Blog

  • China’s global shopping spree: Is the world’s future resource map tilting East?

    by Michael T. Klare

    Cross-posted from TomDispatch.

    Think of it as a tale of two countries.  When it comes to procuring the resources that make industrial societies run, China is now the shopaholic of planet Earth, while the United States is staying at home.  Hard-hit by the global recession, the United States has experienced a marked decline in the consumption of oil and other key industrial materials.  Not so China.  With the recession’s crippling effects expected to linger in the U.S. for many years, analysts foresee a slow recovery when it comes to resource consumption.  Not so China.

    In fact, the Chinese are already experiencing a sharp increase in the use of oil and other commodities.  More than that, anticipating the kind of voracious resource consumption that goes with anticipated future growth, and worried about the availability of adequate supplies, giant Chinese energy and manufacturing firms—many of them state-owned—have been on a veritable spending binge when it comes to locking down resource supplies for the twenty-first century.  They have acquired oil fields, natural gas reserves, mines, pipelines, refineries, and other resource assets in a global buying spree of almost unprecedented proportions.

    Like most other countries, China suffered some ill effects from the Great Recession of 2008.  Its exports declined and previously explosive economic growth slowed from record levels.  Thanks to a well-crafted $586 billion stimulus package, however, the worst effects proved remarkably short-lived and growth soon returned to its previous high-octane pace.  Since the beginning of 2009, China has experienced significant jumps in car ownership and home construction—along with worries about the creation of a housing bubble—among signs of returning prosperity.  This, in turn, has generated a rising demand for oil, steel, copper, and other primary materials.

    Take oil.  In the United States, oil consumption actually declined by 9% over the past two years, from 20.7 million barrels per day in 2007 to 18.8 million in 2009.  In contrast, China’s oil consumption has risen in this same period, from 7.6 to 8.5 million barrels per day.  According to the most recent projections from the U.S. Department of Energy, this is no fluke.  The Chinese demand for oil is expected to continue climbing throughout the rest of this year and 2011, even as American consumption remains nearly flat.

    Like the United States, China obtains a certain amount of oil from domestic wells, but must acquire a growing share from overseas suppliers.  In 2007, the country produced 3.9 million barrels per day and imported 3.7 million barrels, but that proportion is changing rapidly.  By 2020, it is projected to produce only 3.3 million barrels, while importing 9.1 million barrels.  This situation has “strategic vulnerability” written all over it, and so leaves Chinese leaders exceedingly uneasy.  In response, like American officials in decades past, they have moved to gain control over foreign sources of energy—and similarly many other vital materials, including natural gas, iron, copper, and uranium.

    China Binging on Energy

    Chinese energy companies initially started buying up foreign firms and drilling ventures (or, at least, shares in them) as the twenty-first century began.  Three large state-owned oil companies—the China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC), the China National Offshore Oil Corp. (CNOOC), and the China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. (Sinopec)—took the lead.  These firms, or their partially privatized subsidiaries – PetroChina in the case of CNPC, and CNOOC International Ltd. in the case of CNOOC—began gobbling up foreign energy assets in Angola, Iran, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Venezuela.  On the whole, these acquisitions were still dwarfed by those being made by giant Western firms like ExxonMobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP.  Nonetheless, they represented something new:  a growing Chinese presence in a universe once dominated by the Western “majors.”

    Then along came the Great Recession.  Since 2008, Western firms have, for the most part, been reluctant to make major investments in foreign oil ventures, fearing a prolonged downturn in global sales.  The Chinese companies, however, only accelerated their buying efforts.  They were urged on by senior government officials, who saw the moment as perfect for acquiring crucial valuable resources for a potentially energy-starved future at bargain-basement prices. 

    “The international financial crisis… is equally a challenge and an opportunity,” insisted Zhang Guobao, head of the National Energy Administration, at the beginning of 2009.  “The slowdown… has reduced the price of international energy resources and assets and favors our search for overseas resources.”

    As a policy matter, the Chinese government has worked hard to facilitate the accelerating rush to control foreign energy resources.  Among other things, it has provided low-interest, long-term loans to major Chinese resource firms in the hunt for foreign properties, as well as to foreign governments willing to allow Chinese companies to participate in the exploitation of their natural resources.  In 2009, for example, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend CNPC $30 billion over a five-year period to support its efforts to acquire assets abroad.  Similarly, CBD has loaned $10 billion to Petrobras, Brazil’s state-controlled oil company, to develop deep offshore fields in return for a promise to supply China with up to 160,000 barrels of Brazilian crude per day.

