Posted 11:43 AM by Susan Darst Williams

WHEN WILL THE PUBLIC HAVE HAD ENOUGH?

I don’t have a good enough handle on how Nebraskans feel about the academic underachievement of our underclass -- low-income African-American, Latino and Native American schoolchildren. I hope they’re as mad about it as I am. What seems to bring positive change is public passion and the political pressure that comes with it.

Two news items converge on this point:

First, in Minnesota, the socialist-tinged DFL party (Democrats/Farmers/Laborers) in the state senate perpetrated an act of ‘’political brutality,’’ according to the watchdog website www.edwatch.org and gave the gong this week to Minnesota Education Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke.

It also slipped into place, through back-door dealings literally in the dead of night, new K-12 state science and social studies standards that the legislators hadn’t had time to read and understand.

The good news is, the social studies ones are a little bit better than the icky, nationalized Profile of Learning ones that Ms. Yecke did such a good job of exposing and eradicating.

However, the new ones have their own warts: the science standards fail to mandate what the vast majority of the public wants, which is balance in science education. The public wants the teaching of all sides of scientific controversies such as the flaws of the theory of evolution. Instead, the railroaded Minnesota science standards, like Nebraska’s recently-adopted ones, perpetuate the academic censorship and blatant bias of the pro-evolution textbooks and curriculum still in use in our classrooms, ignoring the mountains of contrary evidence.

Also, the social studies standards are faulted for: a failure to teach about national sovereignty; giving a negative picture of America; presenting all cultures as equally beneficial; coloring attitudes with tinges of Marxism; placing personal subjective experience on a higher plane than objective, verifiable facts, and putting a lot of good historical content into the ‘’optional’’ category, so that teachers with a leftist, radical agenda can get away with omitting it. That’s exactly what statewide standards are supposed to prevent. TOLD you standards were no good.

Sigh, sigh, sigh. But . . . sometimes, when things get bad, the good people get going. Maybe this ‘’coup’’ will serve as a great wake-up call for the parents and taxpayers of Minnesota, and they’ll put it to the educrats and union-bought politicians by moving their kids to private schools en masse. That’s the action that I hope for in Nebraska — financial aid and private scholarships for disadvantaged kids to get them into private schools, where that achievement gap being perpetuated by the public schools can best be closed.

That brings up the second news item, from www.family.org:

A new policy group called the ‘’Alliance for School Choice’’ has formed to give minorities a better chance at a quality education. The group's president, Clint Bolick, says 50 years after the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education ruling, which desegregated schools, serious
educational and racial gaps remain.

‘’We've tried everything, it seems,’’ he said, ‘’except transferring power over basic educational decisions from bureaucrats to parents.’’

The answer to the ever-growing educational problem, he added, is school choice -- through private school vouchers and other programs.

‘’It offers an educational life preserver to children who desperately need it,’’ he said. ‘’And in places where we have school-choice programs, the academic and the graduation gap have narrowed.’’

Virginia Walden-Ford, executive director of D.C. Parents for School Choice, which fought for and got school choice for parents in Washington, D.C., agreed.

‘’It's just terribly vital that we offer all kinds of options to parents,’’ she said. ‘’And as we've seen from a really incredible response from parents in D.C., parents that are interested in alternatives for their children, this is much needed.’’

The National Education Association declined to be interviewed on this topic.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: In ‘’School Choices: What's Best For Your Child,’’ the author Jan Sheble offers the pros and cons of three choices: home school, Christian school and public school.

Posted 11:12 AM by Susan Darst Williams

‘DATED RESEARCH’? ‘TIRED SLOGANS’? ‘FREE PRESCHOOL’?

A couple of surly educators took issue with my call for ‘’less dough, more mo’’ in K-12 education directed at low-income and non-English speaking students.

Instead of the Nebraska Supreme Court ruling in the pending “equity lawsuit” that taxpayers should pay more money to districts with a higher percentage of disadvantaged kids, I listed several non-financial management changes we could make in our public schools that will bring needy kids up to academic speed instead of throwing yet more money down an overspending rathole.

But these educators took me to task on StatePaper.com with these three criticisms. Rebutting, then:

1. I used ‘’dated research.’’ Ironically, among my sources on what works for needy pupils was an education textbook from the University of Nebraska at Omaha. It’s ‘’Foundations of Education’’ by Ornstein / Levine (Houghton Mifflin, 658 pp., 1993. If the same information that is imparted to aspiring teachers by our tax-supported schools is ‘’dated’’ and therefore suspect, don’t blame me. Blame the teachers’ colleges!

2. I used ‘’tired slogans.’’ The critic implied that my call for effective methods of teaching reading, more autonomy for principals, and merit pay for inner-city teachers, were all ‘’tired slogans.’’ The critic said the real reason academic performance is so bad in the inner cities and rural areas is because there isn’t enough money to do it right. Now, THERE’S a ‘’tired slogan,’’ considering the BILLIONS we’ve poured into our schools in recent years, the enormous staffs we provide, the laptops we buy for moppets that are fancier than the computer equipment most adults use to make a living. . . . I don’t know about you, but I’m ‘’tired’’ of being dissed like this.

