Needy Schools Turn to Parents For Funding – WSJ.com

A survey by California PTA, a statewide group, of about 500 PTA presidents in the state showed that nearly two-thirds of the groups have been asked by schools this year to pitch in more money for basic supplies and programs, from pencils and books to arts programs.

“One of the things we’ve always said to our members is, ‘Your purpose is not to be a cash cow’” to cover regular school expenses, says Jan Harp Domene, president of the National Parent Teacher Association, an umbrella organization. “But we know they are playing a critical part in making sure children still have services that were once part of the budget, from music programs to adequate custodial supplies. These are not frills.”

This is probably one of the biggest surprises I’ve encountered since moving to California – basically all Californian schools are needy. Frankly, I’m quite surprised at how much parents have to donate to schools, even in Cupertino and Palo Alto (some would argue that it is because of the amount that parents donate, that the schools are among the best in the Bay Area [though some get confused and note that they are the best in the nation - which is not quite the case]).

But then again, perhaps I have skewed expectations. Where I come from, 25%-32% of teachers make $100k+. In Great Neck, where I went to school, the median salary is $85k. The NYTimes had an article on this phenomenon in 2005. In Mountain View, it’s possible to make $100k+ ($118,684 to be precise), but just eyeballing the salary guide it seems rather challenging – not to mention this is for teaching high school. This is especially ironic considering the fact that houses apparently run for $382 per square foot in Great Neck, versus $622 in Mountain View. Property tax policies, and the priorities of the citizens are the only explanation for this.

Where I came from in Long Island, the citizens generally supposed the school district budgets and the tax burden was shared equally. On the other hand, Proposition 13 has resulted in oddities like this:

8XX Arroyo Road, Los Altos, CA

2008 Property Tax: $1,586

8YY Arroyo Road, Los Altos, CA (next door to 8xx)

2008 Property Tax: $20,166

In California’s future, I see an ever increasing burden on the cost of public education placed on families who have children. Effectively, California will have three tiers of schools: private schools, public schools which are funded partially like private schools, and very poor public schools in very poor communities. Parents who move to California and have children will be expected to pay for their children’s education – unlike the community based approach in the years before. And that’s just K-12 – a recent interview I heard with the Chancellor of Berkeley pointed out that public funding for the UCs is also at an all time low.

I suspect that won’t help this problem very much:

California is suffering a “brain drain,” they said, losing educated residents to other states. With expensive housing making it difficult to attract and retained skilled workers, the state should not rely on college graduates from other places, they said.

It “is extremely unlikely that the projected need for highly skilled workers will be met mainly through the increased migration of college-educated workers,” wrote researchers Hans Johnson and Deborah Reed. “However, increases in college participation and graduation among California’s residents could help meet these future demands.”

The researchers found that California would need to attract nearly 160,000 college graduates from other states and countries by 2025 to meet economic demands.

One of my colleagues in Redmond once observed about California: “What happened to children being the future?”

I’m not quite sure.

We finally got around to seeing Quantum of Solace. Frankly, I’m disappointed. So much so that I actually felt compelled to write a blog post about it.

That’s not to say that it was a bad movie. It certainly wasn’t Queen of the Damned, where I saw people walk out. It’s just that it wasn’t worth the $20.50 for it – and is a reminder of why I’d prefer to stick with Netflix.

Economics aside, here’s my list of complaints about QoS:

