Tell Intel how $100 million would improve Oregon education
Sunday’s New York Times had an interesting story (PDF) about federal immigration policy and the problems technology firms are having recruiting. In it, Intel Board Chair Craig Barrett states: “We are watching the decline and fall of the United States as an economic power — not hypothetically, but as we speak.”
To what does Barrett attribute the country’s economic decline? According to the article, “Mr. Barrett blames a slouching education system that cannot be easily fixed . . .” This isn’t the first time Barrett has complained about the nation’s education system.
Barrett, unfortunately, wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants a good education system while escaping responsibility for paying for it.
Intel helped lead the way in getting the Oregon legislature to change Oregon’s corporate income tax law to avoid taxes on the company’s profits. Once upon a time (the mid- to late-1990s), Intel contributed over $50 million a year in Oregon corporate income taxes, tops among all corporations paying taxes to the state. Intel used to boast about it and allowed state officials to talk about Intel’s payments. That's how I know about it. But today Intel is probably a $10-a-year taxpayer under the new tax code. Intel doesn’t allow the state officials to disclose its tax payments like it used to, and Intel doesn’t boast about them either. But Intel’s sale of energy tax credits confirms our suspicion that it is only paying our $10 minimum tax. (Why else would the company sell its tax credits for 25 cents on the dollar unless it didn’t need them?)
So much for “innovations that move the world forward,” as one of Intel’s taglines would have us believe. The company’s lobbying efforts that reduced its tax payments from $50 million a year to $10 have sent us backward.
Hanging above my desk is a copy of a full-page ad from the May 2, 1977, New York Times (PDF). In it, Intel co-founder and then-CEO Andy Grove thanks the City College of New York for getting him started three days after he arrived in New York as a Hungarian immigrant with limited English proficiency.
But for a tax-supported public institution, what would Andy Grove have done on day three in the U.S. and where would Intel be today? No private sector school was there with open arms for the kid from Hungary. Barrett followed Grove at Intel but apparently didn’t learn the lesson about the importance of public education in Intel’s history.
A good public education system requires money. If Barrett thinks Oregon – home to Intel’s largest workforce – has an educational system that is "slouching," then he ought to put his money where his mouth is and restore Intel’s proud place at the top of the heap among Oregon corporate income taxpayers.
So, BlueOregon readers, tell Craig Barrett what types of investments could be made in education if Intel started paying $100 million a budget period again. Give the legislature reasons and permission to change our corporate tax code and to turn Intel and other profitable companies into good corporate citizens.
Chuck Sheketoff is the executive director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You can sign up to receive email notification of OCPP materials at www.ocpp.org
|
April 13, 2009 |
Chuck Sheketoff | Comments (62 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Steve | Apr 13, 2009 8:19:55 PM
Hey, why don't you and Sam hop on the MAX and look at Hillsboro. THey have Intel's 15,000 jobs, Genentech, IDT, SolarWorld and Radisys - and those are just the biggest employers. They have property taxes from the 1000s of employees that live in town and Oregon benefits from the income taxes. There are 15,000 less families on welfare in Wash county. THere is a new baseball stadium, several new city buildings, good schools and paved streets.
GO back to Portland and look at 1% of the high-tech jobs, potholes and lousy schools.
Lets not forget the $85M Sam and Randy are throwing at Paulson Jr. so about 15,000 crazies can watch 15 soccer games a year. IF they really think they are smarter than Paulson and will make money on this deal, I can only remind them of how Glickman Jr and Gardiner totally bamboozled Vera and they were idiots.
What was your point again?
Posted by: Steve | Apr 13, 2009 8:26:35 PM
"then he ought to put his money where his mouth is and restore Intel’s proud place at the top of the heap among Oregon corporate income taxpayers."
One more thing, Intel pays for employee education thru tuition reimbursement. I received my BS and MS courtesy of Intel.
WHy don't you check out your facts. Intel has done about 1000x what any politician has done for this state's educational system already.