3. The answer is ‘’universal preschool.’’ The critic suggested that if low-income and non-English speaking kids could have free preschool educations provided in the public schools, they’d be up to speed for kindergarten. But the evidence shows that that move would make things WORSE, not better. As shown by standardized test score comparisons around the world, the strength of public education in the United States has been private preschool experiences by children in their own homes, churches and privately-provided preschool settings. That’s because we moosh other countries in the early grades, and then they pass us by high school. It seems the more years kids are in public schools in this country, the more ‘’average’’ they become. Think about it! The worst preschool experiences by FAR have been had by disadvantaged children in the multi-billion dollar government boondoggle and preschool called ‘’Head Start.’’ The folly of government preschool has been well-exposed in articles by Darcy Olsen of the Cato Institute, www.cato.org The only reason educators and especially their unions want universal preschool is to bring more money, power, jobs and control into the public schools. It’s NOT about helping needy kids, and never forget that.

I’d also direct these critics and anybody else who wants to know the real deal on how to help needy kids to these additional sources:

A PDF report on www.pacificresearch.org (’’They Have Overcome: High Poverty, High Performance Schools in California’’) would be a terrific exhibit for the Nebraska Supreme Court; it’s from one of the best education writers in the country, Lance Izumi.

The well-known economist Eric Hanushek of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution is a top source on education economics and also would be a good witness for the State in the “equity lawsuit.” He has a Ph.D. in economics from MIT, has taught at Yale, the U.S. Air Force Academy, and Rochester University, and is acknowledged to be THE expert in this field. See his downloadable papers on http://edpro.stanford.edu/eah/down.htm

His lifetime of gathering evidence has substantiated the following conclusions: there is virtually no relationship between additional spending on education and academic achievement . . . virtually no relationship between higher teacher salaries and academic achievement . . . virtually no relationship between teachers with master’s degrees in education and academic achievement . . . and virtually no relationship between smaller class sizes and academic achievement, past the early grades of school.

If the ‘’equity lawsuit’’ now going on in Nebraska courts does grant wads of new cash for the Omaha Public Schools and others who have more low-income and immigrant children to educate, it’d be a gigantic case of throwing money down a rathole.

Posted 3:39 PM by Susan Darst Williams

ARE TAXPAYERS REALLY CHINTZY?

Quite often, educators will say that they don’t have enough funding to meet the increasingly complex needs of today’s students, especially the needy.

They say that’s why they a) turn to the politicians to get more taxes from the public, or b) file lawsuits to get the money through court order when they can’t get the money through the democratic process.

That’s at the heart of the ‘’equity lawsuit’’ pending in the Nebraska Supreme Court, filed by the Omaha Public Schools and other districts seeking extra state tax funding to serve low-income and non-English speaking pupils.

Is giving more money for these students ‘’equitable’’? Is it fair? Does it really cost more to educate those students?

Or are there other reasons than funding for the increasing achievement gap between Nebraska schoolchildren from less advantaged homes, and their more well-off peers?

Could it be the WAY those funds are employed?

Does it make sense to give more money to educators to do more of the same things that have already led us to this sad state of affairs, where the gap between the races, and between advantaged and disadvantaged students, is getting wider and wider instead of narrower and narrower?

See http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust/summaries2004/states.html for 2003 Nebraska public school statistics such as:

4th grade reading, state assessments, not proficient:

34% African-American children
30% Native American children
29% Latino children
14% white children

4th grade reading, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test, below grade level:

56% Latino children
53% African-American children
29% white children

8th grade math, state assessment, not proficient:

49% Native American children
47% Latino children
46% African-American children
21% white children

8th grade math, NAEP, below grade level:

65% African-American children
60% Latino children
20% white children

That’s about comparable to the national average. Nationwide, 58 percent of low-income 4th graders cannot read; 67 percent of low-income inner-city 8th graders cannot do basic math, and the performance of 17-year-old black and Hispanic students is equal to that of 13-year-old whites in every subject.

That’s according to the Heritage Foundation’s broad-based, national effort to mobilize public pressure for poor kids’ schools, with the book ‘’No Excuses: Lessons From 21 High-Performing, High-Poverty Schools’’ by Samuel Casey Carter, and a website, www.noexcuses.org with lots of good ideas to back up the premise that it’s not big bucks that helps needy kids — they need solid curriculum, high expectations and common sense.

Kids with disadvantages to overcome do need more help than the majority, that’s for sure.

But does that help cost that much more?

Not according to ‘’No Excuses.’’ They say needy kids don’t need more money. They just need better school leadership, better educational methods, and a change in attitude. That what’s already working around the country to lift low-income, low-achieving schools in inner cities and rural areas closer to their high-income, high-achieving counterparts in the suburbs.

Instead of forcing taxpayers to cough up millions of extra dollars to zero in on meeting the needs of disadvantaged students, here’s what really works for these students, according to ‘’No Excuses’’:

1. Principals are free.
2. Principals use measurable goals to foster achievement.
3. Master teachers bring out the best in a faculty.
4. Rigorous and regular testing is used to improve student performance.
5. Achievement is the key to discipline.
6. Principals work with parents to make the home a center of learning.
7. Effort creates ability.

The same sorts of non-financial solutions are explored in a PDF report on the same subject on www.pacificresearch.org (’’They Have Overcome: High Poverty, High Performance Schools in California’’) by one of the best education writers in the country, Lance Izumi.

So it isn’t big new bucks, to help the needy. It’s better use of the big bucks they already have. And that’s borne out at the highest levels of public-policy scholarship.

The well-known economist Eric Hanushek of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution is a top source on education economics. He has a Ph.D. in economics from MIT, has taught at Yale, the U.S. Air Force Academy, and Rochester University, and is acknowledged to be THE expert in this field. See his downloadable papers on http://edpro.stanford.edu/eah/down.htm

The evidence shows there is virtually no relationship between additional spending on education and academic achievement . . . virtually no relationship between higher teacher salaries and academic achievement . . . virtually no relationship between teachers with master’s degrees in education and academic achievement . . . and virtually no relationship between smaller class sizes and academic achievement, past the early grades of school.

