Posted 12:09 PM by Susan Darst Williams

MOO! MILLARD MONTESSORI IS A SACRED COW

It's wacky enough to know that one of Nebraska's largest school districts has a Montessori program in it. That's a non-mainstream alternative from the private sector: making Millard taxpayers foot the bill for it is even more radical than (gasp!) the outlandish (?) notion of making Millard taxpayers foot the bill for any other non-mainstream education alternative, including Christian schooling and homeschooling.

What's even more amazing is the fact that Montessori in Millard is costing taxpayers $1,200 per pupil more than the average price per pupil for the regular education program. This is odd, in light of the fact that school-choice voucher programs are always for amounts of money that are less than the regular education per-pupil figure. And it's odd, since there is an utter absence of any evidence that Montessori educates the kids any better than the regular format or prepares the kids any better for real life. In fact, except for a hothoused few children who came out of Montessori programs, who would have excelled in any educational setting, Montessori methods are so anti-academic that they may be crippling children’s literacy and numeracy skills. How? By denying them the foundational basics of logic and language. That's because Montessori is the epitome of ''child-centered education,'' or the ''discovery learning'' process, in which children supposedly teach themselves by learning through play . . . at enormous taxpayer expense, with no evidence that there's more bang for the buck.

With these factors in mind, it's astounding and confounding to learn that Millard parents are still fighting to keep their Montessori program and funding in place, in the face of massive, mega budget crunches in school districts statewide, including in Millard.

But here's what's really weird:

If you type ''Montessori'' and ''occult'' into a search engine, your hair will reach a vertical state within minutes as you read how the Montessori philosophy is linked to spiritism, anti-Christian ideology, goddess worship, pro-humanism, pro-evolution, pro-socialism and pro-globalism.

For a taste of how Maria Montessori saw life and the purpose of education, go to http://mnatal.members.easyspace.com/montessoriinherownwords.htm and see if you think these are the ideas that a public school district in the year 2003 should be using to mold and shape young children.

Montessori was an Italian physician (1870-1952) who apparently was shut out of the choice medical jobs because of gender discrimination. So she turned to working with retarded children in a psychiatric clinic at the University of Rome. She applied her ideas from working with them to a school for slum children in Rome and opened the ''Casa dei Bambini'' (''Children’s House'') for poor children in 1907. Now there are Montessori schools throughout the world, most of them private preschools and grade schools for which parents pay tuition.

Montessori is characterized by a ''prepared environment'' with child-sized materials. That made good sense in the slums of Rome, where the street urchins did not come from homes with plentiful food, books, toys or certainly parental attention. But it's a stark mismatch with today's suburban schoolchildren, and another example of the educational overspending on the wrong things that is squeezing the life’s blood out of our schools.

The Montessori method also is problematic. In stark contrast to what we know from scientific research about the best ways of giving children the building blocks of literacy and logic, the Montessori school allows young children to flit from activity to activity – whatever interests them – instead of receiving a logical, systematic, comprehensive education in the basics of reading, writing, 'rithmetic and all the rest.

With Montessori's system, children discover things on their own. Teachers act as facilitators and suppliers, rather than instructors. Children are free to choose what to work on and to move around the room and talk when they feel like it. The emphasis is on hands-on, group activities. That means the emphasis is off intellectual, individual pursuits, chiefly . . . reading. Sigh.

But the method has come under the most criticism for its unorthodox approach to New Age-style ''spiritual education'' for children that is definitely slanted toward humanism and globalism, and away from traditional concepts like national sovereignty and traditional religions such as Judaism and Christianity. The extreme aversion to anything even approaching direct instruction and authority figures in the classroom has a tendency to produce children with an extreme aversion to systematic rules and methods, and authority in general. That doesn't bode well for the employers and husbands and wives of the future, who will have to work and live with these people.

In addition, Dr. Montessori herself was a unique and controversial figure. Seen as a feminist idol, she bore an illegitimate son and chose to relinquish him in order to fulfill her professional ambitions. She lived at home until she was 42. She had a longtime relationship with Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. He appointed her chief inspector of schools in Italy and gave her schools government funding. They eventually split over his dictate that kids wear uniforms. When she refused, funding was cut off and Montessori schools were closed, so she quit.

Later in life, Dr. Montessori lived in India and was involved in many cross pollinations of world religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and contemporary paganism. Her writings have a constant emphasis on the need for ''world peace,'' and since her goal was to model herself as a ''world citizen,'' she was buried in Holland simply because that's where she was when she died.

Dr. Montessori was in to theosophy, a turn-of-the-century European spiritual movement that has turned out most of the New Age leaders around the world today. Theosophy is patently anti-Christian, was linked to the fascists in Italy, denies Biblical truth, and seeks to promulgate the belief that there is a ''god'' within each of us that we should set free instead of being constrained by all those ''suffocating'' institutions such as organized religion.

Lastly, there's a cult-like attitude among Montessori teachers and parents that becomes an ''us against them'' mentality. There is a lot of bashing of conventional schooling and conventional parents and an air of arrogance and contempt to methods that are in opposition to Montessori methods. This defensive posture blocks the free exchange of ideas about the propriety and sense of many of the methods and practices being used, and if anyone tries to give a Montessori fan any contradictory evidence, that person is liable to get kicked in the head by the sacred cow.

So . . . to review . . .

Montessori is 'way more expensive than regular education . . .

. . . it was developed for retarded and impoverished children in Europe, and for not the typical, well-off, American suburban children found in districts like Millard . . .

. . . there's no evidence it works any better than regular education . . .

. . . it flies in the face of research that clearly shows which are the best educational methods . . .