Posted by: Adipose Army of America | Apr 13, 2009 8:30:26 PM
How about spending it on developing a system where administrator salaries are tied to performance, and don't exceed max teachers' salaries?
Some for study, some for change, some for buy-out. We have to trim the fat.
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Apr 13, 2009 8:35:07 PM
Steve: why can't you and other Intel apologists (employees?) admit that Oregon would be better off if Intel were paying the same level of taxed that it was paying in the mid- to late-1990s? You are changing the subject when you talk about the other taxes that Intel pays - Intel paid them, too, back during those years.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Apr 13, 2009 8:45:26 PM
Intel employees: Does Intel still boast about it's open door policy? Back when I worked there, any employee could get a meeting with any other employee - including senior leadership. I know that's true, because one of my colleagues on the 800-321-4044 tech support asked Andy Grove to visit our unit - so he did.
Why do I ask? Because progressive Intel employees have a unique opportunity tonremind Mr Barrett that it is in Intel's best interest to help boost Oregon's k-12 system.
Posted by: usual suspect | Apr 13, 2009 8:59:46 PM
Is Intel getting huge tax breaks in Oregon ? Maybe that is where the 100 million should go.
Posted by: Steve | Apr 13, 2009 9:13:56 PM
"admit that Oregon would be better off if Intel were paying the same level of taxed that it was paying in the mid- to late-1990s?"
Becasue they probably have 2x the number of employees as then and they are making 50% each then they did in the 90s. The effective net gain to Oregon is huge and Intel is a good employer like Sam Adams will never see in Portland.
If you want $100M in education funds, go ask Sam about the $85M he's throwing at Paulson just so he can gain some recall votes.
Posted by: Patrick A | Apr 13, 2009 9:57:24 PM
Riddle me this, mp97303:
If spending is irrelevant to the quality of an education, why does a year of high school at Catlin Gabel cost over $22,000?
Posted by: Richard | Apr 13, 2009 10:01:54 PM
Oh yeah here we go. BlueOregon, the champions of public education.
You'll not be happy till you match your brethren in Detroit where the drop out rate is 74%
Mean while your biggest source of money the OEA, teacher's union, is attacking to shut down the most progressive, green and sustainable school in Oregon.
They've even made sure you stayed quiet about it.
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Apr 13, 2009 10:08:03 PM
Again, back to the post: What would $100 million buy in pre-K through higher ed? Remember, Intel came to Oregon when we had, what Intel called, a "K-life education system." See http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=cp0503 with cites to webpages of Intel, now no longer live but which I preserved in PDF.
So, what would $100 million buy?
Posted by: Mike | Apr 13, 2009 10:26:23 PM
$$$ and education:
Public schools must educate all students.
Private schools can be selective.
Not all schools are like OES and Catlin, charging $22K and higher. There are many other private schools that are considerably less - like Jesuit, and the many others in the Portland Metro area. The key difference is that almost all are selective - one must apply and get accepted based on some academic criteria.
I think the point of mp97303 is that money alone is not the solution.
While I am not an Intel employee, and never have been, I am one of those Washington County residents who works in the high tech industry. I also volunteered in the schools, and have first hand experience across all grade levels. There are many, many factors affecting the quality of education a student receives. This ranges from administrator and teacher influence, to the home situation of the student, to the community surrounding the school. Money cannot solve every problem with our schools.
Take a look at school spending in Washington DC as an example - highest spending per student in the US, and some of the lowest achievement rates.
I say take another look at our society as being more of an influence on the success of our education system. For the most part too many families simply do not value it - it is taken for granted. School is more about sports and social activities, or just daycare.
Our public schools also emphasize too much "one size fits all". In other countries, schools are much more competitive at the academic level (not sports), and students are rewarded for excelling. Many school placements must be earned.
Social promotion is the norm - students move from one grade to the next without regard to showing proficiency in basic courses. Grade inflation is the norm.
Many students do manage to truly excel despite this. But it is not because of money.
Will more money be the simple fix in Oregon?