1. This is supposed to be a direct sequel. I’m cool with that. So why is Bond wearing a different outfit than he was at the end of Casino Royale? And why does M’s residence and office, especially, look completely different? How did M go from having a traditional desk office to working on a studio set at CNN?
2. Let’s say you’re part of a secret organization that has operatives everywhere. Would you really insist on having your all-hands meeting at a public opera? That doesn’t seem very secure to me! And let’s say that you’re having a party. Would you and your peers really wear lapel pins that bear the first letter of your secret organization?
3. Are fuel cells really that dangerous? Note to self: do not stay at a fuel cell powered hotel.
4. People were using dynamite to construct/access a dam. Through an entrance that one could easily walk in/out of? And none of the locals noticed?
5. This is probably just something I didn’t follow: in Casino Royale, Le Chiffre said that René Mathis was his friend. Ok, so Mathis was innocent – I’m down with that. But still, why would Le Chiffre say that?
6. M, an entourage, and Bond go to Russia to interrogate Yusef Kabira. Really? Is that appropriate for the head of MI6 to go do this?
7. With the number of Bourne people working on this movie, is it any wonder that this felt like a Bourne film, rather than a Bond film? Now, don’t get me wrong – I really liked the Bourne series, especially the last one. James Bond should not be Jason Bourne. There should be gadgets (though not necessarily an invisble car), there should be humor (though not necessarily a joke before every death), there should be… well… James Bond.

At the end of the day, if it is a James Bond movie, I expect to see a James Bond movie. I understand that they had to “reboot” the series and make it more dark and gritty. I recognize that it is trend – more action, more violence, more darkness: Batman, etc. (Frankly, I expect Finding Nemo 2 to be a major bloothbath!) I hope the next Bond movie returns a little bit more to its roots than QoS. (Still, no need for invisble cars though!)

Recently I read these two pieces in the NYTimes. I find the contrast of action to be rather remarkable.

First, some key snippets from “How India Avoided a Crisis”:

Unlike Alan Greenspan, who didn’t believe it was his job to even point out bubbles, much less try to deflate them, Mr. Reddy saw his job as making sure Indian banks did not get too caught up in the bubble mentality. About two years ago, he started sensing that real estate, in particular, had entered bubble territory. One of the first moves he made was to ban the use of bank loans for the purchase of raw land, which was skyrocketing. Only when the developer was about to commence building could the bank get involved — and then only to make construction loans. (Guess who wound up financing the land purchases? United States private equity and hedge funds, of course!)

Then, as securitizations and derivatives gained increasing prominence in the world’s financial system, the Reserve Bank of India sharply curtailed their use in the country. When Mr. Reddy saw American banks setting up off-balance-sheet vehicles to hide debt, he essentially banned them in India. As a result, banks in India wound up holding onto the loans they made to customers. On the one hand, this meant they made fewer loans than their American counterparts because they couldn’t sell off the loans to Wall Street in securitizations. On the other hand, it meant they still had the incentive — as American banks did not — to see those loans paid back.

Seeing inflation on the horizon, Mr. Reddy pushed interest rates up to more than 20 percent, which of course dampened the housing frenzy. He increased risk weightings on commercial buildings and shopping mall construction, doubling the amount of capital banks were required to hold in reserve in case things went awry. He made banks put aside extra capital for every loan they made. In effect, Mr. Reddy was creating liquidity even before there was a global liquidity crisis.

Did India’s bankers stand up to applaud Mr. Reddy as he was making these moves? Of course not. They were naturally furious, just as American bankers would have been if Mr. Greenspan had been more active. Their regulator was holding them back, constraining their growth! Mr. Parekh told me that while he had been saying for some time that Indian real estate was in bubble territory, he was still unhappy with the rules imposed by Mr. Reddy. “We were critical of the central bank,” he said. “We thought these were harsh measures.”

“For a while we were wondering if we were missing out on something,” said Ms. Kochhar of Icici. Banks in the United States seemed to have come up with some magical new formula for making money: make loans that required no down payment and little in the way of verification — and post instant, short-term, profits.

As Luis Miranda, who runs a private equity firm devoted to developing India’s infrastructure, put it: “We kept wondering if they had figured out something that we were too dense to figure out. It looked like they were smart and we were stupid.” Instead, India was the smart one, and we were the stupid ones.

That must’ve been a hard call, but that’s what leaders are supposed to do – make the difficult decisions so as to lead your people in the right direction. You can’t change the world around you without changing yourself first.

And now, some key snippets from “Chinese Savings Helped Inflate American Bubble”:

WASHINGTON — In March 2005, a low-key Princeton economist who had become a Federal Reserve governor coined a novel theory to explain the growing tendency of Americans to borrow from foreigners, particularly the Chinese, to finance their heavy spending.