. . . and it's chock full of weird, New Age occultism . . .

. . . but the Millard School Board should keep it, anyway . . . because the parents want something to brag about . . . or something?

Let's see what the Millard School Board does with this one. Will they cut the sacred cow out of the herd? Or will they continue to put up with this . . . educational bull?

Posted 12:06 PM by Susan Darst Williams

NEBRASKA 12th IN THE NATION IN DISABLED CHILDREN?

Nebraska ranks 12th in the nation in the percentage of "Children With Disabilities," as defined by their schools, according to the Congressional Quarterly 2003 State Fact Finder book, based on the 1999-00 school year.

That's not surprising, in light of last week's revelations in these columns that spotlights possible widespread mislabeling of children in Nebraska as being "learning disabled." The phenomenon suggests that schools are deliberately miseducating young children and crippling their reading abilities to force them into special education categories, in a cynical grab for additional federal funding.

This is a scandal, sports fans. One would hope the outcry about this ranking would be a lot louder than the outcry about falling out of the top 10 in football.

Maybe Go Big Ed ought to get some tough, new coaches to go get in the educators' faces and make 'em run the stairs 'til they can show they're doing a better job for our kids.

Posted 11:29 PM by Susan Darst Williams

NEBRASKA'S LEARNING DISABILITIES SCANDAL

If you husk the covers off Nebraska's school spending, you'll expose a kernel of truth: we are blowing millions upon millions of dollars needlessly on special education.

Not only that, but our pattern appears to be racist. And the numbers of children identified as troubled learners is growing instead of shrinking, which casts aspersions on our instructional strategies for them, not to mention the cost-efficiency thereof. And we could just about solve our spending crisis and equalize educational opportunity among the races in one fell swoop if we’d do one thing right the first time:

Teach reading.

We're blowing it, especially for Nebraska's poor and minority students. And that ain't no corn.

According to the National Center on Learning Disabilities (www.ncld.org/advocacy) Nebraska had 16,299 students in the 1999-00 school year labeled as having ''specific learning disabilities.'' If they were all enrolled in the same place, it would form one of the largest school districts in the state. A big-spending one, too: spending on learning-disabled kids is several thousand dollars more per year per pupil than spending on regularly-instructed kids.

That means learning disability designations are costing Nebraska taxpayers tens of millions of dollars per year. But now it looks as though at least half of that excess spending is totally preventable with just a few common-sense changes in reading curriculum and instruction in the early grades.

Millions of dollars wasted, year after year? Damaging and destroying the educational prospects of a significant portion of the state's minority population?

That ain't no corn, either. That's a scandal.

According to the NCLD organization, Nebraska’s learning-disabled population is overrepresented by black, Hispanic and Native American children. It also reported that high-school completion rates for learning-disabled (LD) students is far less in Nebraska than for their peers nationwide. In Nebraska, 36.5 percent of the LD kids drop out at age 14 and older, compared to the national average of 27.1 percent of LD kids who fail to finish school.

According to the NCLD’s 23rd annual report to Congress measuring the 1999-00 school year compared to years past, Nebraska's learning-disabled numbers shot up from 13,458 to 16,299 children in the decade of the 1990s.

And according to a separate report issued by the National Association for the Education of African American Children With Learning Disabilities (www.charityadvantage.com/aacld/HarvardNewsRelease.asp), Nebraska's African-American students were six times more likely to be identified as ''emotionally disturbed'' than white students, and four times more likely to be labeled ''mentally retarded'' than whites.

The data were from the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, which contended that inappropriate and inadequate special education services may be a leading factor in the overrepresentation of minority adolescents in the juvenile justice system.

The report said, ''Some minority children do need special education support, but far too often they receive low-quality services and watered-down curriculum instead of effective support, the research suggests. Moreover, research reveals that minority students are less likely to be mainstreamed than similarly situated white students.''

It concluded, ''To the extent that minority students are misclassified, segregated, or inadequately served, special education can contribute to a denial of equality of opportunity, with devastating results in communities throughout the nation.''

With that context, consider the impact of recent testimony before the U.S. Congress by Dr. Douglas Carmine of the University of Oregon, director of the National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators (http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/), who spoke March 13 before the Subcommittee on Education Reform of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, urging improvements in reading instruction:

-- 75 percent of the students who are still receiving reading remediation services after third grade never read at grade level.

-- 80 percent of the students labeled ''learning disabled'' actually have reading problems and to be accurate should instead be labeled ''instructional casualties.''

-- Only 14 percent of LD kids get any post-secondary education.

-- We can predict with a high degree of accuracy by January of the kindergarten year which students are at risk for reading problems, but because of special education funding formulas, we have to wait to give them reading remediation services until the third grade, when they have experienced failure and difficulties for two school years.

-- If we would intervene much earlier, right away, in kindergarten and first grade, 70 percent to 90 percent of those ''at risk of not reading'' kids could be brought to grade level and above by the end of second grade. Districts around the country that have switched to that model have experienced sharply reduced numbers of LD populations, exposing that the LD label in most cases is phony.

-- Since about half of all special-education students are there because of an LD label, if it is true that almost all of their ''disabilities'' could be cured by better reading strategies in the earlier grades, then special-education costs in any given district could be reduced by nearly 50 percent simply by switching immediately to systematic, intensive, explicit phonics instruction in the early grades.