Chuck is into a bit of speculation as to what Intel does or does not pay in taxes. This article seems to be more about what Intel should pay, rather than what it would take to address the issues in our schools today. How about identifying the problems and possible solutions, first, then figure out how to pay for these solutions.
Perhaps Sam and his cohorts could help with a solution.
Posted by: mp97303 | Apr 13, 2009 10:35:45 PM
Hey Patrick A
Give me the socio-economic background of CG students versus PPS. I am assuming based on the tuition rate we are not dealing with a school filled with poor inner city kids are we.
Google "socio economic status and education" and you have your answer. It wouldn't matter how little you spent educating the CG student body and they would still outperform the average PPS.
Posted by: mp97303 | Apr 13, 2009 10:37:47 PM
What would $100 million buy in pre-K through higher ed?
Based on empirical evidence, not a damn thing. Assuming you consider improved educational attainment the ultimate goal of spending.
Posted by: mp97303 | Apr 13, 2009 10:46:31 PM
Since 1970, spending per student has increased 128%(in constant dollars). Anyone want to guess how much student achievement has gone up? Anyone?
A. 100%
B. 75%
C. 25%
D. 0%
The answer is.......D
Posted by: tl (in sw) | Apr 13, 2009 11:11:19 PM
Take a look at school spending in Washington DC as an example - highest spending per student in the US, and some of the lowest achievement rates.
Correlation does not prove causality. You will find the numbers that will support your beliefs. I would ask those who think taxes are too high, "what is the right/fair amount of taxes to pay?" Similarly, I would ask those who think more money would not help or improve OR schools, "how much money is the right amount to pay for public schools?"
The Oregon school year has been the shortened and is at risk of being shortened further. There has been talk of having teachers work w/o pay. Are these really the best way to resolve the budgetary shortfalls?
If anyone from Intel is willing to disclose how much the corporation pays in taxes, that would really move the conversation forward.
Posted by: Sargent | Apr 13, 2009 11:31:59 PM
Hi Chuck. I got your fundraising letter today and posted a link on my Facebook page. I'll totally overstep my bounds and do the same here, because:
1. OCPP turns piles of really boring information into articles that help the rest of us understand the un-understandable;
2. This information gets woven into common-sense proposals that make Oregon better; and
3. If you don't do it, no one will -- at least no one who's broadly trusted.
So, fans of OCPP's work can find out more and contribute at the OCPP web site.
Posted by: mp97303 | Apr 13, 2009 11:35:22 PM
"how much money is the right amount to pay for public schools?"
This is such utter BS I want to puke. I don't give a rat's ass whether we spend $10 per student or $10,000,000. I want to see some RESULTS. There is nothing to show that spending 100x what we currently do will gain one iota of improvement.
I would assume that you want something for your money, don't you. Having a graduating class that can read and write at the 12th grade level is a nice starting place.
Posted by: tl (in sw) | Apr 13, 2009 11:45:35 PM
Okay mp, so you've made it clear you don't believe spending money will improve education quality "one iota". What do you suggest for improvement? Oh, and how do you measure improvement? Standardized test results? Percentage of college-bound seniors? It's easy to poke holes in others' suggestions. Can you provide any of your own?
Posted by: Steve | Apr 14, 2009 6:11:04 AM
"Because progressive Intel employees have a unique opportunity tonremind Mr Barrett that it is in Intel's best interest to help boost Oregon's k-12 system."
Maybe state employees should remind Teddy K that Intel employees take 10% paycuts during tough times to help keep job losses to a min. How much could we save if state employees were willing to forego 10% of their paycheck?
In addition, in the last biennium didn't education spending go up something like 20%? How much of that ended up in the classroom? Didn't Mr K say most of it went to benefits?
I also volunteer at PPS and I'd love to see what improvement OEA has made at public schools in the last 10, 20, 30 or 50 years in educating students. From what I see it is prety much what I saw in high school 30 years ago. Instead when someone tries to drag schools into the computer age like Oregon Connections Academy, then they try to shut them down.
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Apr 14, 2009 7:48:04 AM
Why is it that most of you assume that "education" means K-12? Barrett wants better higher ed, too. The problem, of course, is that he doesn't want to pay for it. And too many of you conveniently avoid talking about that.