If the ‘’equity lawsuit’’ now going on in Nebraska courts does grant wads of new cash for the Omaha Public Schools and others who have more low-income and immigrant children to educate, it’d be a gigantic case of throwing money down a rathole.

And as for the insulting lie that we taxpayers are somehow skimping on our funding for public schools and ripping off needy children, I would direct critics to the facts, including the most recent financial information available from the State Education Department on http://ess.nde.state.ne.us/SchoolFinance/AFR/search/afr.htm

The figures show that Nebraska taxpayers have provided $4.5 billion in K-12 buildings and contents for our kids. Not exactly ‘’chintzy’’ in my book.

Ten years ago, Nebraska taxpayers had invested an average of $8,648 per pupil in buildings and contents, and that just about doubled, past $17,141, in the 2002-03 school year.

On top of that is the operating fund, which has increased from $4,936.21 to over $7,896.63 per pupil per year in the last decade.

And for that, we have to sit back and watch the kids who need great public schools the most fall farther and farther behind . . . where in other places, for no more money, but the right approach to meeting their needs, they’re catching up.

I hope the judges take a long, hard look at the ‘’No Excuses’’ data, and the Hanushek data, and other clear evidence that better curriculum, instruction and management are what needy kids need most.

Let’s get them for them. No excuses!

Posted 5:27 PM by Susan Darst Williams

5/18/04
http://www.GoBigEd.blogspot.com

THE EMPIRE TRIES TO STRIKE BACK

A couple of anonymous educators didn’t like my recent story marking the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. I said that the evidence is clear that what disadvantaged pupils really need are the right educational methods, not more money.

These two critics apparently favor the ‘’equity lawsuit’’ filed by the Omaha Public Schools and others, contending that since they have more poor kids and immigrants to educate, they deserve more state aid. The argument makes as much sense as getting a court order to put 40 gallons of gas into your car when it will only hold 20.

Now, ‘’equity’’ means ‘’fairness’’ and ‘’justice.’’ What’s REALLY inequitable is the lousy return on investment that taxpayers have gotten out of public schools in the sad, sorry state of affairs for our neediest pupils, the ones who need great schools most of all.

It really isn’t about money. It’s about leadership — and recovering from the effects of erroneous assumptions and bad habits by people such as these two critics.

Over the next few days, I’ll refute them point by point.

I hope that at the very least, they’ll educate themselves at a truly important website, www.noexcuses.org, for ‘’lessons from high-performing, high-poverty schools.’’ There, they’ll learn that it isn’t more bucks that make the difference for poor kids. It’s better leadership -- well-informed leadership -- empowering strong principals, and insisting on solid, measurable goals.

This book and website are crucial because they defeat the old ‘’bait and switch’’ that educators always use to keep getting more funding. At last, a legitimate comparison can be made.

Here’s the key: you don’t get anywhere comparing academic achievement between inner-city or rural low-income schools, and suburban, high-income schools.

You focus right in on what low-income, high-achieving schools are doing -- most of them private schools -- and that’s what you do, if you really want to help low-income, low-achieving schools do better.

If you really want change, you’ll stop being defensive, and start getting smart.

Leadership and goals: that’s all it takes. Not more money. Not at all.

The lack of those two things is why 58 percent of the low-income fourth-graders in this country, most of them members of minority groups, can’t read, despite the multi-billions of dollars of funding and public support we’re giving our schools.

I lay the blame squarely at the feet of educational leaders like the ones who tried to attack me. They’re obviously not putting the kids first. if they were, we wouldn’t have this sad state of affairs.

No excuses, gentlemen.

Posted 10:47 AM by Susan Darst Williams

THE REAL LEGACY OF BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION

Here’s an excellent “thumb-sucker” from one of the greatest writers on education of our time, who happens to be black, on the lasting impact of Brown v. Board of Education, which marks its half-century anniversary today.

A Nebraska thinker and friend, Allen O’Donnell of Wayne, says this court decision “was the death knell for local control over schools.” He ties the decline in public-school quality to this ruling.

All I know is, I just want kids of all colors to get a great education and have an equal chance. If our system isn’t doing that, and obviously it is not, then it’s time to change that system.

I call on philanthropists and people who are public-service minded to make it possible for as many inner-city and minority schoolchildren in Nebraska as possible to get into private schools . . . STAT.

----------------------------------

AT LAW
When Rhetoric Beats Reasoning
The baneful consequences of Brown v. Board of Education.
BY THOMAS SOWELL
Sunday, May 16, 2004 12:01 a.m.
In all the celebration of tomorrow's 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education, there has been remarkably little critical examination of the reasoning used in that decision. Indeed, much of what has been said about that decision over the past half-century has treated the result as paramount and the reasoning as incidental. But today, with 50 years of experience behind us, it is painfully clear that the educational results of Brown have been meager for black children. Meanwhile, the kind of reasoning used in Brown has had serious negative repercussions on our whole legal system, extending far beyond issues of race or education.

While Brown in effect overruled the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court decision that racially "separate but equal" facilities were constitutionally acceptable, it avoided saying that Plessy was simply a wrong interpretation of the Constitution--that is, wrong in 1896 as well as wrong in 1954. Instead it relied on "modern" psychological knowledge, not available to the court in 1896, to show how separate could no longer be considered equal.