    Prodded in this fashion and backed with endless streams of cash, CNPC and the other giant Chinese firms have gone on a global binge, acquiring resource assets of every imaginable type in staggering profusion in Central Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.  A very partial list of some of the more important recent deals would include:

    * In April 2009, CNPC formed a joint venture with Kazmunaigas, the state oil company of the energy-rich Central Asian state of Kazakhistan, to purchase a Kazakh energy firm, JSC Mangistaumunaigas (MMG), for $3.3 billion.  This was just the latest of a series of deals giving China control over about one-quarter of Kazakhstan’s growing oil output.  A $5 billion loan-for-oil offer from China’s Export-Import Bank made this latest deal possible.

    * In October 2009, a consortium led by CNPC and the oil heavyweight BP won a contract to develop the Rumaila oil field in Iraq, potentially one of the world’s biggest oil reservoirs in a country with the third largest reserves on the planet.  Under this agreement, the consortium will invest $15 billion to boost Rumaila’s daily yield from 1.1 to 2.8 million barrels, doubling Iraq’s net output.  CNPC holds a 37% share in the consortium; BP, 38%; and the Iraqi government, the remaining 25%.  If the consortium succeeds, China will have access to one of the world’s most-promising future sources of petroleum and a base for further participation in Iraq’s underdeveloped oil industry.

    * In November 2009, Sinopec teamed up with Ecuador’s state-owned Petroecuador in a 40:60 joint venture (with Petroecuador holding the larger share) to develop two oil fields in Ecuador’s eastern Pastaza Province.  Sinopec is already a major producer in Ecuador, having joined with CNPC to acquire the Ecuadorian energy assets of Canada’s EnCana Corp. in 2005 for $1.4 billion.

    * In December 2009, CNPC acquired a share of the Boyaca 3 oil block in the Orinoco Belt, a large deposit of extra-heavy oil in eastern Venezuela.  In that month, CNOOC formed a joint venture with the state-owned company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. to develop the Junin 8 block in the same region.  These moves are seen as part of a strategic effort by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to increase his country’s oil exports to China and reduce its reliance on sales to the U.S. market.

    * That same December, CNPC signed an agreement with the government of Myanmar (Burma) to build and operate an oil pipeline that will run from Maday Island in the western part of that country to Ruili, in the southwestern Chinese province of Yunnan.  The 460-mile pipeline will permit China-bound tankers from Africa and the Middle East to unload their cargo in Myanmar on the Indian Ocean, thereby avoiding the long voyage to China’s eastern coast via the Strait of Malacca and the South China Sea, areas significantly dominated by the U.S. Navy.

    * In March 2010, CNOOC International announced plans to buy 50% of Bridas Corp., a private Argentinean energy firm with oil and gas operations in Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile.  CNOOC will pay $3.1 billion for its share of Bridas, which is owned by the family of Argentinean magnate Carlos Bulgheroni.

    * In March, PetroChina joined oil major Shell to acquire Arrow Energy, a major Australian supplier of natural gas derived from coal-bed methane.  The two companies are paying about $1.6 billion each and will form a 50:50 joint venture to operate Arrow’s holdings.

    And that’s only in the energy field.  Chinese mining and metals firms have been scouring the world for promising reserves of iron, copper, bauxite, and other key industrial minerals.  In March, for example, Aluminum Corp. of China, or Chinalco, acquired a 44.65% stake in the Simandou iron-ore project in the African country of Guinea.  Chinalco will pay Anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto Ltd. $1.35 billion for this share.  Keep in mind that Chinalco already owns a 9.3% stake in Rio Tinto, and has been prevented from acquiring a larger share mainly thanks to Australian fears that China is absorbing too much of the country’s energy and minerals industries.

    Shifting the World’s Resource Balance

    Chinese companies like CNPC, Sinopec, and Chinalco are hardly alone in seeking control of valuable foreign resource assets.  Major Western firms, as well as state-owned companies in India, Russia, Brazil, and other countries, have also been shopping for such properties.  Few, however, have been as determined or single-minded as Chinese firms in taking advantage of the relatively low prices that followed the global recession, and few have the sort of deep pockets available to such companies, thanks to the willingness of the China Development Bank and other government agencies to offer munificent financial backing. 