Posted by: alcatross | Apr 14, 2009 8:07:30 AM
tl (in sw) says: You (mp97303) will find the numbers that will support your beliefs and you've (mp97303) made it clear you don't believe spending money will improve education quality "one iota"
tl, these aren't 'beliefs' based on the Bible or some obscure religious text, they're facts based on a reality that has cyclically repeated now for decades.
Just look at the amount of money colleges and universities spend providing remedial courses to get new high school 'graduates' up to where they're prepared to do college-level work. Is it any wonder it now takes many if not most students ~6.5 years to complete a bachelors degree? And you don't think colleges and universities charging ever higher tuition/fees are just happier than a pig in mud to be in on that gravy-train?
Someone above asked for suggestions - the first thing we need to do is get out of this mindset that improvements in education only come about from higher $ spending. Only then will people get serious about looking at/for other solutions.
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Apr 14, 2009 8:28:25 AM
Chuck, here is what I would do with an additional $100MM, in no particular order:
1. Expand internet based alternative schools K-12.
2. Endow Oregon Higher Ed in order to provide as close to no cost education to OR High School graduates who are legally in the country.
3. establish a High Tech curriculum for High School (read Friedman, The World is Flat)
Posted by: alcatross | Apr 14, 2009 8:42:04 AM
Chuck says: Why is it that most of you assume that "education" means K-12? Barrett wants better higher ed, too. The problem, of course, is that he doesn't want to pay for it. And too many of you conveniently avoid talking about that.
Maybe because Barrett knows (and probably many of us here also know) that the absolute first necessary step in improving higher ed is to fix K-12. Besides the many other immediate basic benefits to society, that will free up some higher ed $ currently spent providing high school level courses and allow students to graduate and join the work force sooner.
Why do you assume any and all improvements in education can only come from us all giving yet more $ directly to government and the public education system?
I don't know exact $ numbers, but I know Intel donates a lot of money to education both directly and through sponsorships and other programs world-wide. Maybe Intel has decided they'd prefer to control how their $ for education are spent rather than giving them to a public education system that has consistently showed less bang for more buck going on for nearly 40 years.
Now that I think about it, if it is Intel's strategy to control more how their $ for education are spent, it would be just the kind of practical hard-headed data-driven approach Andy Grove would likely espouse.
Posted by: Richard | Apr 14, 2009 9:10:42 AM
Chuck,
Senate Bill 476 would free $100 million to create better learning environments, significantly save schools energy costs in the long term and create over 4600 jobs. The bill is supported by Innovation Partners, a non-profit aimed at solving community problems like the classroom maintenance crisis with creative, sustainable solutions.
Salem, OR – While more than 8 out of every 10 Oregon classrooms are considered substandard from years of unfunded maintenance needs, the Energy Trust of Oregon has grown from an original budget of $30 million in 2001 to $146 million today. Senate Bill 476 would redirect $100 million to pay for energy upgrades, renewable energy and conservation efforts for schools and local governments.“This is a question of priorities; what do we value most, energy conservation for classrooms or corporate give-aways?” said Senator Larry George (R-Sherwood), one of two chief sponsors of SB 476 along with Senator Betsy Johnson (D-Scappoose). “The unchecked growth in this program has left Oregon classrooms in the dust while big corporations can feed at the government trough.”
In 2001, the Energy Trust of Oregon was established by rule of the Public Utility Commission to oversee a portion of the 3% public purpose charge leveled on Oregon utility ratepayers. The self-appointed board at the Energy Trust of Oregon now hands out more than $120 million every two years in large part to high-priced consultants and out-of-state corporations while schools go without vital energy conservation dollars.
Posted by: Mike | Apr 14, 2009 9:21:49 AM
Chuck,
Do you realize that Intel and the Intel Foundation has matched dollar for dollar donations to schools - public and private?
Do you know that Intel has supported endowments at many colleges and universities?
Do you know that Intel sponsors internships for many of the Co-Op university and colleges?