This approach finessed the whole question of why the Warren court's reading of the Constitution was superior to that of the 1896 Supreme Court, rather than simply reflecting a different social preference. Such a question would undoubtedly have stiffened the resistance to the Brown decision, which was stiff enough as it was in those states where racial segregation existed.

Chief Justice Earl Warren said that racially separate schools "are inherently unequal," even when they were provided with the same tangible resources. To separate black children "from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."

Inspiring as such rhetoric may seem, it establishes no fact, nor even a probability. I happen to have been one of those black children who went to a segregated school in the South. The fact that there were no white kids in our school was something that no one I knew ever expressed any concern over, or even noticed. There were no white kids in our neighborhood or anywhere we went. Why would we be struck by the fact that there were no white kids in our schools--much less be so preoccupied with that fact as to interfere with our learning the three R's?

Our school was in fact inferior, but it was inferior to the all-black school I later attended in Harlem. It was certainly inferior to an all-black school in Washington that had produced outstanding education for more than half a century--a school within walking distance of the Supreme Court, which virtually declared its existence impossible. It was not being racially separate, or all black, that made schools inferior--and decades of social disruption and racial polarization from court-ordered busing did little or nothing to reduce the racial gap in educational achievement. While Brown did not prescribe busing for racial balance, the logic of its argument led inescapably to that conclusion, even if no one thought of it in 1954. Reasoning matters and logic can exact a high price for having been ignored.

What the Warren court presented as legal reasoning was in fact political spin. The success of that political spin, in a case where most of the country found racial segregation repellent, emboldened the Supreme Court--and other courts across the land--to use emotional rhetoric to impose other policies from the bench in a wide range of cases extending far beyond issues of race or education.

Although "Impeach Earl Warren" signs appeared across the South, the public at large saw this as simply a defense of racial segregation and discrimination, and those who called for impeachment became laughing stocks. Judicial activism was for all practical purposes now the accepted law of the land in everything from anti-trust cases to the arrest of criminals.

New "rights" for criminals appeared magically out of thin air and violent crime rates skyrocketed. Other rights were found in the "penumbra" of the Constitution and abortion issues that had once been dealt with in various ways by the states were now settled at the Supreme Court level--and the country unsettled with decades of strife that followed.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 that forbade racial differences in treatment on the job was "interpreted" by the Supreme Court to mean that racial quotas were all right. A dissenter called this blatant evasion of the plain words of the act something that was reminiscent of the great escapes of Houdini. The magic word "diversity" now trumped both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment.

Brown v. Board of Education was the crucial case establishing a pattern in which rhetoric beats reasoning--and we are still paying the price today. The painful irony is that black schoolchildren, the supposed beneficiaries of all this, have gained little or nothing in their education.

Mr. Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the author, most recently, of "Affirmative Action Around the World" (Yale, 2004).

Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Posted 2:00 PM by Susan Darst Williams

NEBRASKA NOT ALONE IN LACK OF EQUALITY

In good news, there was reportedly enough discussion on the Unicameral floor to show legislative intent for a constitutional definition of educational equal opportunity that should be strong enough to battle back that nasty lawsuit by the Omaha Public Schools and others to get more money from the state aid formula for disadvantaged students.

Money is not the answer. It's really not.

But in bad news, a lack of perceived equality from the attitudes and methods that are apparently going on in our public schools is a nationwide problem, at least according to our country's No. 1 educator.

Here's his take on the matter. Whether or not you agree that federal education legislation is the answer -- and I don't -- you have to agree that it's a sad state of affairs that, so many years after Brown v. Board of Education, our schools still aren't giving all of our kids an equal shot at the American dream.

----------------


Educational equality eludes us, even now

By Rod Paige

USA TODAY
May 14, 2004

I went to elementary and secondary schools in rural Mississippi in the
1940s and early '50s. Our schools were in a constant state of disrepair.
The only textbooks that came our way were hand-me-downs. This was not an
environment that encouraged black children to dream of opportunities, let
alone higher education. But my parents were determined that my sisters and
I go to college, and their resolve rubbed off on me. Back then, there were
not as many options as there are today - especially for a black man in the
South. I was fortunate to be admitted to Jackson State University, a
historically black college in Mississippi.

I was a junior in college 50 years ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court sent
shock waves through this country with its decision in Brown vs. Board of
Education. The justices declared clearly that the doctrine of "separate but
equal" was unconstitutional. After the decision, the process of
desegregating schools began.

There was jubilation on my campus, the feeling that a world of opportunity
would open to us. Sadly, looking back, although Brown made it illegal to
officially segregate schools, many of today's schools are not integrated,
and the disparity in access to high-quality education remains. In fact,
most urban schools are overwhelmingly "majority minority." The difference
is that in this day and age, the segregation is voluntary.

If we ever hope to eliminate racism, the best way is through higher
standards, better teachers, real accountability and, ultimately,
educational opportunity.

I recognize that I was one of the lucky ones in that pre-Brown era. Both of
my parents were educators. I worry that many of today's youths don't see
education as the path to a better future. As several African-American
scholars have noted, many of today's black youths see education as a "white
thing."

That notion is painfully evident: Today, only one in six African-Americans
can read proficiently upon leaving high school. The achievement gap in
reading between blacks and whites is staggering. Nationally, at the
fourth-grade level, the gap is 28 percentage points. Other indicators show
similar trends: Black students in the K-12 system have almost triple the
rate of disciplinary problems (measured by suspensions) as their white
peers. Blacks earn college degrees at half the rate of whites.