The problem, he said, was not that Americans spend too much, but that foreigners save too much. The Chinese have piled up so much excess savings that they lend money to the United States at low rates, underwriting American consumption.

…

But American officials eased the pressure. They decided to put more emphasis on urging Chinese consumers to spend more of their savings, which they hoped would eventually bring the two economies into better balance. On a tour of China, John W. Snow, the Treasury secretary at the time, even urged the Chinese to start using credit cards.

This plan does not seem to be working so well.

steve clayton: geek in disguise : Vista: poor man’s NetStumbler
Nice tip from Josh on doing a bit of war driving with Vista. Go to a command prompt, type netsh and then

wlan show networks mode=bssid

I found this helpful in improving the performance of my wireless network.

It looks like this particular gas pump at Shell in San Carlos wasn’t feeling so well. At least it wasn’t a BSOD like I saw on one of those giant LED panels on 880 last Friday!

Wow. I am exhausted. On Saturday, I wrapped up my first semester here at the Evening and Weekend program at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. Between work, school, and a flurry of personal life stuff that’s been going on, these last few weeks have been brutal.

One day I calculated that this program was costing me about $2.23 per minute of class time. However, in reality, I’ve spent closer to about 18 hours total per week on class related things, so perhaps the real cost is about $1 per minute. Either way: is it worth it? Absolutely.

To date, I’ve taken:

• Economics for Business Decision Making [aka Microeconomics]
• Organizational Behavior
• Financial Reporting [aka Financial Accounting]
• Marketing Organization and Management

Already I’ve used some of the concepts I’ve learned in class, at work – hence, the benefit of doing this program part time. I was skeptical at first, but it really does happen.

Some other observations:

• I significantly underestimated the amount of time necessary for homework and group projects.
• Gas is cheaper in Berkeley.
• I’m very glad I picked the Saturday option – though this means I don’t really have much in the way of weekends, I spend less time commuting.
• It’s very refreshing to talk about something completely different other than software, and other work-related things. Very refreshing. Sometimes it feels like I’m living two lives!
• I hope to attend more extra-curricular events next year. There are constantly so many interesting talks going on, especially with this current financial crisis. But getting to Berkeley by 6pm is sort of hard!
• 238 between 580 and 880 is scary due to construction and very narrow lanes. A tractor trailer big rig almost ended my career last Friday.
• I’m glad I work for an employer that allows for a more flexible work schedule.
• I’ve met a lot of great friends through this program. And they’re not all engineers!

Well… now a 6 week break until the Challenging Semester begins. The classes are very quantitative heavy. The fact that there’s a review class for one of the classes next semester is a sign – so has the flurry of e-mails explaining the tutoring policy.

A friend of mine asked me: “How do you manage to go to school, go to work, and stay married?”. My answer: “They’re all graded on a curve.”

I still find it hard to say “Go bears!” with zeal though… this has been quite the change from being at Hopkins… working on it!

This snippet in an editorial in the WSJ caught my eye:

Targeting Your 401k – WSJ.com
Tax breaks alone hardly explain the popularity of 401ks. Over the past 30 years, the number of individuals covered by them nearly trebled, up to 65 million accounts, while the number under defined-benefit pension fell 30%. People are attached to their 401ks because it is their property, which they can carry with them to new jobs unlike traditional pensions, manage as they see fit and bequeath to heirs.

My interpretation of this snippet is that “401k’s are popular not just because of the tax breaks, but because it is the property of the person.” Is that your interpretation?

If so, that’s pretty silly. It’s not like employees have a choice of whether they get a 401k or a pension plan – they get whatever the employer offers them, and few offer pension plans anymore.

Here’s another interesting snippet:

The main liberal objection to 401(k)s seems to be that they let average Americans control their own investment decisions for retirement.

I think there’s actually two issues here:

1. Is it really true that the main liberal objection to 401k’s is because it allows average Americans to control their own investment decisions? Are there other objections? I don’t know.