As others have pointed out, did you know that Intel works with schools in the communities where it has facilities, providing them with equipment and subsidizing employee volunteer hours--providing the schools directly with $20/hr volunteered by the employee, while still paying the employee their normal pay?
Did you know that Intel has supported the local NorthWest Science Symposium for middle and high school students? And the International Science and Engineering Fair? Did you know that Intel funds several significant scholarships at these fairs?
Chuck, can you name any other large employers in Oregon who are so generous, and truly care about supporting education?
Chuck, just how much would be enough for a company to deserve your thanks for what they do for the community?
Intel is a successful company. This success comes from selecting the best and the brightest throughout the world. If an area can both produce and atract the best and the brightest, the company will succeed. More high paying employees will result in higher tax revenues from salaries and property taxes.
Make an area unattractive, and companies will set up shop elsewhere. Portland? Not likely. Eugene? Also not likely.
Intel was attracted to Oregon in the mid 70s for a variety of reasons, and now Oregon and the Portland Metro area can boast to hosting one of the largest concentrations of Intel employees and facilities.
Don't bite the hand that feeds the tax revenue coffers in Oregon.
By the way, all of Oregon benefits, not just Washington County. And as the other poster smartly said, perhaps Intel would rather direct its funding to the most effective areas, than to let it be used less effectively by well meaning bureaucrats.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 14, 2009 9:25:13 AM
Intel is not paying taxes in Oregon so they can invest hundreds of millions of dollars in plant, equipment, and money in China. Doesn't that make you feel better?
http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/processors/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207100482
Posted by: Mike | Apr 14, 2009 9:43:42 AM
Bill,
Intel has not abandoned Oregon. Or did you miss the announcement from a few weeks back?
Intel has already invested BILLIONS in Oregon, and will likely continue to do so.
You don't like China?
I thought everyone here was compassionate.
Posted by: Mike | Apr 14, 2009 9:55:26 AM
For follow-up, here is the article from OPB:
Intel Investment Shows Commitment to Oregon
I hope you aren't upset that Arizona and New Mexico will also be sharing in this investment.
Posted by: tl (in sw) | Apr 14, 2009 10:48:28 AM
I find it interesting that the vociferous arguers against any more funding for public education 1) provide no suggestions for improving the quality of public education (they just repeat that spending money will not work), and 2) tout Intel's generous donations and matching funds to schools. Appears to be a bit of cognitive dissonance.
Alcatross suggests Only then(after stopping thinking that adding money will improve education) will people get serious about looking at/for other solutions.
I really want to know about other alternatives that work. I'm not being snarky. I am open to innovation and creative solutions as long as they benefit all, not just those who can afford it. I would suggest that people will get "serious" about "other solutions" when those solutions are proposed, debated, and backed up by evidence. I don't dispute that simply throwing money at schools will improve them. But I also don't agree that schools are living high and wide or on a "gravy train". Find me educators who got into teaching and/or are staying there "for the money" and you may change my mind.
Posted by: tl (in sw) | Apr 14, 2009 10:52:22 AM
Also, when does being a good employer and generous philanthropic organization preclude a corporation from paying its fair share of taxes? One argument against raising Intel's taxes is that there are so many Intel employees working and paying taxes. Following that line of reasoning, any large corporation could be exempt from taxes (GM, Walmart, Home Depot, you name it). Does that really make sense?
If it is true Intel paid only $10 (can anyone cite evidence pro or con, or did I miss a link?), is that fair or just - regardless of how you feel about current educational funding?
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Apr 14, 2009 11:57:16 AM
I find it ironic that all the bitter posters on this blog who are vehemently against funding for public education were, in fact, educated in those very same facilities.
At no cost to themselves.
Posted by: Rob | Apr 14, 2009 12:30:11 PM
The biggest factor in childrens' educational success are their parents. Obama touched on this in the campaign, but it is generally considered the third rail of politics.
Much easier to blame teachers, administrators, class size, school buildings, educational theories (which come and go). A pre-K ready to read program is critical for every child, how about ready for math? That must be complemented by community-based networks to ensure children's emotional health. These are community organizing projects, another Obama theme.