To put that into perspective: in the Omaha Public Schools alone, spending on special-ed instruction is nearing 20 percent of spending on regular instruction according to the most recent OPS budget posted online at www.ops.org

The Omaha district spent $35.9 million for special-ed teachers this year, compared to $159.2 million for regular teachers. If it is possible to reduce special-ed enrollment by keeping half of the kids out of that spending category with better reading instruction early on, enormous savings far beyond the instructional budget could be realized. That would free up needed funds for the kids with medically-based disabilities, and reduce other budgets both in and out of the school district as a happy consequence . . . including juvenile justice costs, which are exploding.

Also of note: according to Thursday's Washington Times, in an article entitled ''House GOP to End Misclassifying of Illiterate Children,'' the nation's Republican leaders are confirming that local school districts all over the country are significantly over-identifying minority students as ''learning disabled'' and adding to an already ''crushing burden'' of complex and duplicative special-ed paperwork for teachers.

The article reported that special-ed federal funding was $1.43 billion in fiscal year 1988 but had risen to $8.9 billion in fiscal '03.

Provisions of the federal education bill, No Child Left Behind, are intended to simplify special-ed funding formulas and encourage better methods of teaching reading to sharply reduce LD rolls.

Bottom line: it is highly possible that most of Nebraska's 16,299 LD kids could be miraculously ''un-disabled'' if they were taught to read right in the first place . . . and untold millions of taxpayer dollars could have been saved.

And to anybody who cares about our gigantic budget problems, that certainly ain't no corn. That's an opportunity . . . bigtime.

Posted 11:14 PM by Susan Darst Williams

SEN. RAIKES, STATE AID, AND THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CAT IN THE HAT

State Sen. Ron Raikes this week declared that LB 540 regarding school tax levies and state aid to education is his priority bill. As chairman of the Education Committee, he's digging in his heels on this one. It would allow a three-fourths vote of a school board -- a handful of people -- to substitute for the wisdom of the school district's total population of voters as being sufficient to order a property tax increase over the Legislature's stated lid.

It can't be constitutional . . . but oh, well.

It's exactly like the old Dr. Seuss kiddie story, "The Cat in the Hat." Remember how the pink bathtub ring got wiped up with a blouse, and then transferred to the bed, and then spread throughout the house? (Hey . . . that rhymes!) Well, so does this: They want to do the same, you know, with what's supposed to be tax-limited dough. (I'm good!)

When the Legislature put the school tax lids in place, the understanding was that school districts would give people property tax relief by cutting school spending. Well, they haven't cut school spending.

THEIR understanding was that, as local property taxes were held in check by the Legislature's lids, state sales and income tax funds would be available to help make up the difference lost in smaller piles of property tax receipts.

But enter the clunky economy and state government's nearly $700 million budget shortfall. All of a sudden, the state's as tight as wallpaper.

So what do the educrats do? Live within their means? Noooooo. They try to switch to a school-board majority vote instead of a vote of the people to jam property tax increases through. Just as the Cat in the Hat took a small problem and made it worse by spreading it all around, this bill would not do what the voters want -- cut unnecessary school spending -- but would continue the upward spiral that is threatening the very future of our public schools.

Lincoln Public Schools voters have turned down tax-lid overrides twice.

Omaha Public Schools voters turned an override down flat, last fall.

Let's all face the Capitol and cup our hands around our lips as we shout loud enough for the senator to hear:

"READ 'EM, RAIKES. NO MORE SCHOOL TAXES! MAKE SCHOOLS CUT SPENDING."

And if you do, Senator, then you won't be the Cat in the Hat. You'll be a cool cat.

Posted 6:36 PM by Susan Darst Williams

TEACHERS AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH: RECENT IRONIC SITUATIONS

A substitute music teacher at Black Elk Elementary School in Millard was apparently dismissed for violating district policy while chatting with students about the possibility of war in Iraq. She apparently told students that if the worst happens, Jesus Christ would save them if they believe in Him.

The fact that she was dismissed, while other full-time teachers are wearing and handing out anti-war buttons, participating in anti-war parades and rallies with their students, allowed to display pagan symbols in the classroom, teaching biological evolution as a fact, and otherwise clearly acting in conflict with and opposition to the religious and political beliefs of the students' families, with no sanctions, is certainly ironic under the circumstances.

The incident sparked lively commentary on local websites such as the KCRO Forum as citizens exchanged views on whether or not it was right for her to say what she said.

From the cheap seats, it looks as though she goofed. According to U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (kids shouldn't have been suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War), it's clear that students have unlimited rights of free speech on topics such as religion, so long as their speech isn't disruptive and doesn't directly collide with the rights of others.

But teachers, while still possessing free-speech rights very similar to those of other adults in other types of workplaces, still must be viewed as "agents of the state," particularly when they are influencing younger, more impressionable students who are more or less a "captive audience." Public-school teachers shouldn't be paramoid about expressing themselves, and they can certainly answer religious questions posed by children, but they must not proselytize or make it possible for children to confuse what they say as their personal beliefs with the official, sanctioned policy of the school district.

A good way to have handled the situation might have been that good, old thing that a fellow named Socrates always did: answer a question with a question. If a child had a valid question and expressed some fear about the war, the teacher might turn it into a learning opportunity and ask all of the children in the class about what calms them in times of crisis. Then if a student were to name the name of Jesus and others were to share their beliefs, alike or different, it would have been OK.

For more on the important topic, see "Teachers' Rights in Public Education," a 2002 report from the Rutherford Institute and more good information from the American Center for Law and Justice.

Posted 5:19 PM by Susan Darst Williams

SUPERINTENDENTS AND SUPER PAY

School superintendents in Nebraska were paid nearly $19.2 million as a group in the 2001-02 school year, compared to $14.4 million nine years before. That's a cumulative increase of 33 percent. Figures are the most recent ones available from the State Education Department's finance website.