    When the United States and other Western nations finally recover from the Great Recession, therefore, they will discover that the global resource chessboard has been tilted strongly in China’s favor.  Energy and mineral producers that once directed their production—and often their political allegiance—to the U.S., Japan, and Western Europe, now view China as a major customer and patron.  In one eye-catching sign of this shift, Saudi Arabia announced recently that it had sold more oil to China last year than to the United States, previously its largest and most pampered customer.  “We believe this is a long-term transition,” said Khalid A. al-Falih, president and chief executive of Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil giant.  “Demographic and economic trends are making it clear—the writing is on the wall.  China is the growth market for petroleum.”

    For now, Chinese leaders are avoiding any hint that their recent foreign resource acquisitions entail political or military commitments that could produce friction with the United States or other Western powers.  These are just commercial transactions, they insist.  There is, however, no escaping the fact that growing Chinese resource ties with countries like Angola, Australia, Brazil, Iran, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Venezuela have geopolitical implications that are unlikely to be ignored in Washington, London, Paris, and Tokyo.  Perhaps more than any other recent developments, China’s global shopping spree reveals how the world’s balance of power is shifting from West to East.

    Michael Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author, most recently, of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet.  A documentary movie version of his previous book, Blood and Oil, is available from the Media Education Foundation.

    Related Links:

    One more blow to the ailing Great Barrier Reef

    Time for Obama to embrace another GOP energy plan

    Coal freighter rams Great Barrier Reef, spilling oil into pristine waters






  • NASA Invites Educators to Webcasts Supporting National Lab Day

    04.04.10 08:00 PM

    In preparation for National Lab Day on May 12, NASA will host a series of weekly live webcasts during the month of April through the agency’s Digital Learning Network.

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010…N_Lab_day.html

  • NASA Sets Media Credential Deadlines for Next Space Shuttle Flight

    04.04.10 08:00 PM

    NASA has set media accreditation deadlines for the May space shuttle flight to the International Space Station.

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010…edentials.html

  • NASA’S Shuttle Discovery Heads to Station After Predawn Launch

    04.04.10 08:00 PM

    Space shuttle Discovery lit up Florida’s Space Coast sky 30 minutes before sunrise Monday with a 6:21 a.m. EDT launch from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center.

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010…31_launch.html

  • Create Art for Federal Buildings

    04.02.10 10:38 AM

    It took almost 70 years, but the Department of the Interior (DOI) headquarters recently unveiled murals taken from Ansel Adams’ portraits. This is the same Ansel Adams who’s arguably the greatest nature photographer of all time.

    The short story (see the this video for the long one) of Adams’ involvement goes like this: in 1941, the Secretary of Interior under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harold Ickes, met Adams, struck up a friendship, and commissioned him to take some pictures for the Interior headquarters that would illustrate the agency’s mission. In all, Adams took 200 photographs, but World War II delayed completion of the murals until now. DOI has created 26 murals that the public can view at their headquarters by appointment.

    Today art in federal buildings is generally commissioned by the General Services Administration’s Art in Architecture Program. If you are interested in getting a commission, you can request to be added to GSA’s registry of artists who are interested in being commissioned for federal building work.

    Is there any art in government buildings that you like?

    Gov Gab: Your U.S. Government Blog …

  • Next challenge to gun laws headed to D.C. Circuit

    Posted: 04.05.10 01:38 AM

    A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., will have the chance to examine the latest version of the District of Columbia’s gun restrictions, in a possible test of how to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller. Lawyers for Dick Heller, a name party in the earlier case, filed a notice Thursday that they will continue fighting in this follow up case. They are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reverse a March 26 decision by U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina. That ruling upheld new restrictions the D.C. Council passed in the wake of the 2008 decision. For example, all handguns must be submitted to D.C. police for a ballistics identification process.

    Source: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13637

  • Kansas: Bill respects Right-to-Carry in less secure places

    Posted: 04.05.10 01:38 AM

    Residents authorized to carry a concealed handgun should be able to defend themselves if the government can’t guarantee their safety, gun proponents say. That’s the idea behind a bill that would allow people with concealed carry permits to take their firearms into state or municipal buildings that don’t have "adequate security measures" such as metal detectors and trained guards.

