The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

It’s in the news again.

Created in 1989, the Convention (often abbreviated as the “CRC”) has a number of laudable goals and features. It has been ratified by 193 countries around the world. The only two UN member states which have NOT ratified it are Somalia and the United States (which proponents of the treaty often cite as something that should be embarrassing to the United States).

There is much in this treaty which is admirable and non-controversial. There are some parts of it which are simply innocuous. And there are some parts of it which pro-family and pro-homeschooling advocates in the United States find objectionable.

But why all the hubbub over a UN Convention? Isn’t this simply a non-binding statement of principles?

For many countries, that might be the case (and probably explains why many of the 193 have ratified – for them, ratification has no practical effect on their own laws and practices).

But the effect of ratifying a treaty in the United States is different, because of Article VI of the US Constitution and the 14^th Amendment.

Article VI (often called the “Supremacy Clause”) states, in part:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Supremacy Clause makes all treaties ratified by the US Senate binding in all Federal AND in all State courts. Which means that the United States Senate should be very careful when it votes to ratify a treaty. It also helps explain why the ratification of a treaty requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate – Treaty ratification is akin to amending the Constitution, and comes close to it in its wide-reaching consequences and significance.

Non-Controversial Sections of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child include the prohibitions on kidnapping, child labor, child prostitution, and using children as soldiers. Ironically, the United States HAS signed and ratified both of the optional protocols which have been appended to the CRC: one on the use of children in military conflicts and one which prohibits child pornography.

Children’s “Rights” are the issue, and whether those rights may be asserted against parents

The problematic parts of the CRC are in articles 13-17 which enumerate children’s rights which all parties to the CRC agree to recognize. These rights are described in legal language which is at times ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so. They include the right to freedom of expression, the right to receive information, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of association and peaceful assembly, a right to personal privacy and a right to access mass media. And here is where the issues arise. It would be one thing to assert that a child has these enumerated rights and that children must be protected from any attempt by the state to interfere with them. But the CRC leaves open and unresolved whether a child has these rights and can appeal to the state to prevent any of these rights from being abridged by parents. Given the Constitutional status afforded treaties and the social activism of parts of the legal community, it is quite probable that these rights would be raised in legal proceedings against parents by advocates acting in the name of children. If the CRC intended to protect children from any abridging of these rights by the State (but not by parents), then it should have said so. Because it does not limit its applicability to actions against the states, in the US Courts, it would inevitably be invoked in cases of conflicts between parents and children, with the result that parental authority would be eviscerated and children would be free to make dangerous and/or inappropriate choices, with parents forbidden from interfering. To take but one example, if parents decided to enroll a child in a religious school, the child could object and bring action citing the CRC and veto the parents’ decision.

Ratification of the treaty would provide the basis for the state to intervene in parenting decisions regarding education, media, and friends. It would radically undermine the rights of parents to direct the care, upbringing and education of their children.

Outlawing corporal punishment

The CRC has been repeatedly interpreted by the UN, by its committees, and in other judicial settings as requiring ratifying governments to “prohibit all forms of violence, including corporal punishment, in the upbringing of children.”

For some, this is simply one more reason to support ratification. But the overwhelming majority of parents in the US believe that corporal punishment by parents is a legitimate form of discipline. In any event, the definition of child abuse and neglect is currently made by state law, interpreted by state courts. Ratification of the CRC would, in effect, be the enactment of a federal ban on corporal punishment. No matter how you feel about the issue, federalizing it will have terrible consequences for families.

The CRC also establishes a UN committee and requires ratifying states to submit a report on implementation of the CRC within two years and every five years thereafter. The Committee may request additional information, review, and comment on States’ reports, but it does not appear to have any enforcement authority. I view the Committee as, at worst, an annoyance. Various states have already received chiding comments from the Committee, but they have little practical effect, other than in the court of public opinion (which is to say hardly at all). Of far greater concern is potential enforcement actions of the US federal courts, acting with the authorization of the US Constitution’s attribution of legal authority to all ratified treaties.

Read the Convention for yourself

Here’s a link to the full text of the Convention (at the UN web site): http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

I would encourage everyone interested to read the text for themselves, paying particular attention to articles 13-17.

