Editorials from around New York

Recent editorials of statewide and national interest from New York’s newspapers:

The Adirondack Daily Enterprise on how New York state education Commissioner Mary Ellen Elia and state test opt-outs.

Aug. 19

Back in April, New York state education Commissioner Mary Ellen Elia urged parents to have their children in grades 3 through 8 take the state tests in English language arts and math. She still feels they should, but now she is also sticking up for those parents’ rights to opt their kids out of the exams.

She is doing so in the face of a federal law and federal Education Secretary John King Jr., her predecessor as New York’s head of schools. In this snarled time in the state of education, we think she is right both to discourage opt-outs and to protect them.

Soon after the Every Student Succeeds Act was reauthorized as federal law in December 2015, the U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to chief state school officers, including Elia, that emphasized potential consequences for inadequate participation in the exams. Any state with less than 95 percent participation could lose federal funding.

New York had 79 percent this year and 80 percent last year. Districts in our part of the state ranged widely, from 23 to 100 percent.

The opt-out movement is a protest, although its message is mixed. Some parents feel the tests are overbearing and unnecessary; others oppose the federal, state and corporate meddling in schools.

We think the tests are bearable and don’t like parents making kids do their civil disobedience for them, but we also admit it has been an effective blunt instrument that prompted Gov. Andrew Cuomo to do a near-180 on so-called “reform” of education. While his first education commissioner was King, who was driven by ideology, his second is Elia, who is more attentive to people.

“Parents should make a decision to have their kids take (the exams), but it’s their decision. Children should not be penalized for that decision,” she said.

It’s sad that President Barack Obama thought King worthy of such a huge promotion, but at least New York now has someone who will stand up to him.

Nevertheless, there is only so much she can do since New York got itself into this mess by trying to “win” the president’s Race to the Top, in which states competed to implement the Common Core standards and tests the fastest and were rewarded with federal education money. Cuomo, running for governor in 2010, cheered New York on as it dove in for the full Monty.

After he was elected, his education commissioner, King, made state schools adopt the whole federal package in a single year, with tests farmed out to education corporation Pearson. That year was turbulent: Teachers got workbooks too late to prepare students for the exams, some of the test questions were preposterous, and math changed so much that parents often couldn’t help their kids with homework anymore. People got mad and lost faith, and New York leaders are still paying for that.

Now that it’s less appealing, King is reminding them of what they signed up for.

Maybe a deal is a deal, or maybe it isn’t. New York isn’t the only state disillusioned by the Race to the Top, and the tests clearly aren’t the solid metrics they were supposed to be. The tests don’t count toward students’ grades, so what is their incentive to do well rather than blowing them off? Schools don’t get students’ individual results back, so how are they useful in teaching those kids? The tests are intended to track how well schools and teachers teach the Common Core curriculum, but punitive measures to dock the pay of teachers whose students don’t test well are unfair and ineffective. And when so many students don’t take the test, the results are almost useless, statistically.

So yes, New York signed up for this, but because it clearly didn’t work, Commissioner Elia may be able to renegotiate from a position of some strength. If not, the feds may have to take their money and go home, with their reform a failure.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/2bVE33C

The Niagara Gazette opposing a proposal to make New York state lawmakers the highest paid state representatives in the country.

Aug. 18

New York state lawmakers have certainly had their share of dumb ideas over the years.

The latest - a proposal being considered to make them the highest paid state representatives in the country - has to be considered a rapid riser, if not tops on the current list given the sorry state of the state government in recent years.

A commission created by members of the state legislature in Albany has recommended hikes in the base pay of lawmakers by 47 percent, from $79,500 to $116,900 per year.

In terms of pay, New York lawmakers currently rank third in the country behind their counterparts in California and Pennsylvania who receive annual salaries of $100,113 and $85,339, respectively.

The recommendation is just that at this point so there’s still time for public debate. It’s interesting to note, however, that the commission’s final report on the matter isn’t due until Nov. 15, conveniently following the general election in which many members of the state assembly and senate will have to face the voters.

