accustomed to thinking one election cycle at a time, but even still this level of short-sighted deception would be off the charts. There is no question whatsoever that the net impact of legalizing up to 15 million low-skilled, low-wage earners would be a mid and long-term disaster to the existing entitlement system. Period. You don’t have to be a mathematician to figure this out—especially considering that not one of these programs is even currently solvent.
Ironically, after citizenship is granted Social Security and Medicare would lose the only current benefit these two programs are receiving from illegal immigration—the taxes that go to these programs via fraudulent Social Security numbers that go unclaimed by the illegal immigrant and instead get paid out to American citizens. Democrats are right in making the case this specific reality is unfair to the immigrant, but in a perverse way it does mathematically help the system.
Furthermore, entitlements already pay out more to citizens on average than each citizen pays in. As it stands now a typical retired couple pays in $122,000 to Medicare and on average can expect $387, 000 in benefits, for Social Security it’s $600,000 in and $579,000 out (Ezra Klein site here). Obviously these discrepancies would be multiplied for this illegal population for two reasons. First the median family income for illegals is between $15-20,000 less than the median American citizen family income, and second, obviously, this population would not have been paying in their entire lives yet would receive benefits until their deaths (Politifact deals with a similar scenario here).
Final Word & A Challenge to Democrats
Braley’s claim here is totally ludicrous and false—and if he’s seriously only referring to the period before we pay any benefits out and is ignoring the eventual consequences, it is even more ridiculous and disingenuous. I challenge any Liberal/Democrat writer or policy wonk in the state of Iowa to explain how amnesty for illegal immigrants would be a “huge upside benefit†that will “stabilize†any one of our entitlement programs, and I will even grant you the waiver that you don’t have to deal with the disaster that will become of Medicaid. This is an open and standing challenge. Write it, send it to the contact info on this site, and I will print it in full.
I know Bruce Braley is desperate to sell this immigration reform bill, but claiming this federal bill will “stabilize†other insolvent federal train wrecks from the past was a bridge way too far. He will have to explain this on the campaign trail, it will come up in debates and TV spots, and it will not help his chances. It’s a long time till November 2014 and if he continues making undisciplined remarks he can’t back up—and wouldn’t want to try even if he thought he could—then he is more vulnerable than I ever thought.