There is also an interesting article in the Emory International Law Review by Prof. David M. Smolin of the Cumberland Law School, which identifies the issues pretty clearly. Prof. Smolin believes the objections to Articles 13-17 could be overcome by the adoption of “reservations” by the US Senate, and argues that the treaty is not self-executing and therefore should not cause concern. The treaty is NOT self-executing, but the US Constitution spells out the mechanism by which treaties become supreme law which must be followed by all federal and state judges. I think Prof. Smolin has missed this point.

Further Reading:

U.N. Fairy Tales About Children, Kay S. Hymowitz,
City Journal

Abandoning Children to Their Rights, Bruce C. Hafen and Jonathan O. Hafen, First Things

HSLDA has a series of articles, all linked from this page: http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/Issues/U/United_Nations.asp

ParentalRights.org also has a well documented and footnoted article, 20 Things you Need to Know about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

- RedHatRob
http://RedHatRob.com

Charter School Expansion still a possibility in Tennessee

Indiana Considers School Choice Tax Credit

A trend for greater choice is slowly gaining steam, Indiana is now on the forefront….

Indiana Considers School Choice Tax Credit

Hoosier State Governor Mitch Daniels included a $5 million school choice tax credit program in his budget, which will be considered in the state legislature’s special session. According to The Brazil Times:

The Indiana School Scholarship Tax Credit program would provide a 50 percent state tax credit for charitable contributions to qualified scholarship programs serving lower-income families. Children in grades kindergarten-12 could qualify for scholarships to help attend the public or private school of their choice. The program passed the Indiana Senate with bipartisan support earlier this spring on two occasions.

Facing a large state budget deficit, some may be wondering why Governor Daniels would be supporting providing a new tax break. One reason is that his program is likely to generate significant fiscal savings for the state over time. In April, the Friedman Foundation analyzed the fiscal impact of the proposed tax credit plan and found that the program could save as much as $4.7 million in the first year.

If the Hoosier state becomes the newest to offer school choice, it could be a win-win for students and taxpayers.

The shifting of TNGOP Leadership

Cap and Trade’s Hot Air Tour Blows on to Nashville Fairground

This morning me and the youngest member of the clan, drove over to Nashville’s Fairgrounds to join in the outcry of stopping the Cap and Trade Environmental hysteria.

Chatty C. and I were greeted with free donuts, “Truth is Cool” t-shirt giveaways, and lots of global warming / climate change HOT AIR.

AFP President Tim Phillips rallied the troops to get out their cell phones right then and call their two state senators (Alexander & Corker). Who he said, both appeared to be facilitating on whether each would completely oppose this Cap & Trade legislation.

Giving out their office numbers, he asked everyone to call them right then and there and raise your hand if you got through. Hands began to trickle up periodically throughout the crowd of a couple of hundred.

Ben Cunningham and Lee Beaman were a few of the more notables seen in the crowd.
Good friends from church, Wayne and Ruth Hickman (Wayne seen in sunglasses in picture foreground) gave me a copy of the Media Malpractice Movie that was shown at the CoolSprings Thoroughbred last night. They told me that they did not want it back, just pass it along to someone else, so anyone who wants to see it, just let me know and I will pass it along to you.

Phil Valentine and Johnny B. reminded the folk that although numbers of current office holders might be in the clear majority to pass this legislation, similar odds were being played against when a few horn honkers started a ground swell that stopped the state income tax in Tennessee

He also mentioned a conversation with Senator Corker regarding his proposal for an amendment to allow the tax but give back the monies to the taxpayer. A shell game he would be very wary, one in which the return would surely be a smaller percentage than what was originally taken.

This Cap and Trade should be opposed not amended or made more palatable because of it’s feared inevitability.

TCPR’s Shaka Mitchell ended the rally with another cheer against the Cap and Trade proposal, preferring the Cap and Tax Moniker instead. Warning of much higher electrical cost at a time in Nashville where several thousand cannot pay their current utility bills.

As the balloon illustrates….Cap and Trade means: Lost Jobs-Higher Taxes-Less Freedom. An issue that many struggling in the current economic slow-down should hearken to educate themselves, their friends, and ultimately those policy makers representing them.

Tennessee All Payer Database Proposal

Rep. Susan Lynn gives a comprehensive and balanced anlysis on the All Payer Claims Database proposal..