The timing is questionable on another front as well.

While it’s hard to envision an appropriate time for part-time politicians to receive such hefty pay increases, the fact that they are being proposed amid one of the darker times in a state already besieged by a poor public image due to repeated incidences of corruption makes even more difficult to accept.

Voters and taxpayers must not forget that two of the top representatives in state government - former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and ex-Senate GOP Majority Leader Dean Skelos - were both recently indicted and convicted on a myriad of felony corruption charges. Other state lawmakers have been subjected to probes involving the FBI, the state attorney general’s office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan.

New York’s government has for too many years now made headlines for all the wrong reasons.

While good government groups and many of the state legislature’s constituents have consistently called upon New York’s representatives to take desperately needed steps to reform the inner-workings of government in Albany, little has been accomplished despite loads of rhetoric from Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his colleagues.

It’s true New York lawmakers haven’t had a pay boost since 1999 and, yes, they have waited a long time for a raise.

So have a lot of other hard-working New Yorkers in other walks of life and there’s little doubt that boosting their pay to $116,900 annually is excessive.

It’s equally important to remember that salary is not the only form of compensation for representatives who, addition to their $79,500 base pay, often earn stipends of $9,000 or more for committee work and collect $172 in a travel allowance for each day they spend in Albany.

By even considering such a hefty increase in pay, the state’s elected officials are literally thumbing their collective noses at the already overburdened and struggling taxpayers and business owners of New York.

Thankfully, both the incumbent state Assembly representing Niagara Falls - Democrat John Ceretto - and his opponent in this year’s race - Republican Angelo Morinello - have already gone on record as being opposed to the commission’s salary recommendation.

The community’s other top state representative - state Sen. Robert Ortt, R-North Tonawanda, has not yet taken a position with a spokesperson saying only that it was “a little too early in the process” for his office to comment.

It’s never too early to get out in front of another potentially damaging proposal from Albany.

In this case, the salary plan is being developed by a commission appointed by lawmakers themselves. The fact that the commission’s final report won’t be due until after the election speaks volumes about the process. It also wreaks of the sort of stuff that has dragged down New York state government for far too long.

New Yorkers are working as hard as ever to protect their earnings and their investments in a state where high taxes and burdensome regulations make the job tremendously challenging.

If state representatives want raises, they should consider joining the fray by securing jobs in the private sector or going into business for themselves.

Holding elected office is a privilege and a form of public service, not a means for padding bank accounts or boosting personal wealth.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/2c6LjLk

The Syracuse Post-Standard the 2016 Summer Olympics in Brazil strengthening understanding and friendship.

Aug. 22

Every four years, the Summer Olympics entertain and inspire us. The Olympics in Brazil - the first in South America - were no exception.

We saw extraordinary examples of sportsmanship, of resilience and determination, of tears, laughter and joy. Dire predictions about Zika virus and disease, pollution and crime didn’t come true. In the end, it was all about the athletes and the soaring spirit of Olympic competition in a beautiful place.

International Olympic Committee executive Nawal El Moutawakel said the Rio games “reminded all of us of the power and magic of sport. In the past weeks, the athletes have amazed us with their outstanding achievements and performances. We have seen new world records, we have seen high-level performances, we have seen personal bests and we have also seen great emotions. We have also been inspired by great moments of sportsmanship. Athletes are inspirational role models, and it is these moments of fair play that we have come together to celebrate today.”

Indeed.

You want achievement?

U.S. swimmer Michael Phelps has now won 23 gold medals. Even as his Olympic swimming career ends, another American emerges with stunningly great performances - gymnast Simone Biles. She won four gold medals and some commentators called her the best in her sport ever.

You want sportsmanship?

The heart swells at the 5,000-meter finish of Abbey D’Agostino of the United States and Nikki Hamblin of New Zealand. They collided in the race and fell to the track. They helped each other up and made it to the finish line. They came in last, far from a medal performance. But their camaraderie won them the Pierre de Coubertin medal, awarded only 17 times previously, for extraordinary displays of sportsmanship.

You want emotion?