What a travesty. But equality of opportunity must be more than just a
statement of law; it must be a matter of fact. Then and now, our work
begins in our educational institutions.

We still have a two-tiered public education system. Some fortunate students
receive a world-class education. But millions are mired in mediocrity,
denied a high-quality education. Most are children of color. This is not
the legacy of Brown we imagined.

Some still believe we can fix our public education system by spending more
money. But we already spend more per pupil on K-12 education than any other
country except Switzerland. The issue is how the money is being invested.
Historically, accountability in our education system has been absent.

Two years ago, the president and Congress, in a show of strong
bipartisanship, passed a sweeping law that challenges the status quo. The
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is the logical next step to closing the
racial achievement gap in education after Brown ended segregation and the
1964 Civil Rights Act promised an equitable society.

With NCLB, the achievement gap is closing. A recent study by the Council of
Great City Schools found that the achievement gaps in both reading and math
in urban schools between African-Americans and whites, and Hispanics and
whites, are narrowing. Now, every state has an accountability plan, parents
are newly empowered, and every student will be taught by a highly qualified
teacher.

Some have resisted this law. But Brown also met resistance. To those of us
who grew up during those times, the chorus sounds familiar. Racial equality
cannot exist as long as there is an educational achievement gap. We must
make our schools equitable in order to make our society and culture
equitable. Brown's legacy should be equality of opportunity. We must
achieve this goal for the sake of all our children.

Rod Paige is the U.S. secretary of Education.

Posted 12:26 PM by Susan Darst Williams

A BETTER WAY TO HELP POOR KIDS THAN EQUITY LAWSUITS

All over the country over the past generation, it has become clear that low-income, inner-city and minority children are not doing as well academically as their age peers in the ‘burbs. Their reading and math test scores are significantly worse, their dropout rates are vastly higher, and their college attendance is vastly lower.

Obviously, something was very wrong in what was happening in schools for kids beset by poverty, crime, language barriers, social isolation, dysfunctional families and lingering racism.

Sub-par educational attainment was giving a dual whammy to kids who, more than any others, need to do well in school to do well in life.

Aha! thought the educational bureaucracy. The culprit must be . . . NOT ENOUGH MONEY!

That’s why an ‘’equity lawsuit’’ was filed in Kansas and resulted in a ruling this week that that state’s school financing system is ‘’inadequate and inequitable’’ largely in the way it distributes the $2.77 billion in state aid; needy children aren’t thought to be getting enough.

A similar lawsuit is percolating in Nebraska, filed by the Omaha Public Schools, a handful of OPS parents and students, and a scattering of other districts including Grand Island, Lexington and Sioux City. Ironically, the defendants in these suits are the taxpayers, and the people PAYING to litigate these suits are . . . the taxpayers.

But this is nothing new. ‘’Equity lawsuits’’ have been filed against state school financing systems, far and wide, in recent years. The thought is that it costs more to educate a child from an impoverished background than one whose home has material advantages. Therefore, schools with more poor children enrolled ‘’deserve’’ more money per pupil.

The intent was good: to raise achievement among low-status students. We all want that. Even before the lawsuits, tons and tons and tons more money has flowed into the schools in the name of providing equal opportunity for learning regardless of social class.

Taxpayers funded smaller classrooms, more paraprofessionals, Title I federal programs, at-risk programs, alternative schools, in-school social workers, job apprenticeships, and many more well-intentioned interventions.

And what happened?

Little or nothing.

According to a huge study by Christopher Jencks and colleagues, more money is NOT what will help low-income students do better. School achievement depends substantially on students’ family characteristics. Schools accomplish very little in the way of reducing the achievement gap between students with high and low socioeconomic status, even if they spend substantially more money.

Jencks is author of the books Inequality and Who Gets Ahead, analyzing data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the landmark student Equality of Educational Opportunity by eminent sociologist James Coleman, Project Talent, and many other large studies of U.S. schools.

The Coleman study, published in 1966, is well-known to educators. Its major finding is that schools should zero in on what the child is NOT getting from the home environment, and provide those things.

But educators translated that as the simplistic ‘’spend more money.’’

That’s boneheaded.

What low socioeconomic status kids need are a few simple, common-sense and inexpensive changes in our school systems. These changes will not only erase the achievement gap, but will improve the achievement of their suburban peers, based on the universal principle, ‘’A rising tide lifts all boats.’’

If Nebraska schools would be forced to implement these few changes, we could throw out that horrible lawsuit, save untold millions of tax dollars, prove that we aren’t a racist, classist state, and most of all, help kids of all income levels get the education that will help them live happily ever after.

And here are those changes:

1. Quality curriculum for pre-K through third grade. Only a handful of schools in the state are properly teaching systematic, intensive, explicit phonics, handwriting, spelling and traditional arithmetic skills, for example, but those are what disadvantaged kids particularly need. Proper phonics curriculum is far cheaper than whole-language reading methods, too.

2. Quality instructional methods for those early grades. Only a handful of Nebraska teachers believe in the teacher-centered, directly-instructed, content-rich classroom. Most are using child-centered, process-oriented, hands-on learning approaches, which are so chaotic they basically throw kids from disadvantaged homes to the wolves. The traditional style is much better and cheaper.

3. Differential pay to draw the best teachers into inner-city schools. This could be paid for by RIF’ing unnecessary paraprofessionals and other non-certified staff elsewhere in the district.

4. A return to ability grouping instead of the Politically Correct heterogenous grouping, which keeps low kids low, and holds down the progress of the high-achieving kids, too.