Section by Section Analysis – All Payer Claims Database

Title: Bill Number: HB2289/SB2239

This brief document summarizes some of the major components to HB2289 (SB2239) which is currently being considered by the Tennessee General Assembly.

Summary

The bill creates a government database of Tennesseans’ private healthcare claims. Each Tennessean that has private health insurance would be listed in the database, and all claims for care that they receive would be transmitted to the state by private health insurance companies for compilation in the database.

For example, if you went to the doctor today with a cold, and again on Friday with bronchitis, then by Monday you were admitted to the hospital with pneumonia all of that data would be submitted to the state so that the department of finance and administration can follow the progress of your illness and treatment.

The enormity of this database cannot be overstated. For instance, Blue Cross / Blue Shield processes 38,000 insurance claims per hour. Each of the claims would become part of the database.

Several New England states and Minnesota have already instituted similar databases. Minnesota’s health dept has recently begun dictating health protocols to doctors and insurance companies – what business the state has interfering in private healthcare transactions is yet unanswered.

As outlined in the bill, the government wants the private healthcare data of her citizens’ so that the Commissioner of the TN Department of Finance and Administration (presently Dave Goetz) can carry out several stated objectives including:

Improve health care accessibility and affordability,

Identify health care needs,

Determine the capacity and distribution of existing health care resources,

Evaluate the effectiveness of programs on patient outcomes,

Review costs,

Provide publicly available information on providers’ quality of care.

REMEMBER! This data is privately paid for information on private individuals who are making claims to private insurance companies. Frankly, the government has no business having such private information or performing any of the above duties when you privately pay for your healthcare.

Section by Section Analysis

Section 1; Adds the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) to the Tennessee Code under insurance company utilization review agents in 56-6-704.

NCQA is a non-profit organization that “promotes the adoption of strategies that we believe will improve care, enhance service and reduce costs, such as paying providers based on performance, leveraging the Web to give consumers more information, disease management and physician-level measurement.”

In a letter dated March 6, 2009 to President Obama from this non-profit organization praised the president for his White House Healthcare Summit and for moving us toward “comprehensive health care reform we need.”

Their criteria for which insurance companies must comply contains 6011 data fields on patients for evaluating cost and quality. Some large insurance companies already belong to this organization and comply with the 6011 data sets – however, others do not already comply.

 

Amendment 1

Section 3 – Definitions;

Bill contains no definition for;

· All Payer Claims Database
· National Standards in Section 3 (c)(2)(A) or Section 3 (f)(1)(C).
· HEDIS information in Section 3 (f)(2)(A). Some HEDIS information is based solely on surveys.
· National multi-collaborative stakeholders found in Section 3 (c).

Section 3 (c); Tennessee Health Information Committee

· No requirements for meetings of the committee or for the call of meetings or for the format.
· There is no sunrise date for the committee.
· Under the proposed law, the Commissioner of Finance and Administration would take recommendations from the newly established “Tennessee Health Information Committee.” The committee is to be comprised of 19 members, only one of whom “represent[s] health care consumers”; all of whom may view all of the information on the database. It is unclear why oversight of the database and the functions is housed within the Department of Finance and Administration, as opposed to the TN Department of Health.

Section 3 (c)(2)(A); Calls for the committee to develop a description of data sets based on “national standards” – National standards is not defined.

Protected Health Information; Not any specific part of the bill restricts the submission of “Protected Health Information” (PHI) to the state of Tennessee – “Protected Health Information” is a dataset of 18 fields of personal information identified by HIPAA’s Privacy Rules. The bill does not preclude the state from getting your PHI; only three of the 18 fields of the PHI may not be included in the Database. In fact, HIPAA expressly allows the government to receive your Personal Health Information – http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/pr_08.asp.

All through the bill it implies that the state will have Protected Health Information.
See:

Section 3 (c)(3)(A) & (B)
Section 3 (c)(5)
Section 3 (d)(1) – one of the most obvious spots
Section 3 (f)(2) – another very obvious spot
Section 3 (d)(2)(A) asserts that “source” or “draft” information used to construct or populate the database will exist.

Nowhere does it state that the data set will be fully de-identified before the state receives the information from the insurance companies.