In France, expectant mothers are visited by home health workers to ensure prenatal health. That level of tracking and close engagement is needed for 0-K, for every child. This is akin to Secretary Clinton's "It takes a village". It should travel with the child when they move. Note too that the highest health care costs are complicated births and end of life, many of the former are preventable.
For a pop Friedmanesque analysis of why we need to get focused, rather than having the same pointless arguments, see the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o9nmUB2qls - Did You Know.
(Also note also at an expenditure of about $3 billion/year in 2010-11 for K-12, $100 million dedicated entirely would be a 3% increase. Math)
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Apr 14, 2009 1:01:28 PM
$100 million = 13 hours of war in Iraq.
Priorities.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Apr 14, 2009 1:44:44 PM
As a former member of financial management at Intel, someone involved in the purchase of the original land for Intel in Oregon, involved in the creation of the Intel Foundation, and someone who negotiated with the Oregon Governor's office for infrastructure support for Intel, I am appalled by the Intel employees trying to rationalize not paying a fair share of corporate taxes. Yes Intel employees pay personal taxes, yes Intel pays property taxes (although with a sizeable tax break), yes the Intel Foundation supports education in Oregon. None of this excuses not paying taxes.
Those professing that Intel takes care of the community take the same position as the rich individual who uses tax shelters or tax havens to avoid paying taxes, but gets on the society pages because he donates a fraction of these savings to a charity. A responsible citizen pays his taxes and donates to charity. One is not a replacement of the other.
Posted by: mp97303 | Apr 14, 2009 2:07:59 PM
Mr. Calhoun
Are you implying that Intel is engaged in the unlawful act of tax evasion?
Posted by: mp97303 | Apr 14, 2009 2:14:41 PM
High performance in school is not directly related to spending per student. Per the NEA, Oregon ranks roughly 20th in overall performance. MA, VT,MT,NH and SD rank #'s 1,2,4,7 and 8. Oregon spends $9469 per student. MA 13,768; VT 14,336; MT 9029; NH 11,447 and SD 8250.
As you can see, some spend more and others less. Many of you would say, lets spend what MA does so we can get better results. In exchange for spending 45% more, you will get a net gain in performance of 1.5%.
Posted by: Mike | Apr 14, 2009 2:44:42 PM
John,
I don't think anyone here is advocating for Intel to "not pay their fair share" of taxes.
Rather, the topic in the original article suggested that Intel was not.
Fair share is sometimes interpreted as "you need to pay more than you are paying" without identifying what is a reasonable level or why.
Should Intel or for that matter any company located in Oregon pay local and state taxes on the entire profit earned worldwide, or within the US, or within the state (if that can be determined)?
What is a fair share?
It's like defining who is rich - the generally accepted answer is one who is earning more than the other guy.
Respectfully,
PS Chuck, have you contacted Intel community affairs for an answer?
Posted by: John Calhoun | Apr 14, 2009 2:47:24 PM
mp97303,
Did I say tax evasion? No I did not. I used a comparison of an individual who uses tax havens and tax shelters, both currently legal, if sometimes unethical. Intel's actions are entirely legal. The debate is over the question of whether Intel's statements are hypocritical since they are asking the rest of society to pay for something for which they are not willing to pay their fair share.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Apr 14, 2009 2:52:35 PM
Mike,
We can debate the sense of fair share for Intel, but there are very few in the state who believe it is close to $10 per year. This is probably what Intel pays these days thanks to the change in the tax law a few years ago written specifically for the benefit of Intel and Nike. Your typical Oregon headquartered corporation has no such tax break.
Posted by: mp97303 | Apr 14, 2009 3:24:03 PM
Mr. Calhoun
Given that you were a member of their financial management team, can you cite the IRS reg, or any accounting text for that matter, that defines "fair share"
Thanks
Posted by: David McDonald | Apr 14, 2009 3:44:51 PM
Is this a post about education or corporate greed? I see it as the latter, which tells you things need to change if we're going move forward as a society. That simple? Uh huh.