5. Inner-city classrooms may indeed be overloaded with learning and behavior problems, which suggests that the expense of low staff-to-child ratios makes a lot of sense there. But that expense can be counter-balanced with larger ratios in suburban settings that are not so beset by teaching challenges. And the expense of smaller class sizes in inner-city settings will be more than offset in future years when those low socioeconomic status children, who got the right start in the early grades, are easier and cheaper to teach in the higher elementary and secondary grades.

Posted 3:37 PM by Susan Darst Williams

ELECTIONS, LAWSUITS AND CONNECTIONS THEREFROM

The horribly low turnout in Tuesday’s election, and the Pavlovian-style salivating over the financial implications for Nebraska school districts from a Kansas court ruling, have a direct connection.

1. Everybody’s so overwhelmed with the stuff of life, they can’t even fulfill their basic bedrock duty as a citizen and get out and vote.

2. Politicians know this, and therefore are letting activist judges dictate how tax dollars will be spent so that they won’t have a tangible record that might -- gasp! -- awaken the sleeping giant called the American voting majority.

The Kansas ruling held that the way tax dollars are split up among school districts in that state is unfair, in part because of increased demands in services for low-income, minority and immigrant children which outstrip the funding formula’s flexibility.

In Nebraska, the Omaha Public Schools is propagating a lawsuit against our taxpayers, arguing essentially the same thing.

So . . . even though there’s a giant achievement gap between low-income, minority and immigrant children, and children who do not have any of those factors, and that gap has been around for a long time and is getting worse, not better, despite beaucoup, beaucoup more bucks being spent on this problem . . . despite the obvious . . . nobody is blaming the WAY schools spend the money?

Just blaming the taxpayers for not giving them ENOUGH?

If the electorate weren’t so apathetic, that kind of stuff would never fly.

The lawsuit we SHOULD be seeing is one filed AGAINST school districts like OPS, to expose the reasons for the achievement gap.

It’s not that they don’t have enough money. They have more than enough. It’s that they’re using the wrong methodology, especially in those early grades.

Court decisions like the one in Kansas are guaranteed to just force us to throw more money on this fire. If Nebraska judges don’t understand this, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of big districts such as Kansas City. It wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on things that didn’t matter in schools, making luxury mausoleums out of them, while the inner-city, minority and immigrant children fell farther and farther behind other kids for one simple reason: they weren’t getting the basics in the early grades.

I don’t blame the judges. They do the best they can. I do blame the apathetic public, and the politicians, for letting the educators get away with this for so long.

Aren’t there any public-interest lawyers or low-income parents in Nebraska with the backbone to take this to court?

So few even had the get-up-and-go to go vote . . . it’s sad to think that apathy may be what makes education “get up and go” from the reach of our neediest children.

Posted 12:50 PM by Susan Darst Williams

SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION MET ITS WATERLOO

Napoleon was thought to be unbeatable and all-powerful, but he was crushingly defeated at Waterloo, Belgium.

Well, the concept of school consolidation may not have a lot of famous paintings made about it like Napoleon did, but it does seem to be a very powerful idea, hard to resist in these budget-crunching times.

However, it met defeat yesterday, also in Waterloo. That’s Waterloo, Neb., of course.

The school board deadlocked 3-3 on a measure that would have led to a merger with the nearby Valley, Neb., schools. Waterloo’s enrollment is roughly 220, and Valley’s is more than 600.

The sticking point appeared to be the $1.2 million in debt that Valley has on its books. Some Waterloo taxpayers don’t want to have to pay it back. On the other hand, though, if Waterloo merges with a larger district some time after next May, it stands to obtain $500,000 in incentive funds from the State Department of Education, through LB 1091. It can’t get that money unless it merges.

Based on reports in the Douglas County Post-Gazette, another sticking point was the way the reorganization board was to be selected, which goofed up the November elections. This is because Paul Sellon, who works as superintendent of both the Waterloo and Valley districts, even though they’re not yet merged, wants the consolidated school board to be made up of members who are on those two boards now, instead of bringing new people into the mix.

That drew the ire of a number of citizens, including Robyn Terry, wife of U.S. Rep. Lee Terry, and a candidate for the Valley school board.

The whole thing’s a mess. Now Waterloo’s main option appears to be going back to the voters for a tax-levy override to make up for revenue shortfalls. But a similar measure failed this past March.

Ironically, guess who said this in 1803:

“A form of government that is not the result of a long sequence of shared experiences, efforts, and endeavors can never take root.”

You guessed it – Napoleon Bonaparte, the guy with the first Waterloo.

Posted 2:32 PM by Susan Darst Williams

WHAT AREN’T WE DOING FOR STUDENTS OF COLOR?

I really appreciate the big special section on high-school scholars The World-Herald puts out every year. Yesterday’s version, ‘’Driven to Succeed,’’ had 18 pages of inspiring accomplishments and impressive credentials for this year’s crop of Nebraskans and western Iowans.

But there was something missing: nonwhite faces.

The nine members of the newspaper’s All State Academic Team are all Caucasians. Only one is female.

Of the 48 seniors named to the newspaper’s four regional academic first teams, there are a couple of Asian faces, but no other racial minorities. None on the second-team members, either. I took a pretty good look at the 665 kids pictured as earning ‘’honorable mention’’ status, and didn’t see any African-American or Hispanic faces there, either.

Not even among the Key Staffers, the journalism kids named from each school -- whose ranks I’m proud to have been part of an eon ago, when I rode my dinosaur to Westside High School.

We all know that smarts and gifts and ability and talent are sprinkled equally among the races.