Section 3 (c)(2)(B); Requires the Committee to develop a method for the submission of data. NO METHOD IS DESCRIBED IN THE BILL.

Once an all payer claims database is established health insurance issuers must submit data in a standardized, electronic form, for inclusion in the database. The data submitted will include information on patients, their claims, the quality of care received, pricing rates, costs of care, and possibly other information in conformity with the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA).

Section 3 (d)(2)(b); The information will be made available to virtually any branch of state government.

Section 3 (e); Excludes only three pieces of personal information from the All Claims Database; name, address, and social security number. This is startling to anyone that knows anything about datasets and privacy. HIPAA identifies 18 fields of protected health information that must be excluded in order for complete privacy to be assured. The inclusion of any of the remaining 18 fields puts patient privacy at risk.

This section should expressly state that none of the 18 fields of Protected Health Information will ever be received by the government.

Section 3 (f)(1)(A); States that all group health plans and health insurance issuers shall provide electronic health insurance claims and eligibility data in accordance with the committee and state rule. Why is eligibility data included if we do not know the persons identity? Again, there is no statement that Protected Health Information will be omitted.

Section 3 (f)(1)(B); Allows the committee and the commissioner to request any additional information from insurance companies that they deem.

Section 3 (f)(1)(C); States the committee and commissioner shall strive for standards and procedures that reflect “national standards”. No definition of national standards exists in the bill.

Section 3 (f)(2)(B); This unfunded mandate forces insurance companies to change the way they receive claims from providers to the very same format that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires claims to be submitted.

Section 3 (f)(3); Insurance companies that fail to submit patient information to the state shall be fined up to $100 each day of delay. It is unclear whether this fine applies to the failure to file all records, or whether it is assessed per record.

Fiscal note: The TN General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee notes that the legislation will increase State expenditures by more than $200,000. That is an improbable amount for such an expansive database with continuing analysis. In Minnesota the compilation of the data base cost $1.2 million for just the first 18 months and the analysis was $3 million.

Additional Analysis
By TCPR

Vagueness – The bill’s language is extremely vague when describing the “duties” of the Commissioner of Finance and Administration with regards to his utilization of this database. For instance, one duty is “evaluating the effectiveness of intervention programs on improving patient outcomes.” It is unclear by what standards the commissioner is to use when making such evaluations.

Effectiveness – It is unlikely that a database, while comprehensive in nature, will allow members of the newly created TN Health Information Committee (THIC) to develop meaningful and effective recommendations that increase public health without years of extensive analysis. Billions of dollars are spent each year in the U.S. to improve public health yet the fiscal note for this legislation is just over $200,000. The likelihood of success with such a meager expenditure, especially among a myriad of other, more sophisticated research, is weak at best.

Access to Data – The proposed legislation gives access to otherwise private and confidential health care data to any “departments of state government” if the information is disclosed with the purpose of achieving the duties (of the Commissioner of Finance and Administration). Given the vagueness of the “duties” as noted supra, access to this sensitive information is given to nearly any governmental agency in the state of Tennessee.

As with all public databases, there is a significant chance the information could become compromised. This could occur from a computer “hacker” or from someone within state government (as was the case in the State Trooper’s office last year). Exposure to liability should this sensitive data become publically available is virtually infinite and could open the state to decades of litigation from around the country. Also troubling is the potential to cross-reference health care data with other databases such as school records, criminal records, and travel logs.

It should also be noted that numerous public websites already exist that allow consumers to “shop” for a health care provider that meets their needs. These websites exist without sharing identifiable or sensitive information. Thus the state already has data from which to study health care from a public policy perspective.

Privacy – As the proposed law is written, patients and health care providers are unable to exempt themselves from this database. Similarly, there is no “opt-in” provision that would apply the new law to only those choosing to be a part of the government maintained database. The law states that it will comport with all applicable Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations, however this is misleading. HIPAA, by its own terms, does allow for private health care information to be shared with state agencies in certain instances and this law seems to fall within those rules. HIPAA does, however, seem to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy (between patient, provider, and insurer) and this law may unconstitutionally violate that constitutional right.