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Apr 14, 2009 3:56:11 PM
John Calhoun is correct -- all the other activities are not substitutes for paying a fair share. And what's a fair share? Well, it is more than just $10, and it is not taxing worldwide profits. But it is apportioning a fair share of their profits to Oregon, which we used to do. Now we don't because Intel, Nike and others were successful in changing the apportionment formula. That's why they are not paying taxes at the level they used to pay. If we went back to "double weighted sales" apportionment we'd be closer to getting a fair share. If we closed some loopholes -- like the one that provides a tax credit to Intel engaging in R&D - which is something they must do anyway to survive.
Want to have a sense of fair share? Enact a law that discloses corporate taxes -- the public will quickly see which companies are paying a fair share of their income in taxes and which are not.
Posted by: alcatross | Apr 14, 2009 3:56:49 PM
John Calhoun says: The debate is over the question of whether Intel's statements are hypocritical since they are asking the rest of society to pay for something for which they are not willing to pay their fair share.
What Intel statements are hypocritical? Barrett referenced 'a slouching education system that cannot be easily fixed...' It's you and others here at BO who are jumping to the conclusion that the only cure for what ails our education system is more money. Despite the fact ,the US spends over 3x as much on public education than the next highest nation (Japan) Yet most students from other developed (and even some undeveloped) nations run rings around the average US student in academic achievement - and then proceed to take their unfair share of our best skilled jobs.
It seems to me Intel IS putting a good deal of money behind Barrett's mouth here As I postulated before, perhaps they've decided they can direct some of their $ for education to yield a more effective return themselves than rely solely on a now very top-heavy public education system with no real record of recent success.
There may not be 'educators' in teaching solely for the money - but I guarandamntee you there are 'educators' in school administration who are there for the money and benefits.
Posted by: Tom Vail | Apr 14, 2009 4:06:28 PM
Chuck,
"Give the legislature reasons and permission to change our corporate tax code and to turn Intel and other profitable companies into good corporate citizens."
Chuck, You more than imply that Intel is not a good corporate citizen. Does that mean your solution is to make them unprofitable or just to punish them for not being "good corporate citizens" by your definition?
"So, BlueOregon readers, tell Craig Barrett what types of investments could be made in education if Intel started paying $100 million a budget period again. "
Instead, let's suggest ways that Oregon could spend its dollars for better results. Here are a few ways to start:
1. Take a hard look at sports in schools. Most everywhere in the world, outside the US, sports teams for youth and adults are clubs, not public money spent on "education." How much money could be saved if we privatized high school sports/college sports?
2. Merit pay. Since Unions are dead set against merit pay, our administrators have lost that tool. I think many teachers deserve far more than they are paid. Union rules don't allow that. I also think there are teachers who are hanging on by the thread of their Union support and should be fired. I would be very interested to learn what good Unions have done for the education of our kids. It would also be interesting to know what percentage of moneys collected by teacher's unions is given to education and how much is given to political causes
3. Tracking. Most successful education programs use tracking to identify strengths and weaknesses so they can address studies appropriately to individual students. In our politically correct society, we have to treat everyone the same. It is beyond stupid to think more damage is done by tracking students and giving them a good education rather than saving their fragile self esteem by not allowing them to be labeled slow or mentally gifted.
4. Vouchers. Let a market for results determine where the money goes.
5. The list goes on but it rarely needs an injection of dollars. What it (our education system) needs is fewer bureaucrats, less politics, and more competition.
I respect that you disagree with the way taxation is done in this state and that you are trying to change it. However, in my view, pointing the finger of blame at Intel is just using the old "class envy" tool to make your political point. It would be far more productive to merely initiate debate on those things we might do to improve the results of our state's education system.
Posted by: mp97303 | Apr 14, 2009 4:27:16 PM
Chuck
It seems your anger is misplaced. You should be going after the Pols who made this possible.
