This morning I announced my candidacy for the 17th State Representative District seat being vacated by Beth Coulson. Watch it here:
I’d love to have your comments or feedback, or to answer your questions. Please click here to let me know your thoughts. Thank you!
Cindy P. reiterates a concern I’ve heard again and again about education funding:
What can taxpayers do to make a difference, who should they contact about changing the funding for schools in Illinois? The state needs to fund education and start helping our kids so we can have a better Illinois. More kids need to stay in school and out of our prison and welfare system!
As you might know from my education position paper, I strongly agree with your point of view, Cindy. The state of Illinois is failing in its duty to fund our public schools; this duty is not only moral and logical but even, according to some interpretations, Constitutional!
Unfortunately, though every election year, all 177 members of the General Assembly campaign on a pro-education platform, too many of them win their elections, go to Springfield, and then lack the courage to make good on their promises to fund our schools. It’s our responsibility as citizens and grassroots activists to work together to put pressure on our legislators to make sure that they do the right thing for our children. If you want to call your legislators, you can click here to see a directory of Illinois House members and click here for a directory of Illinois Senate members. Also, you can click here to find out who’s your Representative and Senator (in our district, of course, the Representative is my Republican opponent and the Senator is Jeff Schoenberg).
Moreover, if we’re not able to accomplish our goals by advocating to current legislators, then it’s our responsibility to replace them with new legislators. That’s why I’m running for State Representative
Colin B. asks about my
thoughts on increasing internet access for low-income families. I feel it’s imperative for a burgeoning hi-tech U.S. economy.
Well, I agree, Colin. Thanks for the question! The conventional answer involves expanding access to computers (c.f. the One Laptop per Child project, which is doing wonderful work that springs from the understanding that a global technology gap is an engine for tremendous social injustice and economic inefficiency) while expanding the availability of large-scale free wireless networks (c.f. San Francisco’s progress on this issue).
An additional piece of the puzzle involves creating computers and other electronic devices that contain “wireless repeaters”, in effect building a wireless network in which every computer (or telephone, traffic light, etc.) serves as a mini-cell tower, thus strengthening the system. This approach is called “mesh networking” and it appears to be the best hope to implement truly broadly available free internet access.
At the education town hall discussion had this past Sunday, a number of participants had questions about No Child Left Behind. Carole L., Andy N., and Mary R. asked various versions of the following question.
No Child Left Behind is a federal law that mandates a strict regime of “high-stakes” tests on a narrow spectrum of subjects; schools are declared to be meeting “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) if their students meet certain benchmarks on these exams, and there are major consequences for schools that repeatedly fail to meet AYP. What impact does this have on our schools and what can we do about it?
Unfortunately, this legislation hasn’t been particularly effective. It has amounted to a series of unfunded mandates wherein the federal government imposes accountability measures that are tied to high-stakes tests, but doesn’t pay the costs of implementing these rigid programs. The nature of the exams results in a narrowing of our curriculum, since material that isn’t tested is less likely to be taught. (In Illinois, which for instance already lagged behind most states in access to arts education in public schools, this is very troubling.)
So, to recapitulate, the legislation offers no financial help, imposes “accountability” measures that have no connection to the community or the school in question (so much for local control!), and provides disincentives from offering enrichment programs. It needs to be repealed (or, at the very least, substantially overhauled).
Unfortunately, as long as No Child Left Behind is the law of the land, state can only ignore it by incurring tremendous financial penalties. However, the state government must compensate by increasing incentives for our school districts to offer enrichment and critical thinking courses (including arts, civics, and higher level sciences). Moreover, I look forward to working with our federal legislators to ensure that the U.S. government passes a more satisfactory piece of education legislation as soon as possible.
An anonymous questioner asks the following.
What is the long-term policy to keep the transit system afloat? Is there a way to build a transit system similar to Europe, where it will help the environment and reduce single-occupant car trips?