That's a statistic that's worth some study in the light of Nebraska's projected budget shortfall of nearly $700 million.

A March 9 article in the Chicago Tribune on superintendent pay reported that despite declining student performance in their districts, budget woes, deficit spending, and pay cuts and job losses among the ranks of teachers and other school staff, about one-fourth of Illinois superintendents as a group saw their earnings rise 10 percent or more in the past year.

The phenomenon of school boards who vote their superintendents 20 percent raises in each of their last few years of service, in order to get their pension basis up, was perceived as a key reason for the paradox.

The difficulty is, although local taxpayers pay the superintendent's salary, the taxpayers of the entire state foot the bill for the inflated pensions that those pay increases provide. It can amount to tens of thousands of dollars per year more for the better-paid superintendents.

Also factors are non-salary expenses for superintendents such as tax-sheltered annuities, taxpayer-financed contributions to retirement plans, car and housing allowances, and payouts for hundreds of unused sick days.

The question is: can schools afford to keep up the "super pay" in these less-than-super budget days?

Posted 5:00 PM by Susan Darst Williams

VOTER TAX TURNDOWNS: IS IT A TREND YET?

Eyebrows were raised Tuesday by the 77 percent "no" vote in Valley, Neb., against the school district's bid to override the Legislature's lid on the property tax levy. The 540-160 vote may reflect continuing dissatisfaction with academic shortcomings in the district, the failure to merge with neighboring Waterloo when the opportunity arose, and a "disconnect" in the administrative offices with the link between declining enrollment and the need for fiscal conservatism.

The Valley "no" vote joins a similar significant turndown in Pender (552-280) and a closer "no" vote in Axtell, 246-202.

Although there have been recent voter approvals, too -- a levy override in Diller-Odell School District and a bond issue for a junior-senior high in Battle Creek -- it just may be that the window of opportunity for school districts to avoid budget cuts is now just about closed.

Consultant Paul Dorr of northern Iowa (dcs@iowatelecom.net), who was active in defeating the Omaha Public Schools override election last fall, now has chalked up 12 victories in 14 tries, assisting local citizens' committees in defeating local school bond issues and spending-lid overrides. He is seeking more assignments and has an impressive track record, so if you have a big school spending vote coming up . . . hint, hint.

Posted 4:34 PM by Susan Darst Williams

TECHNOLOGY FOR TEENIES?

Q. Our superintendent wants to hire a technology coordinator for the early primary grades. Is this OK?

No. Technology in the early grades has been shown to be expensive window dressing that can be counterproductive to the educational process. Young children need relationships with other humans, particularly caring adults, and hands-on, multisensory experience with the real world. Computers, video and other ed tech tend to stunt imagination and creativity, and raise concerns about children’s physical, emotional and cognitive well-being. Dangers: eyestrain, obesity, repetitive stress injuries, social isolation and more.

To the adult eye, it would seem to be a smart idea to fill classrooms with multimedia machines, Internet connections, word processing capabilities, digital cameras, spreadsheets, laptops . . . but the truth is, there is no learning advantage from trivial games, inappropriate adult activities and commercialized content, which is often what the ed tech is used for. Meanwhile, adding technology usually means cutting time for the things that young children really need from their schools: art, p.e., recess, nature walks and so forth.

The National Science Board reported in 1998 that costly educational strategies such as increased technology, smaller class sizes and other extras do not appear to enhance student achievement with any degree of cost-effectiveness that approaches good, old-fashioned, solid, traditional curriculum and instruction.

Researcher Larry Cuban, an expert on educational technology, also reports that more than 30 years of studies show only one sure benefit of computers in the classroom: a modest improvement in test scores from “drill and practice” type computer programs. Significantly, though, those improvements are not as great as the higher test scores that are attained when the students are given one-on-one tutoring, which is significantly cheaper than computers as well.

Homework: See the Alliance for Childhood for the report, “Fool’s Gold: A Critical Look at Computers and Childhood.”

Posted 10:16 AM by Susan Darst Williams

THE ASSESSMENT SHUFFLE VS. LOCAL CONTROL

The utter lack of accountability in the statewide assessment program came at an enormous price. Aren't you proud? And documents on file illustrate how the Nebraska State Department of Education views local control. It's not control by local citizens. It's local citizens dutifully implementing what policies and procedures the state wants in place, after plenty of money has been spread around.

This week's Appropriations Committee hearing on the department's budget had the spectacle of the bureaucrats going on record against cutting their budget or any district's budget or state aid or anything that had anything to do with anything, any wee bit, despite the fact that we have a statewide budget shortfall approaching $700 million.

Furthermore, they were attempting to obtain buy-in from the committee to recommend another $457,000 in ESU technology infrastructure funding and $1,273,000 in "core services" for the ESU's instead of making what should have been a no-brainer, $1.7 million cut. The money would be earmarked for a process that has been defined by former State Board of Education member Kathy Wilmot as "much of the 'hanky panky' involved with training and preparation for the Commissioner's 'locally developed, multiple assessment.'"

He can claim these are "locally developed," but they're not. Remember how each state's learning "standards" are all basically from the same place and were sprinkled around from state to state by various means, including the regional education laboratories and certain consultants? Well, it's the same thing with the assessments designed to measure how well the kids learned what was in those boilerplated standards. Naturally, the assessments have been boilerplated, too . . . although it was done in a perplexing, expensive way to try to conceal that from us.