It would be hard to top the feelings of Brazilians in the Olympic stadium as their soccer team won gold over Germany in a climactic kick.

You want inspirational role models?

The lovable exuberance of Chinese swimmer Fu Yuanhui was on display over and over and then she demonstrated admirable frankness as she described competing after her period started. And think about Oksana Chusovitina, competing at age 41 in gymnastics, a sport that requires youthful limber. Chusovitina competed in her first Olympics in 1992 - five years before Simone Biles was born in 1997.

You want outstanding performance?

Usain Bolt of Jamaica is the fastest person alive. He leaped to the lead, ran past everyone, and showed his dazzling smile as he celebrated with his “to the world” lightning bolt pose.

In Central New York, we feel a special link to the gold-medal-winning men’s and women’s basketball teams. Breanna Stewart, the star from North Syracuse, won her first gold playing for the winning U.S. women. We couldn’t be prouder of a local athlete whose remarkable achievements seem ever grander. Jim Boeheim, Mike Hopkins and Carmelo Anthony kept the men on gold-medal track. And there’s Beezie Madden, the extraordinary show-jumper from Nelson in Madison County. She competed in her fourth straight Olympics.

The Games once again showed how our world can compete, not with enmity, fear or hatred, but with a spirit that builds bridges of understanding and celebrates triumph in friendship.

The Rio games might have ended, but the Olympic spirit lives on. That’s why we’re looking forward to the Winter Games in 2018 in South Korea and the next Summer Games in Tokyo in 2020.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/2bzUfDE

The Albany Times Union urging Congress not to give the railroad industry more time to implement safety controls in 2018.

Aug. 19

Congress last year rewarded the railroad industry for blowing a federal deadline to implement safety controls by extending the deadline at least three more years. The result? Some railroads again seem to be running out the clock.

Railroads have been required since 2008 to install “positive train control” technology, systems capable of slowing or stopping speeding trains to prevent derailments, collisions, and other accidents. Proponents of the technology say it could help prevent accidents caused by operator inattention, distraction, falling sleep or other human factors.

Even with seven years of lead time, however, the industry failed to meet the original deadline this past December. Congress shrugged, and allowed a three-year extension until the end of 2018. Companies that can show they’ve made substantial progress can even go another two years past that.

To their credit, some rail companies have made substantial progress in implementing PTC, according to a report issued this week by the Federal Railroad Administration. Overall, however, PTC is in operation on only nine percent of freight route miles and 22 percent of passenger train miles. While close to three-fourths of the freight radio towers have the required technology, only about a third of the locomotives and 11 percent of the track is equipped. The picture is worse, for the most part, on the passenger rail side - fewer than half the radio towers, not even 30 percent of the locomotives, and 12 percent of the track has PTC installed.

In New York, two major commuter railroads, Metro North and the Long Island Railroad, received zeros. The National Transportation Safety Board has said that PTC could have prevented a 2013 Metro-North train derailment that killed four and left 60 injured.

How many of the 1,907 train accidents that occurred in 2015 or the 609 accidents so far this year might have been prevented by PTC is unclear. But it doesn’t take a federal study to know the rails would be measurably safer if PTC were in place.

And, wouldn’t you know, another one of the reasons it isn’t is the same Congress that sets deadlines and then lets railroads slide. The White House requested $1.25 billion in the 2017 federal budget year to help commuter railroads install PTC, but Congress came back with spending bills providing only $199 million. The total bill for commuter rail alone is expected to be almost $3.5 billion.

It would be sad to think the more than $9 million railroads have donated to members of Congress in the current election cycle, and the more than $42 million they’ve spent on lobbying the last two years, has bought them the ability to flout the law and endanger public safety. A Congress that truly values the lives of citizens more than campaign donations would not be waiting for the industry to plead for more time in 2018. It would haul the laggards in now and remind them that their time is running out.

___

Online:

https://bit.ly/2bFYUrb

Newsday on affordable post-high school educations and varying levels of state support and economical behavior within universities.