2. This supposes that it is a good thing that average Americans control their own investment decision for retirement. Is that really true?

In fact, this Wall Street Journal article from August 2008 tells the tale where 401k’s went horribly awry, forcing taxpayers to bail out teachers:

Seventeen years ago, West Virginia school employees joined millions of workers nationwide in a shift from a pension plan that guaranteed a monthly check, to a retirement-savings plan that would make the teachers, bus drivers, custodians and other staff responsible for their own investment accounts.

“It was horrible,” says Judy Hale, president of the West Virginia Federation of Teachers union. Most felt poorly informed, and they invested too conservatively, putting the largest sums of money into a fixed-rate annuity, a safe but low-yielding option that typically is inadequate for building a nest egg. As employees began to retire, most balances were pitifully small. So on July 1, after a vote authorized by the state legislature, 14,871 school employees, or 78 percent, switched to the old-fashioned pension plan.

After the vote, teachers were “jumping up and down and crying in the halls,” Ms. Hale says.

The school employees put their mistakes behind them, but their experience stands as a cautionary tale for employers and employees across the country. As large numbers of workers are starting to retire with 401(k) or 401(k)-like plans to support them, what happened in West Virginia is a window into exactly how things can fall apart for workers, and it serves as a wake-up call for figuring out how to avoid having plans go as badly off track as this one did.

[snip]

The West Virginia plan initially offered stock and bond mutual funds, a money-market fund, and an annuity, in this case from Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co., or Valic, a unit of American International Group Inc. In addition to the Valic annuity, current offerings include funds from Capital Group Cos.’ American Funds unit, Federated Investors Inc., Fidelity Investments and Franklin Resources Inc.

From the start, most employees favored the annuity. Some say they were swayed by Valic’s sales force, which included former educators and school employees who went into the schools during the workday to talk about the option. “These people came during your lunch or during your planning period basically to sell the program,” says Debra Elmore, a third-grade teacher in Ansted, W.Va.

Ms. Elmore acknowledges knowing little about investing. “Oh, Lord no,” she says. “I had no idea.” She set up her account so that 85 percent of her contributions would go into the fixed-rate annuity. “I just thought, ‘Well, these are safe. Let’s stay there.’”

Here’s a pretty interesting list of interviews about how 401k’s came to being. Some snippets

The 401(k) plans were originally introduced as supplemental plans. No one ever said, “Oh, let’s end these traditional pensions and replace them with 401(k) plans.” What happened was these 401(k) plans came in at the same time the stock market took off. People liked them because they liked having their own accounts that they could look at, and they liked being able to control their investments, particularly in an environment where stocks go up every year. And employers liked these plans because they didn’t have to worry about the risk and what it might do to their earnings. …

Apparently, the 401k was a one line change to benefit a few execs at a certain company.

On the other hand, 401k’s are better for people who change jobs regularly.

Suffice to say, there’s plenty more to 401k’s, the pros, the cons, the possible reforms than exist in the soundbites you hear in the news and from politicians.

Gov’t offers little help for stuck air passengers – Yahoo News
A federal task force approved voluntary guidelines Wednesday for airlines and airports dealing with passengers stranded for hours on the tarmac but produced no fixed limit on how long they can be delayed before being allowed to leave planes.

Passengers who had hoped for stronger protections were left empty-handed by the guidelines.

…

The task force report recommends that:

_Airlines update passengers delayed on tarmacs every 15 minutes even if there is nothing new to report.

_A secure room be provided for passengers from diverted overseas flights so they can avoid having to go through security checks when reboarding an aircraft to their final destination.

_When practical, refreshments and entertainment should be made available to passengers confined aboard aircraft awaiting takeoff.

_Airlines should make reasonable efforts to be keep airplane restrooms usable.

…

Ruden said his main objection is that the task force does not ask Peters to require airlines and airports to develop contingency plans.

I must say, I’m pretty disappointed. Those are not exactly the sweeping reforms I was looking for. Here’s to 2009 being another interesting year for the air travel experience.