Each district's attempt at crafting an acceptable assessment has been bent, spindled, folded and mutilated through the mega-powerful Buros Center for Testing at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Search on a search engine for "Buros" and "assessment," and you'll see for yourself how "trickle-down" assessments trick the people by trickling state-controlled, nonacademic assessments down to the kids via a long, expensive chain of educrats paid to distort and degrade the process of education.

How Nebraska got this house-of-mirrors assessment system is interesting reading. Take the math assessments. Go to the Buros report on the math assessment development process to read more for yourself, but consider that the Nebraska Department of Education hired an arm of the UNL office, the Buros Institute for Assessment Consultation and Outreach, staffed up the whazoo with Ph.D.'s who piled higher and deeper all that they knew about assessment models, and then some.

Then they hired 15 evaluators to "help" the districts work the 24 state-mandated assessment strategies into their so-called "locally developed" assessments. These 15 evaluators formed the District Assessment Evaluation Team -- DAET -- though no local educator would ever want a date with DAET.

But that wasn't the end of it. Then there was a final review by the National Advisory Center for Assessment, with four nationally-known and therefore maximum-paid experts in assessment reviewing all the folderol.

The report contains interesting and almost comical tangents such as the fact that the Westside Community Schools had their assessment writers trained in avoiding bias in the questions they were developing. Keep in mind, this is math. But these writers spent days in meetings learning how to avoid bias in race/ethnicity, gender, religion and who knows what all else in their questions. But even that wasn't enough: then District 66 paid its ESU to conduct an "independent bias review" of the questions after they were written, and so another 13 people representing six ethnic groups went over the questions . . . and if there was ANY math left in them after all of this, it would be a miracle.

What does all this suggest?

Repeal those Goals 2000 "standards," quit trying to do a statewide assessment, let districts devise their own system of off-the-shelf tests and locally-managed assessment techniques, save a canyon full of money, and most of all, sharply reduce the numbers, funding and assignments of the ESU's.

They have no accountability to the State Board of Education or anybody else besides the State Department of Education. They are mushrooming in size and scope because of these silly statewide assessments. They perpetuate the lack of accountability to the public for what Nebraska's public schools are teaching, and they are storing the kids' local, personal data in their databanks and that ain't good.

The State Ed Department dearly wants to pump more and more money and power into the ESU's since they avoid oversight by the State Ed Board, and their own elected boards are such rubber stamps. They're an "accountability avoidance" dream. Now is the perfect time and the budget crisis the perfect excuse to kill several birds with one stone, and sharply reduce their impact and funding.

If the ESU's could be taken out of the assessment business, there wouldn't be a structure for either the State Department of Ed or the local districts to hide behind. As it is now, there is no way for us to track exactly how much this fiasco involving standards, assessment and lack of accountability is costing taxpayers.

Listen, all educators are trained in assessment. That's one of the most important classes they take in teachers' college. Why on earth wouldn't we let them choose how best to measure learning and be accountable to their locally-elected school boards and taxpaying patrons? Why on earth must the state get into what should be a pure, simple process and muck it all up with all this bureaucracy? Why on earth did we ever let them stray from local control?

Despite the millions that have been spent and the tears that have been shed, Nebraskans STILL don't know beans about how well our children are learning through this wacky assessment debacle. It's time to put a stop to it.

Posted 4:28 PM by Susan Darst Williams

THE LEGISLATURE PASSED SMART LAWS
THAT CUT SCHOOL SPENDING TO DO-ABLE LEVELS!!!
. . .

HALLELUJAH!!!

. . .

BUT THEN I WOKE UP AND FOUND OUT . . .

. . . it was all a dream. Dang!

Here’s what I dreamed:

1. We started paying districts state aid based on Average Daily Attendance, not Average Daily Membership, and every child was worth the same subsidy no matter where he or she lives in the state.

We need to end all this wrangling about which kids “need” more than others. That’s socialism. Just figure out how much we have and divvy it up. Done. To meet statutory requirements for K-12 education costs a lot less than they’re spending. They’ll figure out how to make ends meet. That’s what we pay them for. Eh?

Also, there are a lot of “phantom” kids we pay for every day, all across the state, who aren’t there. Maybe this will force districts with huge absenteeism to make school seem worthwhile enough to get kids in their seats Monday through Friday. Too much trouble figuring enrollment so often? Well, heyyyy: what’d we buy you guys all those computers for, if not to manage our money better? The one change would save $22.5 million in the Omaha Public Schools alone, based on budget figures on http://ess.nde.state.ne.us/SchoolFinance/AFR/search/afr.htm

2. In my dream, we started making parents pay for the second half-day of kindergarten, not grant free all-day kindergarten, because it’s a frill; there’s no evidence it’s worth a hoot academically.

With 13 grade levels to pay for, all-day kindergarten represents roughly 7.7 percent of a district’s budget. I know, I know, actual cost is technically less than that because early primary grades cost less than secondary grades, but let’s just see. With OPS’s enrollment, that figures to $23.3 million for kindergarten funding. That means getting rid of that second free half-day would save something like $11.6 million in that district alone. Parents could still have the service if they wanted it. They’d just have to pay for it. What a concept.

3. We investigated whether there is widespread cheating in the federal school lunch funding program.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nearly one-fourth of the children who are receiving free or subsidized breakfasts and lunches through the federal school-food program for disadvantaged children are not really entitled to as much as they’re getting. It seems a little harsh to call them “cheaters,” but it seems there are more families signed up for the free-or-reduced-food program than U.S. Census figures indicate exist. Parents or guardians self-report family income to qualify, and apparently many have succumbed to the temptation to lie to get the freebies they shouldn’t be getting. In OPS alone, the feds are sending more than $10 million a year in reimbursement; if it’s true that $2.5 million of that is phony, that’s a lot of baloney. This ought to be investigated statewide.