So how come after 13 years in our schools, it doesn’t look like it?

Posted 3:18 PM by Susan Darst Williams

ED POLITICS SERIES: OUTSIDE INFLUENCE PEDDLING

A typical schoolhouse in Nebraska may employ teachers from several states, use textbooks published in Malaysia, stock pencils from South American wood, serve vegetables grown in Mexico, plug in computers assembled in Indonesia. . . .

You get the idea. Insiders are in the minority when it comes to running and equipping schools these days. Schools are by far the biggest recipients and users of taxpayer dollars in Nebraska, but no one would seriously entertain the idea that those dollars should be received only from, or paid only to, resident Nebraskans.

It would be impossible to have completely local influences only in curriculum, instruction, staffing, operations or any other facet of public education.

And that goes quadruple for politics. Local school boards have gradually lost almost all of their power over the past generation or two. Instead, state and national political and professional organizations have taken over much of the shaping of what goes on in schools.

The key one is the National Education Association. The national teachers’ union is consistently among the top political campaign contributors in Nebraska, if not THE top. It has given boatloads of money to local, regional and statewide candidates for political positions that greatly influence public education, particularly the Unicameral and the State Board of Education.

That’s why it’s almost sad that a big brouhaha has erupted over ‘’outside influences’’ in a Nebraska congressional race. It has even been called ‘’disgusting’’ that this candidate accepted a $27,000 donation from a group based in Washington, D.C., that’s against increased taxation and government spending.

The group is the Club for Growth, and the candidate is Greg Ruehle of Garland, Neb., a candidate to replace Rep. Doug Bereuter in Nebraska’s 1st Congressional District.

Three things come to mind:

That’s a drop in the bucket compared to what the NEA has spent on Nebraska political races. So is the REAL problem that this guy wants to hold the line on spending, and his competitors want to keep the trough a-flowin’ over?

2. We need to expose the outside influences that are in force in our government schools in order to gain some perspective in matters like this. Most of them are OK. Some may not be. Let’s just get things out on the table so everybody can see how things work. That means school boards and taxpayers should be demanding to know sources of funding, curriculum, programs, textbooks and so on and so forth, to determine whether the influence is “undue” or not.

3. People are getting really sick of the ‘’same old, same old’’ political hypocrisy in matters such as the Ruehle situation. It is the hypocrisy of the big shots that has demonstrably led to the out-of-control influence peddling in schools. When people can get away with hypocrisy, quality takes a nosedive. Is that happening in our schools? Most people would say so.

Here’s an op-ed on this from someone we all should listen to. No matter what side of the political fence you’re feeding in, he makes some excellent points.

--------------


A Guest Opinion

By Alan Jacobsen
Lincoln businessman and past Democratic Congressional Candidate

WHO IS TRYING TO BUY 1st DISTRICT HOUSE SEAT?

The constituents of the First District of Nebraska have an opportunity that has not been available to them for more than a quarter of a century. Congressman Doug Bereuter announced that he would not seek re-election after serving 26 years in Congress. His announcement also came with an endorsement for his hand picked successor.

Apparently he was not watching the turn of events for the past four years of Nebraska football. One of the all time greatest coaches in college football tried to name his successor. It lasted for less than two terms of Congress. That was not a reflection on his successor; it was an indication of the direction college football is going.

The Republicans stand the most to lose in this election. The old guard is divided between Curt Bromm, the Bereuter self-appointed successor, and Jeff Fortenberry. There is evidence to believe that if Bromm wins the primary the Republicans are giving the race to the Democrats.

How quickly the elephant forgets the past. Remember the gubernatorial primary of 1994. Ralph Noble and I (Alan Jacobsen) split the conservative vote and gave the race to Gene Spence. The general election ended abruptly when Spence was unable to unite the old guard and, well, the rest is history. Ben Nelson swept the race and not only served his second term as governor but eventually became and is the current United States Senator from Nebraska.

The Republicans can make a calculated change in the First District by voting for Greg Ruehle. He is plain spoken, has some Washington experience, is a rancher, supports traditional values and is not beholding to the old guard of the GOP party machine. His agriculture and business experience make him a fresh voice for the First District.

It is unfortunate that Congressman Bereuter and Curt Bromm accused Greg Ruehle of being influenced by outside money. Congressman Bereuter has done a good job for the First District but it has become painfully obvious that he helped build his own retirement nest with outside international influence.

In addition to being the second highest ranking member of the coveted House International Relations Committee, since 1995, he has served on the Subcommittee on Asia and Pacific, leading the committee as chairman for six years. He has been a member of the House Financial Services Committee for 23 years and has served on its Multilateral Development Bank Subcommittee which has jurisdiction over the Asian Development Bank

To be brutally honest, the First District needs to understand that our current congressman is not moving home to Nebraska to be the president of the University. He is moving to San Francisco to become the head of an organization called The Asia Foundation. He was selected because of his past 26 years in Congress and the knowledge and influence that he has attained through the Committees he was on.

It is difficult in light of this revelation that Mr. Bereuter or Mr. Bromm would enter such controversial waters. To suggest that national business interests are infecting Nebraskans in the first District and ignore the international influence that we have been subjected to for 26 years is more than a little difficult to comprehend. The accusation from Bromm that Nebraskan‚s in the First District are being influenced by outside money loses all credibility in light of this blatant hypocrisy.

The Democrats on the other hand have a similar opportunity to select a candidate that is not a typical Democrat. He is pro-life, supports the second amendment and supports a form of the free trade agreement called Fair Trade. He has not been quick to bash the Republican President to garner Democratic support but asked thoughtful questions about curbing terrorism, U.S. military exit plans for Iraq and Afghanistan and balances his platform with an emphasis on small business economic development.