    Source: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13636

  • Maine: Right-to-Carry in parks bill sent to governor

    Posted: 04.05.10 01:36 AM

    Gov. John Baldacci is expected to sign an amended bill next week that regulates guns in Acadia National Park, relaxing restrictions that a sponsor of the original measure had hoped to preserve. Sen. Dennis Damon’s original bill would have outlawed all firearms in national park sites in Maine, essentially continuing a policy that had been in effect. Exceptions were allowed in the bill for guns carried by law enforcement officers and those that are packed so they can’t be immediately used.

    Source: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13635

  • Colorado: CU-Boulder students await gun ban decision

    Posted: 04.05.10 01:35 AM

    Judges from the Colorado Appeals Court are reconsidering whether students and professors should be able to carry on CU’s campuses. A ruling could be issued as early as this month.

    Source: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13634

  • Philippines: National Police mull scrapping gun permits

    Posted: 04.05.10 01:34 AM

    The Philippine National Police (PNP) is planning to permanently stop the issuance of permits to carry firearms outside of residence.

    Source: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13632

  • Wisconsin: Anti-Gun Bills To Be Heard This Week!

    Posted: 04.04.10 03:44 PM

    As we alerted you before, two anti-gun proposals, LRB-2912 and LRB-4543 have been assigned bill numbers and referred to committees. The bill numbers are Senate Bill 643 and Assembly Bill 914. AB 914 has been scheduled for a public hearing Wednesday, April 7 at 1:05pm in the Committee on Corrections and the Courts. The Senate Judiciary Committee will then hear companion bill, SB 643, on Thursday, April 8 at 11:00am.

    Source: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5681

  • Don’t Pin Your Hopes On The Party Of Lincoln

    04.04.10 07:01 PM

    Republicans love to call themselves the party of Lincoln.

    Up until recently—meaning most of the last 40 years while they held the presidency or while they were the majority party, and particularly while George W. Bush was in the White House and then for the first six months of 2008—they have acted like the party of Lincoln, and that’s not a compliment. That’s because Abraham Lincoln is not a model for a party claiming to be the party of smaller, limited government.

    The real Lincoln—not the politically correct Lincoln taught in schools—was not a small government guy. Neither was he a friend of the Constitution or the slave.

    As the historian Bruce Catton wrote in The Civil War, in 1860 Lincoln wanted to be the nominee of the Republican Party—a party that consisted of an amalgam of former members of the defunct Whig Party, free-soilers (those who believed all new territories should be slave-free), business leaders who wanted a central government that would protect industry and ordinary folk who wanted a homestead act that would provide free farms in the West.

    Catton wrote, “The Republicans nominated Lincoln partly because he was considered less of an extremist than either (Senator William H.) Seward or (Salmon P.) Chase; he was moderate on the slavery question, and agreed that the Federal government lacked power to interfere with the peculiar institution in the states. The Republican platform, however, did represent a threat to Southern interests. It embodied the political and economic program of the North—upward revision of the tariff, free farms in the West, railroad subsidies, and all the rest.”

    Does that sound like a small government guy?

    Writing in his book, The Constitution in Exile, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano said, “Lincoln liked to think of himself as continuing the political philosophy of Henry Clay, who had been the leader of the Whigs.

    “For forty years, Clay supported the creation of an American empire through measures such as corporate welfare, (which politicians like to call ‘internal improvements’); today we call them corporate tax breaks, protectionist tariffs, and a nationwide central bank. All the things that Clay favored in essence provided for a highly centralized government. And Lincoln supported them all.”

    Not only did Lincoln support Clay’s policies he served as an elector for the Whig Party in the 1840 and 1844 presidential elections, according to historian Thomas J. DiLorenzo in his book, The Real Lincoln.

    He eloquently defended specific Whig economic programs like a national bank, a protectionist tariff and distribution of Federal land revenues to the states to subsidize "internal improvements," writes DiLorenzo, quoting historian Michael F.* Holt.