4. We used state lottery proceeds to do performance audits on state aid to public schools.

Duhhh. It’s a bad dream that we’re not doing this already.

5. We figured state aid based on the required 180-day calendar. If schools want to stretch that to 187- or 190-day calendars, they’re on their own, funding-wise.

When times are tough, the tough think statutorily. What does state law require? How can we manage our time and resources efficiently enough to meet the requirement but not go overboard? Don’t suppose we can put the calendar back to a basic Labor Day to Memorial Day calendar with a nice fall break and a full week for spring break? Come on . . . families hate the “Old McDonald” approach to school calendars: “With a half-a-day here and a half-a-day there, here an intercession, there an inservice, everybody goofed up. . . .” Let’s keep it simple, senors and senoritas.

6. We urged State Board of Education member Joe Higgins to show true leadership, and convince his union and its well-coiffed and -leashed senators to get rid of the crazy “Rule of 85” early retirement program that he got in place a few years ago in his union leadership position – a huge reason for budget pressure and teacher shortages now.

Nebraska has just about the most liberal and generous teacher retirement system in the country, allowing teachers to retire at age 55 with 30 years of service. It was a gigantic kick to the solar plexus of both teacher quality and budgetary flexibility a few years ago when many, many experienced teachers took early retirement and left the classroom. The economy was going great then. Now, it’s blah. We can’t afford that kind of self-indulgence in this tax climate, with everybody’s investment portfolios in the dumpster.

7. And if the union won’t do that one intelligent thing . . . then, I realized in my dream although a lot of people already figured this out in their waking hours . . . it’s time to give up on them . . . bust the teachers’ unions and let school districts set their own common-sense compensation packages, including sensible health-care benefit plans.

If we really want to head off the impending teacher shortage because of Nebraska’s aging teacher workforce, we’d let districts pay that hard-to-find math, science, special education or vocational education teacher a little bit more than the garden-variety P.E. teacher who is in ample supply. They’d stay in teaching, or put off retirement, if we made it worth their while. We also should let districts pay their home-run hitters more and their three-times-transferred, marginal, discipline-challenged teachers less. Union rules prevent us from doing those common-sense, private-sector things, and it shows. But consider what the Omaha Education Association says about performance pay in their position statement on salaries (www.oeaomaha.org): they say “any system of compensation based on an evaluation of an education employee’s performance” is . . . hold on to your hats and tie yourself to the fencepost . . . “inappropriate.”

Oh, Mama! That’s what we’re up against. Not exactly an attitude of gratitude. No wonder it’s a budgetary nightmare.

Now I KNOW it was all just a dream. Wahhhh.

The good news is, once a dream is over and you know it was just a dream, that means you must be awake.

Are we, Nebraska? If so, let’s go!

Posted 4:25 PM by Susan Darst Williams

ALOHA-BYE-BYE TO THE IDEA OF 100% STATE FUNDING OF SCHOOLS

State Sen. Chip Maxwell of Omaha made a splash earlier this year with a proposal to shift all responsibility for funding our public schools away from local property taxes, which now bear about half the cost, and onto state sales and income taxes added to the relatively small amount (6 to 8 percent) from federal tax funding.

Comes now a report about the one state in the union that has state control of public schools, Hawaii. It kind of puts the idea of copying them on a surfboard and points it . . . well, away.

State control of the schools has made Hawaii the state with the highest percentage of private-school enrollment in the country, according to an Oct. 12, 2001, New York Times article, "In Hawaii, Public Schools Feel a Long Way From Paradise."

Although Hawaii has a long tradition of private, missionary schools, the growth in them is more recent, with one in five Hawaiian children enrolled in a private school.

Most state legislators send their own children to private schools, according to the article. It quoted observers as saying the buildings are run down, there have been protracted teachers' strikes, there's a serious teacher shortage, there's a threat of a federal takeover, and there have been cutbacks in school construction plans.

Moreover, 48 percent of Hawaiian publicly-educated eighth-graders scored below the "basic" standard on a math exam given nationwide, and 45 percent of the fourth-graders scored that low, as well. The national average was 33 percent "below basic" in the year studied.

Posted 9:31 AM by Susan Darst Williams

NEBRASKA FREEDOM FIGHTERS NEEDED TO ATTEND UPCOMING MEETINGS

If you want to fight for Nebraska's public schools and the children they serve, and if you have been looking for just one thing you could do that would truly make a difference, consider attending one of these upcoming forums on education and "essential curriculum" sponsored by the Nebraska Department of Education:

Thursday, March 6, Lincoln, Cornhusker Hotel, 333 South 13, Ballroom DEF, 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Tuesday, March 11, Columbus, Educational Service Unit #7, 2657 44th Street, 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Monday, April 14, North Platte, North Platte Community College, Technical Campus, 1101 Halligan Drive, 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Tuesday, April 15, Sidney, Country Kettle Restaurant, 284 Illinois Street, 4 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Consider contacting your State Board of Education member and requesting to be invited to participate in this crucial process. Or else just go and listen in.

The meeting series is related to the failure of the proposed state constitutional amendment in the 1990s that was going to call for "quality" education be provided to every student in a move toward "equity" that appeared to most Nebraskans to be too much like communism ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"). State Auditor Kate Witek, then a state senator, was a leader in the movement to expose the tremendous expense of "equity" or "adequacy" changes to a state's education system, and the tremendous damage to real quality that "quality" movements actually cause because they destroy local control.