Aug. 20

Nothing is free. Someone has to pay. But when you’re looking to attract voters, promising free benefits is an easy way to do it.

In the 2016 election, the big giveaway promise from Democrats is public-college tuition. The assumption is that it’s a noble goal, and the only stumbling block is finding the money in the federal coffers. But fixing the problems of high tuition at state universities and student-loan debt is more complicated than just having Washington write checks. And, as Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was pointing out until she veered left to pick up more support from Sen. Bernie Sanders’ fans, free college, where the student has no “skin in the game,” isn’t a good idea.

The Republican platform on higher education focuses mostly on creating alternatives to traditional college attendance and forcing institutions to be more efficient and accountable. The party isn’t wrong about creating more educational options and transparency, but in truth this is an issue to which presidential nominee Donald Trump and establishment Republicans have paid comparatively scant attention.

No one who knows New York history can claim free college is impossible: Until 1963, students at State University of New York campuses paid no tuition. And few would argue that prices haven’t risen too fast, often because state funding support has waned. Nationally, state funding of public universities has dropped about 15 percent since 2008. In New York, direct state funding for SUNY’s 64-campus system has fallen almost 30 percent since 2008.

Even so, public college tuition for in-state students in New York is a good deal, at $6,470 a year, below the national average of about $7,000. Compared to Pennsylvania, at $13,395 a year, it’s a steal. Pennsylvania’s state budget kicks in less than $4,000 per student (New York spends $8,830), whereas North Carolina spends almost $9,000 per student but in-state tuition is comparable to New York’s, at $6,966.

The range of state support and pricing is enormous, with the cheapest states charging homegrown students around $5,000 a year and the most expensive getting as much as $15,000.

So how would a federal program to pay the tuition of every student whose family makes less than $125,000 per year, as Clinton has proposed, work? Would states refusing to support their universities through taxes and levying huge tuitions get massive checks from Washington to make it free for students, while states that support their colleges through budgets and keep tuitions low get far less help from D.C.? That wouldn’t be equitable or sensible. What about the idea, as Clinton has said, that states like Pennsylvania would be pushed to increase state spending and bring down tuition over a period of years to get in line with federal compliance standards? That would probably work out much like the Medicaid expansion that came with the Affordable Care Act: States that disagree would refuse to participate.

Education experts say Washington could incentivize more budgetary support in some states by rewarding students in the most college-supportive states, and filling with jealousy and anger parents and students in the least supportive ones. But economists tell us new sources of revenue almost automatically increase spending. This program would have to be structured so that foolish spending costs colleges federal support. That’s a tricky program to design considering it would be students who lost their free tuition if the spending by state universities got out of line.

There’s also the worry that, given this educational opportunity for free, students won’t value it highly enough. For most of her current campaign, Clinton argued that students who get free tuition under her plan need to work at least 10 hours a week. She was right. They need to put in some of their own energy and elbow grease to match the commitment of taxpayers to get themselves through school. Clinton’s shift toward Sanders’ model of free tuition was a political pander that weakened her pretty good idea.

Education really is the best ticket to a good life, although that doesn’t always have to mean a 4-year degree. President Barack Obama has proposed free community college tuition for all, which could be used either for vocational programs or toward a bachelor’s degree. Again, some students might value an entirely free opportunity as worth exactly what they paid for it, but extremely inexpensive community colleges are a key to a good living for some and a four-year degree for others. With some tweaks Obama’s plan, called the American College Promise Program, would be a great start.

Student debt is out of control, and even in traditional colleges, less than half of new full-time students graduate in six years.

It is against the law for those who owe student debt to refinance at current rates, a rule that needs to be changed immediately. And schools that don’t graduate enough students or place a high enough percentage in jobs shouldn’t be allowed to profit by government-backed or issued student loans.

Washington has a place in assuring the nation’s students a variety of paths to affordable, debt-free post-high school educations, but dealing with varying levels of state support and economical behavior in their universities will be difficult.

The campaign promises are easy. The policy would be harder, but within rational limits, very worthwhile.

___

Online:

https://nwsdy.li/2bF4sAL