An oft-used unofficial definition of insanity: doing things the same way over and over and expecting different results. Some say that applies to education improvement efforts.

The following qualifies as "doing it differently" but falls way short of positive innovation. We’re talking about the initiative to pay students who show up for school, behave and do better on their test scores. The lineup of opponents to this ill-conceived strategy is long and vocal.

Stafford Palmieri of the Fordham Institute writes: "Higher standards, better teachers, and more tests are not the solution here. We need to teach our children that pulling an all nighter may be worth the temporary discomfort or that missing an episode of Project Runway is worth it to finish their math homework. That starts with parents. So here’s another great question: How are we going to get parents to start teaching their children to respect education?"

Diane Ravitch offers a Forbes op-ed here that closes with the following: "Interesting, isn’t it, that while students in other countries are paying $1,500 a year for the chance to learn more, many American students will be paid that same amount just to do what they ought to be doing in their own self-interest?

Does the future belong to those who struggle to better themselves, make sacrifices to do so and work hard? Or to those who must be cajoled and bribed to learn anything at all?"

Go Stafford and Diane. Where do you fall on paying kids to do what they’re supposed to be doing away?

If I were a poker player, I would declare “All In!”  It is in this spirit that I share a few of the thoughts/theories that have been bouncing around in my head over the past seven months:

• Since early May, I have felt that Barack Obama would win Indiana and the White House. There you go, it’s now officially in print forever that I am going against over 40 years of Presidential history in Indiana.
• There are two waves going on in Indiana:  One is the Barack Obama wave and the second is the Mitch Daniels wave. Both have run superb campaigns, taken advantage of massive fundraising efforts, pushed the use of internet campaigning to new heights and are clearly agents of “change.” To me, the bigger question is: “Which wave — Obama or Daniels — will carry the statewide, Congressional and House races across the finish line?”
• First time voters WILL be the determining voter group in several races on the ballot from President down to State Representative. The amount of attention focused on this new group has been considerable, but this group deserves even more discussion than it is receiving.
• The 3 E’s — emotion, enthusiasm and excitement — explain the three points above. To me, the biggest story of this election cycle arguably is what has driven so many people, especially first time voters, to vote.  Campaigns and issues driven by these 3 E’s are hard to measure, hard to stop and attract many new people. This applies to political, corporate or charity campaigns. Remember: Emotion drove millions of people to donate money, clothes and even blood following disasters like Katrina and 9-11, and it is emotion, enthusiasm and excitement that are driving people to vote in this election right now.

I believe a wave of significant importance is now taking place in Indiana and the country. I will save my thoughts on how the Indiana House races will be impacted for a posting closer to the election.

"Vote Not to Re-elect!": This well stated bumper sticker I saw on a car yesterday summed up the feelings of many voters. People are clearly sick and tired of who we currently have in office, at all levels and of all parties. Incumbents in toss-up or lean districts are vulnerable. Incumbents in safe seats may escape with a victory, but it will unlikely be with the ridiculous margins to which they’ve grown accustomed.

As of today, the Secretary of State is reporting there are 524,405 newly registered voters since the 2006 general election. This is over a half-million people in a state with very little population growth. That means that nearly 12% of voters are newly registered. This is a voting bloc that simply did not exist two years ago, yet it now makes up a significant percentage of voters.

The next question for voters will be something like this, “Do you think a legislator who has served for 34 years needs to go?” The qualifications for those challengers may not be an issue or on the minds of voters, but voters will "Vote Not to Re-elect" in large numbers this year.

Winning Workplaces, a small business consultation firm, recently held its 2008 Top Small Workplaces Contest, and Hoosier companies JFNew (Walkerton) and G&S Research (Indianapolis) were named as two of the 20 finalists (out of 400 applicants). The second annual Winning Workplaces contest was built to recognize exceptional small businesses in North America who encourage and reward innovation, teamwork and professional growth while providing a culture and benefits that create employee loyalty.

G&S Research has been on the Indiana Chamber’s Best Places to Work list the past three years, and the Winning Workplaces web site issued the following about JFNew — a company we’re proud to call an Indiana Chamber member:

JFNew
Founded in 1989, JFNew offers natural resources and ecological consulting services including wetland consulting, natural resources management, native plant supply and installation, lake and stream restoration and maintenance of natural areas. Based in regions once dependent on manufacturing or agricultural industries for jobs, JFNew, with 107 employees, sets a fine example for growing business in new markets. JFNew is creating job growth and opportunities for their employees while also positively impacting local ecosystems. Clients and staff alike applaud their strong values, which attract top talent insistent on an appreciation for conservation and an environmental ethic. Known as a leader in environmental consulting in the Midwest, JFNew champions new research and innovations, offering its staff continuous and extensive learning opportunities in order to serve as a leading-edge problem-solver for clients.

Also noteworthy, the Indiana Chamber will once again be conducting its Best Places to Work Awards this year. Applications for the 2009 contest are due December 5. If you’re proud of how you treat your employees, don’t miss out on this opportunity to have your business recognized.

Adam Lerrick’s Ayn Rand-ish column in the Wall Street Journal asks a very valid question: How much economic redistribution will the American taxpayer take? From a business perspective, how much can American employers tolerate before the country sees a painful — perhaps even more crippling — backlash? Are we about to find out?

Calculating how far society’s top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners — at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.

Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party’s dogma and loosened labor’s grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.

The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.

The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.

No word yet from John Galt on the matter.

Finally, we are inside of two weeks until the last Election Day on November 4.  I purposely say “last Election Day” because there are 28 Election Days now with the creation of vote centers, satellite voting and absentee voting.  This is the timeframe that we have to make our final decisions on which candidates we are going to support and which ones we will simply wish well. 

IBRG’s (Indiana Business for Responsive Government) approach has always been laser-focused on putting resources into only those few races that 1) have a pro-business IBRG-endorsed candidate, 2) are truly competitive, and 3) IBRG’s support will make a difference in the outcome. We hold back most of our resources until late in the game to have the most information possible in determining which of those races we need to help get across the finish.

These decisions are years in the making. All of these decisions are rooted in years of research, demographic studies and polling data on each of the districts in play and of those candidates. These are not decisions that are made based on emotion or if we personally like or dislike a candidate. As I will often tell candidates when they ask how we make these decisions, I tell them they are nothing more than cold, calculated decisions that gives IBRG the best chance to elect as many pro-business candidates as possible.

Over the next few days, these tough decisions on what races to invest in and what projects to fund with several hundred thousand dollars will be made. Our report card comes in 12 nights.

The Small Business Administration released an annual report on the amount of federal contract dollars that go to small firms. The 2007 fiscal year total was $83.2 billion (a record dollar amount, but a decrease from the year before and short of its goals).

The honesty part comes in agency administrators admitting large gaps still exist in data accuracy. They say significant progress is being made, but that upward of $10 billion a year in errors results from miscoded contracts.

The Governing Executive story notes that with six million annual contract actions, a 1% error rate would result in 60,000 mistakes. Read the story here.

All we can say is let’s try and accelerate that improvement. Those are some big numbers to be making mistakes with.