There is no lack of ideas and solutions for improving education, however, the column by David Adler on the "education deficit" was so far off the mark it requires a response. Mr. Adler's solutions are to spend more money, adopt early childhood education programs and adopt Common Core.

The argument is made that since Idaho doesn't have pre-school programs we are not performing at an acceptable standard and other states like Oklahoma have found the answer with these programs. Oklahoma started state-funded pre-school in 1998 and have more than 38,000 children at a cost of $133 million or nearly $7,700 per child. There has been enough time to see results in NAEP fourth-grade reading scores and, in fact, in Oklahoma reading test scores have declined since 1998, when the state first implemented universal preschool. Moreover, in Georgia, an evaluation conducted by Georgia State University found that "by the end of first grade, children who did not attend preschool had skills similar to those of Georgia's preschoolers." The experiences of both of these states should be a strong note of caution to all of those like Mr. Adler and Rep. Hy Kloc who want to saddle Idaho with another expensive education boondoggle. There are also negative aspects to putting a child in formal education programs too early. Time magazine online "explains that the younger the child the less his chances of adjusting to first-grade work; early failure at the blackboard can induce a defeatist attitude that endures for years." In fact, a rigorous and large-scale experimental evaluation of Head Start that was conducted by the federal government through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), found that the federal Head Start program has essentially no lasting cognitive or behavioral benefits. Other studies have shown the same results but this confirms what other have known and these results clearly call into question the federal government's $8 billion per year commitment to the program. Mr. Adler may have good intentions but the results show otherwise and he has us going the wrong direction.

For decades, critics like myself have been saying "You can't solve educational problems by throwing money at them" and academics like Mr. Adler and supporters have replied, "No one's ever tried!" There is a fascinating history that begins in 1985 when a federal judge took control of the Kansas City Missouri schools. He had at his disposal unlimited funds from the state and district through the courts. The nearly $2 billion in spending over the next 13 years included such amenities as 15 new schools, olympic-sized swimming pools with underwater viewing, a robotics lab, field trips to Europe, Mexico and Africa along with a wildlife sanctuary, zoo and model United Nations with translation capability. The student teacher ration was an astounding 13:1 or less. An interesting proposal was made to offer "merit pay" to outstanding teachers it was shot down immediately by the teachers union who liked their own proposal better of an immediate 30 percent increase in salaries. Obviously the higher morale with increased money would work wonders, or so they thought.

It didn't work, more money added to a failed system is going to fail. When the judge, in March 1997 after spending billions finally agreed to let the state take the district over there was little to show for the spending. Although the students enjoyed beautiful schools student achievement did not change. Arguably the case could be made that the district suffered further decline. The positive results from this experiment is that it has destroyed the argument of "more money will improve education."

Rather than Common Core we should go back to the alternative: the Academic Achievement for All Act (Straight A's). Straight A's proposed allowing state to consolidate funding under ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) programs in order to drastically reduce the bureaucratic red tape that had accumulated under the ESEA, and become the foundation of the Academic Lead Us to Success (A-Plus) Act. Simply put, these alternatives give flexibility to states and local districts to try those ideas and programs that work for them.

We have had the government offer bribes to states to offer ObamaCare exchanges and now money to adopt Common Core. John Goedde likes both programs, we can only hope if Common Core is adopted it works out better than ObamaCare! A recent "My Turn" column entitled "Why Conservatives Support Common Core" from the Thomas Fordham Institute was hardly truthful or honest. Arguably the major force behind Common Core is the Gates Foundation and we didn't get full disclosure from the Fordham Institute that they had received a $1 million grant for educational advocacy this year! This is in addition to the millions that they have received from the Gates Foundation over the years. They are obvious paid panderers for Common Core and The Press needs to be careful how they present these hucksters.

Nothing puts this in a better perspective than the article in the same issue of the Press about Coeur d'Alene Charter Academy. The principal, Dan Nicklay, said that, "he wishes his charter school had more freedom to innovate or 'do things outside the box.' We should be able to follow free-market principles, he said. The requirements and reporting we have to do with the state are ridiculous. The charter school movement was supposed to be about innovation and entrepreneurial risk taking." He'd like to see more charters, flexibility and local control.

We have a country that has championed freedom, innovation, risk-taking, competition in the market place and choices for the consumer along with an appreciation and rewards for excellence. Why don't we allow this to be applied to education?

Idaho's attempts at reform with even small steps toward merit pay were shot down at the polls with large amounts of out of state and union money poured in to fight it. We now have a very small scale merit program for teachers, we give them a title of "teacher of the year" and a certificate. Jaimie Esler will soon find that the merchants don't accept such certificates as legal tender.

It is obvious that a no-nonsense approach to education will work whether it is applied to an academic class or a technical center and great teachers are encouraged and rewarded. We have seen examples like Jaime Escalante who applied much of the same philosophy with troubled, allegedly unteachable students in east Los Angeles into high scorers on the calculus AP test (watch the movie "Stand and Deliver"). Escalante was vilified by administrators and teachers union alike and forced out of his highly successful program and education.

The lesson: don't rock the boat and make the rest of the education establishment look bad.

Dan Nicklay, take note.

Bob Shillingstad is a Hayden resident.