    During the Civil War the Federal government was rapidly centralized and enlarged, taxes were imposed on most manufactured goods, tariffs were increased and an inheritance (death) tax was adopted. It was during this period that the first personal income tax was adopted in direct violation of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, Napolitano writes.

    “The most egregious violations of civil liberties that Lincoln committed were murdering civilians, declaring martial law, suspending habeas corpus, seizing vast amounts of private property without compensation (including railroads and telegraphs), conducting a war without the consent of Congress, imprisoning nearly thirty thousand Northern citizens without trial, shutting down several newspapers, and even deporting a congressman (Clement L. Vallandigham from Ohio) because he objected to the imposition of an income tax,” according to Napolitano.

    Republican congressmen tampered with the Electoral College by creating the new states of Nevada, Kansas and West Virginia in order to ensure Lincoln’s re-election in 1864. In Maryland, under Lincoln’s orders, troops arrested and imprisoned without trial a mayor, a congressman and 31 state legislators. And Lincoln claimed to have taken these actions to “preserve” the union.

    “It’s hard to imagine something more tyrannical than a central government that suppresses life, speech, and political expression with such drastic measures, Napolitano writes.

    The party of Lincoln, and Lincoln himself, had as its main goal growing government. Only one other president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, did as much to destroy the U.S. Constitution as Lincoln.

    During the last 40 years the party of Lincoln has done much more to grow government than reduce it. Both Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald Ford expanded the Great Society programs of Lyndon Baines Johnson. In 1970 Nixon imposed wage and price controls throughout the economy, imposed a tax surcharge on all imports and removed the American dollar from the gold standard: hardly small government policies.

    Nixon’s policies sparked a rise in oil prices and caused the Great Inflation of the 1970s, according to Charles R. Morris, writing in his book, The Trillion Dollar Meltdown.

    Morris writes that Nixon was a Keynesian through and through, as were his supposedly conservative cabinet members.

    President Ronald Reagan was a believer in limited government, and took steps to reduce its size. His tax cuts stimulated the economy, but Democrats controlled the House and he was vilified by them for his efforts to reduce domestic spending while he increased military spending. While he campaigned on balancing the budget he wasn’t able to accomplish it, and deficits soared.

    President George H.W. Bush was elected to continue Reagan’s policies but despite his “Read my lips. No new taxes” pledge, Bush 41 was neither a small government guy nor a believer in Reagan’s low-tax policies or trickle down economics. He immediately joined the Democrats and raised taxes and grew government.

    The second President Bush, George W. (compassionate conservative), was truly a big government socialist. He expanded the Federal reach into our children’s education with No Child Left Behind, along with Senator Edward Kennedy, expanded entitlement programs like the Medicare Drug benefit and embarked on a war strategy that helped push a teetering economy over the cliff.

    More egregious than that was his USA PATRIOT Act—which among other things suspended habeas corpus—and other supposed terrorism fighting provisions that intrude on the liberty and privacy of Americans. And many Republicans claiming to be conservative went along.

    “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system,” Bush 43 said, in classic Bushism fashion, as he pushed his Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

    The supposed conservatives in Congress sat by and watched—if they didn’t overtly support—as Bush trashed the free market system.

    Only when Americans began berating them during town hall meetings and through Tea Party rallies in 2009 did some Republicans decide they were for smaller government.

    Now many Americans are looking to the Republicans to stem the Marxist redistributionist tide of the Obama, Pelosi, Reid administration as they follow through with their promise to change America.

    Seriously? You’re going to pin your hopes on the Republican Party, with members already backing off their “Repeal the Bill” stance less than a month after Obamacare was passed?

    Sorry, but the elites in Washington long ago crossed the Rubicon. While the Democrats are leading the charge today, the Republicans have offered no more opposition than a Civil War picket line.

    You can thank the party of Lincoln, and the “Great Emancipator” himself, for getting us to where we are today.

    http://www.personalliberty.com/perso…ty-of-lincoln/

  • SSC & CLC Committee meetings- Tuesday April 6th- 6:00 p.m. Library

    04.05.10 07:19 AM

    All committee members expected to attend. Guests always welcome.

    Chatsworth High School …

  • PTSA Meeting- Monday April 12th- 7:00 p.m. Library

    04.05.10 07:22 AM

    All members encouraged to attend. Items to be discussed are: Calendar Change for 2010-2011 school year and date for end of school moved up 5 days to June 18th.