As for keeping the current system afloat, the recently-passed House Bill 656 creates a revenue stream that will adequately cover operating expenses for some time. This, however, does not provide for “capital” investments in infrastructure, including new trains and buses, improvements in the tracks, new train lines, and maintenance of existing structures. It appears likely that a major capital bill will be on the table in the 2008 legislative session; I believe this is necessary, and I urge legislators to make sure that we get a capital bill which directs needed investment toward mass transit.
Unfortunately, no capital bill we pass in the coming year will address the second question. The Chicago region is laid out in a manner somewhere between the style of European (and East coast U.S.) cities on the one hand, and West coast U.S. cities on the other. That is, our region is more diffusely spread out than, say, New York or London, and this makes the establishment of a transit system that rivals those two cities’ in comprehensiveness quite challenging. In order to achieve this goal, we need to be vigilant in encouraging transit-based development, and we need to begin laying the groundwork for a much more ambitious rail system.
Unfortunately, our legislators, who are so often focused on yesterday and today rather than tomorrow, next year, and 25 years from now, have been unreliable on this issue. This lack of long-term vision among our leaders has everything to do with my desire to run for office. I would hope to bring a progressive problem-solving perspective to Springfield so that we can tackle these issues and plan for a better future.
Jonathan L. wants to know if it would
help to improve funding inequities if property tax assessments and appeals in Cook County were done in a way similar to all of Illinois’s other counties where “Fair Market Value” in assessments really is that and appeals are heard by impartial judges rather than political hacks who favor contributors and cronies.
Yes.
Colin B. read my education issue statement and
wondered how local school districts are going to pay for the programs public schools are asked to offer with property taxes going down. How will it work?
Basically, the problem is that the state government isn’t fulfilling its responsibility to fund education. (That responsibility, by the way, is not only an ethical and public service duty but also a Constitutional one!) This kicks way too much of the education funding burden to local communities, which is why our property taxes are so high in much of the state. It’s also why our schools are so inequitably funded. The solution, then is for the state to pick up its fair share of the tab, which will make it possible to both fund programs and decrease local property taxes.
This particular failure of our state’s government has everything to do with why I’m running: I want to fix our education system and I see that Springfield is a major culprit. But it’s also a good illustration of the broader, cultural malady we need to deal with. When faced with problems in the education system, the state government is happy to generate mandates and assign high-stakes tests, but they’re an awful lot slower to actually pony up the resources needed to solve those problems. Too much talk, and not enough action, which is exactly what’s wrong with our system.
Josh K. asks how I feel about individual rights, including
most recently the public structure smoking ban? Is it not the right of the business owner to establish whether or not their customers are allowed to smoke?
Well, I do feel strongly about individual rights, and I think that we don’t always spend enough energy protecting them. But in this case, I feel strongly that the benefit of this ban is greater than the cost. The benefits include increased public health, its ensuing financial advantages, and workplace safety.
I’d also like to make clear that whatever you might think about such a smoking ban, it’s surely within government’s rights to establish such a ban. Tobacco is a controlled substance, and it’s very clearly the responsibility of federal, state and local government to set out the precise guidelines that make up that control. In other words, whether or not you think such a ban is wise (and I do), I hope you’ll agree that it’s Constitutional.
My friend Claire Zulkey has a wonderful and well-read blog which features interviews on many Fridays. She was generous enough to interview me this past Friday December 7; that provided an awful lot of questions and answers which you can read here.
Here’s a sample:
How would you say you’re like your average politician? And how would you say you’re not at all?
One of those questions is really easy to answer: I’m nerdier, skinnier, mumblier, more honest, and far more prone to long pauses in mid-conversation than pretty much any other politician I know. Oh, and did I mention that I’m not a lawyer?
On the other hand, I stay up late at night thinking about which precincts to target and whose door to knock on and which issue to highlight and how to get the next endorsement. I think the intensely compulsive aspect of this enterprise is pretty universal.
Feel free to check out the whole thing!
Check out out new campaign video! It features some supporters talking about why they’ve contributed, along with some discussion from me about what’s wrong with campaign finance. If you like what you see, please make a contribution of your own and then feel free to let us know in the comments of this blog post why you contributed!