I would support listing how much each corporation in Oregon pays in taxes......and how much each individual pays in taxes. I want to know if my neighbor is paying their "fair share"
Let's implement a minimum tax on individuals as well and apply that to education funding. No taxable income is not the sole province of individuals.
Posted by: Steve | Apr 14, 2009 5:09:12 PM
"I really want to know about other alternatives that work. I'm not being snarky. "
OK, Oregon Connections Academy works great. The OEA is using some unrelated rules to shut it down like every charter school like any other successful charter school it goes after.
How about the OEA coming up with a success story on how to better education since none of us non-teachers know anything?
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Apr 14, 2009 6:45:52 PM
I would support listing how much each corporation in Oregon pays in taxes......and how much each individual pays in taxes. I want to know if my neighbor is paying their "fair share"
Wingnuts always place corporations and individuals as equals.
And there lies the problem.
Posted by: Scott in Damascus | Apr 14, 2009 7:15:35 PM
Oh sweet bejesus where to start ....
How much money could be saved if we privatized high school sports/college sports?
Because only rich white kids should be allowed to participate in sports. For example, my daughter plays club volleyball and it cost about $5K a year. She is not the best nor the worst, but I can tell you most of her friends can't participate because of money.
Oh, and privatization has worked sooooo well for the military and FEMA we really need to explore that option further!!
I think many teachers deserve far more than they are paid. Union rules don't allow that.
Specifically, which rule?
Most successful education programs use tracking to identify strengths and weaknesses so they can address studies appropriately to individual students
Yeah, that program is called PRIVATE SCHOOL! Because once you strip out the money for aides, counselors, administrators, Head Start, and other programs tailored for the individual student you basically short change everybody.
Which voucher program do you want to discuss? Milwaukee, Cleveland, Houston, Miami, or another one of your choice? Because of of them, subjected to your "market results" theory resulted in massive fraud and waste without a single iota of improved test scores.
In short, when will you Enron free-market wingnuts figure out that education is not a for-profit venture?
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: mp97303 | Apr 13, 2009 7:42:40 PM
Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement?
According to this study, the answer would be no. In fact, cities that spend significantly less than Portland, have better results.
For those unwilling to click, a summary:
The evidence about education spending and achievement leads to the following important lessons:
American spending on public K–12 education is at an all-time high and is still rising. Polls show that many people believe that a lack of resources is a primary problem facing public schools. Yet spending on American K–12 public education is at an all-time high. Approximately $9,300 is spent per pupil. Real spending per stu dent has increased by 23.5 percent over the past decade and by 49 percent over the past 20 years.
Continuous spending increases have not corresponded with equal improvement in American performance. Long-term measures of American students' academic achievement, such as long-term NAEP reading scale scores and high school graduation rates, show that the performance of American students has not improved dramatically in recent decades, despite substantial spending increases. The lack of a correlation between long-term education spending and performance does not suggest that resources are not a factor in academic perfor mance, but it does suggest that simply increas ing spending is unlikely to improve educational performance.
Increasing federal funding on education has not been followed by similar gains in student achievement. Federal spending on elementary and secondary education has also increased sig nificantly in recent decades. Since 1985, real fed eral spending on K–12 education has increased by 138 percent. On a per-student basis, federal spending on K–12 education has tripled since 1970. Yet, long-term measures of American stu dents' academic achievement have not seen similar increases. Long-term test scores among specific student populations, including ethnic minorities that have been a main focus of federal education policy, have improved some. How ever, the achievement gaps among white, black, and Hispanic students persist in test scores and graduation rates.
Education reform efforts should focus on improving resource allocation. Instead of sim ply increasing funding, efforts to improve educa tion should focus on improving resource allocation. Chart 5 compares high graduation rates and per-student expenditures in the nation's 50 largest cities. In many cities, spending per stu dent exceeds $10,000 per year, yet graduation rates are below 50 percent. For example, in Detroit, per-student spending is approximately $11,100 per year, yet only 25 percent of Detroit's students are graduating from high school according to a recent estimate.[21] In these communities and across the country, policymakers should focus on reforming policies and resource alloca tion to improve student achievement.