    Chatsworth High School …

  • OPEN HOUSE- April 15th- 6:00 -8:00 p.m.

    04.05.10 07:24 AM

    All parents are encouraged to attend Open house. College Center workshop at 5:00 p.m. in the Library.

    Chatsworth High School …

  • April 16th- Shortened Day- 1:23 p.m. dismissal

    04.05.10 07:34 AM

    All students must leave the campus on shortened days.

    Chatsworth High School …

  • Campus Beautification- Saturday April 17th- 9:00 -12 noon

    04.05.10 07:29 AM

    Students needing to clear detentions or students who are in need of community service hours here is your opportunity. There is only on e beautification day left after this one. Time is passing fast, see Mrs. Donner in the quad area by 9:00 a.m.

    Chatsworth High School …

  • Future Freshman Night- April 21st- 6:00 8:00 p.m.

    04.05.10 07:41 AM

    Please join us for our annual Future Freshman Night. This is quite an exciting event. Invitations go out to all our feeder middle schools. Parents and studens will get a taste of the high school experience and all it has to offer. All of our teams, clubs and organizations will be there, along with our principal and administration staff. They will answer all your questions and give you the inside information on Chatsworth High, Mark your calendars and tell a friend !!

    Chatsworth High School …

  • Time to Stand and Deliver Education Reform: A Tribute to Jaime Escalante

    On 04.05.10 07:00 AM posted by Rachel Sheffield

    Former East Los Angeles high school teacher, Jaime Escalante, whose exemplary teaching led to the inspiring film Stand and Deliver, passed away last week. As a math teacher at Garfield High School, Escalante was able to motivate inner-city students to achieve top scores on advanced placement calculus. His influence on the school’s math program and its students led to its becoming one of the top public high schools in the country for the number of advanced placement calculus students it produced. Only four other public high schools nationwide could boast greater success. Not even the neighboring, upscale Beverly Hills High outpaced them. Today we would say that Mr. Escalante was closing the achievement gap.

    Then why was he ousted as the head of the school’s math department in the early 90s? Andrew Coulson reports in the Wall Street Journal that it was due to the opposition of teacher’s unions. Not wanting to turn students away, Escalante would fill his classroom with upwards of 50 students, whereas the union only allowed 35. However, because his students still excelled it lowered the union’s bargaining power and created resentment. As a result, Escalante left the school. Its math program no longer achieves near the same level of success.

    An educational system that sacrifices the education of its children at the hands of powerful interests groups is a broken system.

    A most recent example of this dysfunction is the opposition to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. Similar to Mr. Escalante’s success, this program has helped inner-city students in D.C. succeed. This program provides children from low-income families in D.C.–one of the lowest-achieving school districts in the nation–with a scholarship to attend a private school of their choice. The latest study results show that these students are outpacing their peers in the public schools. Furthermore, the scholarships cost less than half of the price taxpayers spend to send a child to a failing D.C. public school. Yet, Congress has blocked new students from entering the program and wants to shut it down, again due to opposition from teachers’ unions.

    Instead, the Obama administration is proposing similar, top-down approaches that have failed in the past. The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress report shows that American students’ math and reading scores have remained relatively flat, despite continual increases in federal education spending. Greater control at the federal level will only lead to more constraints that discourage innovators like Escalante and programs like the DC Opportunity Scholarship, as well as other ground-breaking successes, such as the KIPP charter schools around the nation.

    Florida can also be looked to as an example of success when states innovate outside the bureaucratic boxes handed down from Washington. A variety of school reform options have been put in place there–including school choice options–and unlike student scores in the rest of the nation, children from the Sunshine State are improving their test scores. Once again these innovations have led to a diminishing achievement gap, with Hispanic and African American students making the greatest gains. Hispanic students in Florida now outpace or tie the reading scores of all students in 30 states; and fourth-grade African American students in the state outpace or tie all children in 8 states.

    If the United States wants to improve education and help children succeed, it can no longer afford to bend to the will of special interest groups. Driving away the talent of those like Mr. Escalante and blocking programs that pull D.C. children out of failing schools and up to greater achievement, are reprehensible. As did Jaime Escalante, we need to stand for children and deliver them the best educational options.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/05/…ime-escalante/