Bottom line: if this discussion goes the wrong way, Nebraskans could be facing bills for brand-new school buildings for every student in the state because some district somewhere in the state was able to afford in a brand-new building . . . or every district in the state might be required to construct a swimming pool year-round just because another school has that luxury.

It's the "keep up with the Joneses" theory of financing public education . . . and it threatens the very core of our schools' reason for being, which is supposed to be providing a good education without bankrupting the state.

Longtime education observers in Nebraska say that these "adequacy" meetings are part of the "consensus" process being used nationwide to trick citizens into accepting pre-engineered, forced societal change that bureaucrats and school administrators want in order to ensure a steady and increasing supply of cash. The "results," "outcomes" and "conclusions" of these meetings have already been "pre-determined" and the participants will be "manipulated" into thinking the right way.

But if citizens who are awake to the manipulation attend these meetings and listen in, or better yet, participate, they can at the very least shame the perpetrators, make them see what they are doing, and while they probably can't alter the pre-set "outcomes" of these public forums since they're already set in stone, those who attended these meetings can advocate more effectively later on with the state senators who are likely to be considering proposed legislation -- also "pre-set" but supposedly emanating from these forums -- next year.

State Board of Education President Stephen Scherr of Hastings is expected to open the discussions, asking the question: "What education opportunities should be provided and/or available for all Nebraska students?"

Forum participants will review a proposed policy on essential education during their discussion and then present the views of the group. At 7:30 p.m. at each meeting, State Education Commissioner Doug Christensen will speak, wrapping up the discussions at all four locations.

HOW TO COUNTER GROUP MANIPULATION TACTICS
Excerpts from the booklet by B.K. Eakman (rush-order your own copy to be prepared for these meetings: author and education activist B.K. Eakman's website)

1. Control the environment of thought to drive the debate to the real issue. If you don't, they will.

2. Stay quiet in the beginning because the leader, or "facilitator," is busy feeling everyone out to reveal objections and doubts that can be manipulated. Keep yours to yourself until the real issue of the meeting becomes clear.

3. Remember that whoever set up the meeting and the agenda, and is paying the presenter, wants a particular outcome that may not be the same as what citizens and parents want. This is a "sales presentation," so let the buyer beware.

4. The "facilitator" and the insiders will be using tactics such as redefining what people say the way they want it said; redirecting attention away from participants' concerns to their own agenda; intimidating and de-legitimizing people who express another point of view as being "troublemakers" who "insist on having their own way instead of bowing to majority rule"; using repetitive slogans that misstate and manipulate, and appearing to grant a "bone" to the traditional views of education from time to time that really isn't granting anything new, but is designed to try to keep quiet those who are trying to counter the proposed socialistic changes.

5. Listen carefully and don't let them: misquote authorities, misstate what educational research really shows, overgeneralize, use jargon to conceal their real intentions, dismiss alternatives out of hand, change the subject, exaggerate the facts, appeal to peer pressure and popularity, or smear opposing points of view. Beware especially of namecalling; if they call you a bad name intending to label you in some way, point it out to others in attendance, and said, "Now, let's think about this: that is a rude name and so untrue; why would he call me that? What purpose could it serve?"

6. Refuse to play the game. Refuse to be manipulated. Drive the debate back to the subject. Force the facilitator to address your statements, arguments and principles. When you hear something that is not true, raise your hand and ask, "That isn't true. Where on earth did you get that idea?" and demand a research citation that participants can look up. If one is not forthcoming, say, "Oh. Then that's just your opinion, right? And it's completely opposite from what the research I'm familiar with has shown." It's a good idea to come to these meetings armed with research citations for the basic issue, which is generally an attempt to get more money for an untested, controversial and counter-productive change, in case they try to undermine your knowledge or authority. Stand up, if you have to, and demand that your opinions be addressed. Interrupt, although politely, if the "facilitator" tries to blow you off. Insist that all those who make their living, or their spouses do, from public education, raise their hands. Insist that "cost-effectiveness" be on the list of basic goals. You'd be shocked at how often it is swept under the rug at these kinds of meetings because the people putting the meetings on just want the money and don't care whether it's even the best way to go for kids. If citizens keep saying common-sense things that the "facilitator" won't let be written down on the board for all to see, stand up and say, "Here, let me have a turn with the chalk (or marker) because you're missing a lot of what people are trying to say."

7. You will be put in a "circle" that is supposedly a place to openly share your ideas in a small-group setting, but actually, the "facilitator" by now has you targeted, and will put you in the "circle" where you can best be isolated, minimized and silenced. The best thing to do is to say nothing, but as soon as people start moving, go and sit in a different circle than the one to which you were assigned. if the "facilitator" protests, then loudly and firmly say, "What's the big deal which circle I join? Do you have some reason you want particular people in particular circles? Are you trying to fix the outcome, or what?"

Be polite! Be strong, though. It's important. And most of all, thank you . . . for thinking of our children and being willing to invest some time into their best interests.

Posted 8:35 AM by Susan Darst Williams

IT'S THE CURRICULUM, STUPID :>)

There is no systematic relationship between increased school spending and better student learning. Nor is there any connection between equalizing funding between the richest school districts and the poorest ones, according to a report issued on the 20th anniversary of "A Nation At Risk" whose major finding is that we still are.

The Koret Task Force on K-12 Education of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, reported in "Our Schools and Our Future . . . Are We Still At Risk?" that major impediments to school improvement appear to be the teachers' unions and parents who are disengaged and think of school merely as all-day babysitting service.

The report says that the education establishment has worked to dumb down schooling in order to artificially inflate test scores, make teachers' unions look good, and make it appear that schools deserve more money.