TN Residents Only? – The bill, by inference only, seems to apply only to Tennessee residents however, it is not clear that lawmakers have contemplated how to the law should apply to part-time residents, those that visit TN-based health care providers, those that work for a TN-based company though they live out of state, Tennesseans with out of state dependents, etc. Requiring insurance companies to submit data without a way to meaningfully limit the law to Tennesseans subjects both insurance companies and the state to great litigation exposure.

Costs to Consumers & Insurers – The legislation’s current fiscal note is less than $200,000 but this only takes the cost to the state government into account. Furthermore, even the fiscal note is a gross under-estimate. In Minnesota, where similar legislation passed, the cost of the program exceeded $4 million in less than 4 years. Insurance companies are likely to incur great costs when forced to conform to an electronic form as prepared by the NCQA. These costs are likely to be passed along, eventually, to consumers. Thus the stated goal of “improving…affordability of patient health care and health care coverage” is thwarted from the start.

Finally, insurance companies will have to disclose otherwise proprietary information which, according to the proposed law, is subject to “public release” via report. While this could lead to greater price transparency, it could also lead to forcing insurance companies to exit the state in favor of states that allow them to retain some competitive advantage. Again, the stated goal of “improving accessibility” could be drastically harmed if this legislation becomes a law.

Ways the State of Tennessee could save some money

Rep. Stacey Campfield has listed some good cost saving nuggets here….

Show me the money!!!
Tonight the caucus got together and started to talk brass tacks on the budget. So far it is looking like we are going to be able to cut a lot of what the governor wants to spend on and keep from having to increase taxes as much.

The bond package is looking dead. That will save tens of millions in debt and interest. we will remove the tax increase implementation on cable boxes. The fonce tax increase is looking to be cut if not eliminated. It is already down to out of state owners and properties larger then quadplexes. The money the gov wanted to spend on pre K from the general fund will now be coming out of lottery reserve funds instead. We started to brainstorm on other ideas to save the state money. In no order some of my favorites are…

1. Sell, lease or close all the state golf courses that are not making money. $2.3 million. I hear one is planning a major renovation that will put it deeper in the red.

2. Stop construction on the party bunker until more money comes it. Some people suggested to just fill it in with dirt. Cant say I really against the idea much.

3. Cut funding for the arts and non profits and planned parenthood. About $8 million there. I like the arts but if it quality it will be able to stand on its own.

4. Cut funding for the study of earthquakes. that is over a million dollars in state money alone a year. They have been studying them for going on 30 years. I think we know enough for now.

5. Freeze all non emergency travel.

6. Opt out of the federal highway gas tax. It is optional and if we opt out and keep the gas tax at its current level the state will have more money then what it gets from the fed.

7. This one I must say is about my favorite. Just off the 10th amendment resolution several of us have been talking about how we give money to the fed we don’t need to give them. They are only entitled to money from products made in Tennessee but sold outside of Tennessee.

We currently also give the fed money on some things even if it is made and sold inside Tennessee. Many of us think because of the 9th and 10 amendment they aren’t entitled to it.

We are looking into the legality of saying a wide variety of items that the fed taxes should have the locally sold percent held back. Items such as alcohol (Can you say Jack Danial’s, George Dickle, etc.) Tobacco and guns that are manufactured and sold in Tennessee are just a few of the items we came up with off the top of our heads. If they are made and sold in Tennessee then why are we giving the fed money for it?

If we were to keep part of the money for just the percent that is sold in Tennessee we could be talking millions upon millions. The fed may squawk but I want to see them argue against the constitution.

RedHatRob & Kay Brooks on the Radio talking about homeschooling in Tennessee

This Thursday night (6/4/2009), at 8:00 PM Pacific/10:00 PM Central/11:00 PM Eastern, I’ll be on the blogtalkradio show Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Conservatism.

The show is hosted by Babe Huggett (who blogs at TheRealityCheck.org) and Warner Todd Huston (who is a prolific blogger and owner of StopTheACLU).

You can click on the Life, Liberty link to go to the show’s homepage and listen to the show on your PC, streamed over the internet.