For more, see the study at the Hoover Institution and don't miss a look at the ebook available there, "A Primer on American Education," by several of the nation's leading education thinkers. See especially the chapter on school spending by the guru of that subject, Eric Hanushek, who wrote, among other things, that ". . . there is no reason to believe that equalizing expenditures also tends to equalize student performance."

Hanushek and others who have studied the relationships between spending patterns and student achievement have repeatedly said that there is no "bang" to be gotten from extra bucks devoted to extras in public schools or to "educational adequacy" strategies such as are now being considered in Nebraska, and that a strong, solid core curriculum and competent teachers will do the job at much less expense.

Nationwide as in Nebraska, student achievement measurements have basically been flat over the last 20 to 30 years, while spending on K-12 education has more than doubled in real dollars adjusted for inflation. Hanushek points out that major federal education expenditures for nonmedical special education, Title I and Head Start all have shown zero positive impact, or at the very least, no demonstrable long-term advantage, for the students intended to be served.

What does that mean for Nebraska?

Pull out of federal funding . . . it's making things worse, not better.

Forget any idea of further equalization in Nebraska between property-rich districts and poor ones . . . it's not the difference in funding that school districts have available to us, it's the lack of a focus on the relatively cheap-to-deliver basics that is holding the poor kids back, and driving education costs too high.

Cut spending across the board in K-12 education and force a return to the basics.

Put the attention where it belongs . . . on curriculum and instruction, not "programs" and "strategies" that cost a lot of money but have been shown to do practically nothing for kids.

Posted 8:16 AM by Susan Darst Williams

WHAT'S COMING UP IN THE NEBRASKA LEGISLATURE NEXT WEEK

Many thanks to former State Board of Education member Kathy Wilmot for providing this update:

Last Monday, Feb. 24: bills regarding reorganization of districts were heard before the Education Committee. Discussion was fairly general; an emotional issue as always. A study of the issue is a likely result.

Tuesday: the Governor's proposal to eliminate paying for state wards' education (LB 417) was one of the hearings. Things were heated during this discussion as well. Many school districts presented testimony in opposition, citing the additional costs to their districts if the state does not continue to pay. Private providers, such as Uta Halle and Boys and Girls Town were also opposed. NDE testified in opposition on behalf of the Department and the State Board. NDE cited the potential financial burden that would result to districts. HHS was the only supporter of the bill.

Also Tuesday: LB 249 (changes the option enrollment deadline and eligibility provision) was up for hearing. Commissioner Christensen testified on behalf of the Department/State Board. A letter from SBE President Scheer was also entered into the record. The letter explained the Board's support of this compromise position (July 1 deadline for option kids, and 90-day ineligibility after that date), citing the Board resolution in support of LB 249. All testimony supported this bill, with the exception of Maxwell Schools. Their representative stated there is no enforcement mechanism if the law is not followed and requested an enforcement provision. Some say Senator Raikes is not too enamored with LB 249 as he prefers no eligibility sanctions for option kids. (The NSAA always states this provision is needed to stop "recruitment"; however, in testimony before the SBE in late 2002, Jim Tenopir, executive director of the NSAA, could not cite a single instance of "recruitment." (Editor's Note: at that time, Kathy Wilmot suggested that provisions should be made to penalize coaches guilty of "recruitment" rather than punishing kids whose parents decide to move their membership. This provision not only impacts students in sports, but speech students, band, chorus, debate team members, etc. . . . all activities.)

Thursday: LB 163 (authorizing ESU's to exceed the maximum tax levy if core service dollars are reduced) was before the Revenue Committee. Russ Inbody of NDE testified in support and entered a support letter from the Board into the record. LB 769, Senator Hartnett's bill exempting expenditures for school resource officers from levy expenditure limits, was also heard. NDE personnel again testified in support on behalf of NDE and the State Board.

Education-related hearings scheduled next week include:

Monday (Education Committee):

LB 264 - Authored by NDE; introduced by Sen. Raikes; gives authority to the Board to provide flexibility for types of teacher certificates and identifies minimum and maximum requirements for certificates. This bill has support from districts trying to hire out-of-state teachers, and is supported by NSEA. This bill takes away some authority of the Legislature and increases the authority of NDE. NDE staff will no doubt testify in support. The SBE earlier determined to send a letter of support for the record.

LB 684 - Proposed by NDE to make the Private Postsecondary Career Schools program in NDE become self-funding in the next 3 years and reduce state expenditures for this program. In addition, it clears up some language in the statute. Staff will testify in support.

Tuesday (Education Committee):

LB 172 -- (Sen. Foley) to eliminate a requirement for districts to provide abortion information. NDE staff plans to testify in support. NDE refers to this requirement as a "paper burden for districts."

LB 778 -- (Sen. Beutler) bill calling for a single test in 2007-08, adding additional grades to have standards and tests, and adding a grade for the writing assessment. SBE President Steve Scheer and Vice-President Fred Meyer are expected to present testimony in opposition to the bill. No doubt Christensen will "explain" that his current "locally developed, multiple assessment" plan is the best in the world. He'll fail to mention the frustrated teachers, the teachers who have retired early, the students who detest the current system and the multiple millions of dollars being spent on his unproven experiment.

Also on Monday:

The Appropriations Committee will no doubt be lobbied heavily by NDE in an effort to "save their budget." If you have some feelings about whether NDE could shave a little "pork," you might consider making your own statements as to where the "pork" is and how -- in a time of war, drought, etc. -- there are some "other" important places to spend our hard earned tax dollars. Maybe some of those dollars would be better spent in local districts?