Hosts Babe Huggett and Warner Todd Huston discuss and examine current political events, put them in historical context and follow trends to their logical conclusions through a conservative, Christian viewpoint. Phone in comments from listeners always welcome! Call-in Number: (347) 237-4040

On this Thursday’s Episode (6/4/2009) of Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Conservatism

Hosts Babe Huggett & Warner Todd Huston dig deep & analyze the news with their usual insightful and historical approach all the while being as politically irreverent as possible! It’s time to spend your Summer 2009 vacation cramming & jamming with home schooling advocates, Kay Brooks & Rob Shearer, as they educate us tonight about the deliberate persecution of home schooled graduates, the dumbing down of students in government propaganda factories a.k.a. public schools & the erosion of educational liberty in Tennessee in particular & the USA in general.

Should School Boards have taxing authority?

 Giving taxing authority to Boards of Education is a very bad idea according to Kay Brooks…

MNPS taxing authority

Well they had their ‘give the BOE taxing authority’ rally yesterday and surprise, surprise (not) the news is full of how this would be a good thing for MNPS. Less politics, more accountability, less bickering, yadda, yadda.

I don’t understand how having the Mayor, in consultation with the BOE, suggest a budget amount for MNPS and then the Metro Council passes the budget, after budget hearings asking about the needs of MNPS and its past performance (to include how they spent the money they got last time) is LESS accountable than handing over taxing authority to the BOE directly. Please remember, once the Council passes the budget they hand over a lump sum to the BOE who then has the freedom to spend that money as they see fit.

“The public is left out there with no idea which authority to hold accountable,” said Stephen Smith, assistant executive director of the Tennessee School Board Association.” City Paper

So the School Board Association instead of educating the public about the process so that we can make wiser decisions about who to hold accountable will “dumb down” the process to ensure this homework isn’t too hard for us. Bonus for the education system is they only have to persuade nine people that their pet project is worth reaching into your wallet. Remember, this is all about making it easier for the BOE not easier for taxpayers. I’ve absolutely no doubt that the BOE doesn’t enjoy have to go hat in hand to the Mayor or the Council but that’s part of accountability–having to answer for what you’ve done with what you got before.

And where should it stop? Maybe the police and fire departments should also have taxing authority. The same bogus argument about accountability could be made for them too. Personally, I value public safety over public education. And speaking about public safety…what about the health department? Maybe they shouldn’t have to suffer the inconveniences and embarrassment of making a case for their expenditures.

This from the Tennessee County Commissioner’s Association back in December of 2008:

“As things stand right now, the Tennessee Constitution would have to be changed in order to directly give school boards taxing authority. That takes time as such a proposal would have to pass two separate General Assemblies and then be approved by the voters. What could happen right away is that the General Assembly could lift the ban on existing school districts converting to special school districts. We have about 14 special school districts in Tennessee currently, but the law has prohibited the creation of any new special school districts for some time. Special school districts levy a property tax pursuant to a private act adopted by the state legislature that sets a tax rate for the school system. So it would take taxing authority away from the county commission, but would give it to state legislators who usually act based on the recommendations of the school board for the special school district.” (emphasis added)

How does moving this taxing authority up to the state level make our neighborhood schools and our school board more accountable? Looks like they’ll have the same excuse they’ve got now “Well, we could have done better but the Council/Legislature wouldn’t let us have the money we needed.”

And what we know about education spending is that the BOE will raise taxes to the maximum the Legislature will allow as quickly as it can with nothing but an election every other year for half of the board to slow it down. You’ll have nine folks, most of whom are less financial geniuses than the Metro Council, deciding how much of your money you’ll have left to feed and clothe and house your family because they see what they do ‘for the children’ as more important that what you’re trying to do for your own children with the money you earned.

According to the Tennessean the MNPS is 40% of the Metro Nashville budget. 40%! We’re getting close to the tipping point. This year the BOE wants $620 million dollars to education about 75,000 children. That’s about the current quote for the new convention center. And they’ve been spending about half a billion dollars for several years now. That’s $8,000+ for every one of those 75,000 students and that doesn’t include state or federal dollars. They’ve got enough money.

No matter how many times the Chamber and its partners say ‘accountability’ this plan is less accountability. They are calling black white and white black. They’re going to repeat that often, loudly and in full color brochures as long as we’ll let them. I say no. Absolutely no. If the goal really is accountability…how about we see those teacher value added scores AND we put the MNPS check register on-line?