Hopefully the First District will seize the opportunity and not have to wait for four years like our athletic program to discover that people want to see action and are not satisfied with mediocrity in football or politics. The opportunity before the First District is better than term limits. They can vote for two non-traditional party candidates in Ruehle and Conneally.

The benefits would be exciting and immediate. It would be the people’s race instead of a party race. Ideas would be debated instead of sterile party politic rhetoric exchanges. People would be volunteering for one or the other instead of yawning and swatting flies talking about which party was going to win and begin talking about which leader was going to win. Hopefully the First District will see the opportunity and advance Ruehle and Conneally to the General Election.

For this to happen we must all vote in the Primary on May 11th.

Posted 4:32 PM by Susan Darst Williams

This week we’re focusing on the politics of K-12 education.

-------------------------

ED POLITICS SERIES: THE POWER OF PUBLISHING

If it’s true that school spending is out of control, there’s only one reason: school officials are out of the control of the politicians that we, the people, put in place to control them.

How did school officials slip out of political control? Because we let the pursestrings slip out of our hands.

The average taxpayer and parent knows next to nothing about how much money is flowing into and out of schools . . . apparently because that’s the way school officials want things to be.

Ignorance is bliss . . . if you’re the one who wants carte blanche on the public’s pocketbook.

So a political counter-move that makes a lot of sense is for parents and taxpayers to publish financial information about public education in a format that most voters can easily grasp. Then it’ll be easier for voters to act upon that information at the ballot box.

A place to start is the sources of funds. People moan and groan about property taxes, but look how many other sources of income stream there are pouring into our schools.

Here’s a list of the sources of receipts in list form from the website of the Nebraska State Department of Education. Circulate this as much as you can. Next time the claim is made in your district that you just HAVE to increase property taxes to keep your schools afloat, whip out this list . . . and hold their well-funded feet to the fire.

---------------------------

CHART OF ACCOUNTS FOR RECEIPTS

1000 LOCAL RECEIPTS


11XX TAXES




1110 LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES - Revenue derived from the local school district tax levy and all other local taxes which accrue to the school district, including revenue from in-lieu-of taxes paid by public power and irrigation districts; any school revenue originating from local taxation.


1115 CARLINE TAXES - Personal property taxes assessed on private rail cars which are collected by the state and distributed to political subdivisions based on railroad taxes levied.


1120 PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT SALES TAX - The school district's share of the 5% tax on the gross revenue of Public Power Districts derived from the retail sales of electricity in cities and villages (Do not include the in-lieu-of tax paid by public power districts; these should be included in account code 1110).


1125 MOTOR VEHICLE TAXES - Revenue derived from motor vehicle taxes collected by the county and distributed based on the relation of the district's levy to the total levy in the county.


12XX TUITION




1210 TUITION RECEIVED FROM OTHER DISTRICTS (REGULAR EDUCATION) -Tuition received from other school districts, usually under contract.



1220 TUITION RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUALS (REGULAR EDUCATION) - Tuition received from non-resident patrons for school privileges extended to their children.





1230 TUITION RECEIVED FROM OTHER DISTRICTS (SPECIAL EDUCATION) -Tuition received from other school districts for providing Special Education programs.





1240 TUITION RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUALS (SPECIAL EDUCATION) - Tuition received from an individual for providing Special Education programs.





1250 SUMMER SCHOOL TUITION AND FEES - Tuition and fees received from all sources, other than those collected from or on behalf of students, for providing instruction during summer break or, for year-round schools, during the break between terms, including Driver Education.





1260 ADULT EDUCATION TUITION AND FEES - Tuition and fees received from all sources for providing instruction to adults, including, but not limited to, GED classes.





1270 PRESCHOOL TUITION AND FEES - Tuition and fees received from all sources for providing instruction to pre-kindergarten children.


13XX TRANSPORTATION




1310 TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED FROM OTHER DISTRICTS (REGULAR EDUCATION) - Transportation paid by other school districts for transporting regular education students.



1320 TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUALS (REGULAR EDUCATION) - Transportation paid by non-resident patrons for transportation service given to their regular education children.



1330 TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED FROM OTHER DISTRICTS (SPECIAL EDUCATION) -Transportation paid by other school districts for transporting special education students.



1340 TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUALS (SPECIAL EDUCATION) -Transportation paid by non-resident patrons for transportation service given to their special education children.


14XX INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS




1410 INTEREST - Interest on the school district's monetary accounts, including, but not limited to, Certificates of Deposit and savings accounts.


16XX FINES AND LICENSES




1610 LOCAL LICENSE FEES - License fees for the retail sale of tobacco, beer, liquor, etc. paid to the city or village clerk. The fees received are deposited to the school fund of the school district lying wholly or partially within the corporate limits of such city or village. (Record county license money under account code 2110.)



1620 POLICE COURT FINES - Fines assessed for violations of city or village ordinances. (Although there is still a distinction between city and county ordinances, the Municipal and Police Courts have been merged with the County Courts.) (Record county fine money under account code 2110.)


17XX RECEIPTS IN OTHER FUNDS




1710 ACTIVITIES RECEIPTS - Receipts, other than student fees, from quasi-independent student organizations, inter-school athletics, and other self-supporting or partially self-supporting school activities. This function should only be used in accounting for the Activities Fund.



1720 SALE OF LUNCHES/MILK - Monies received from students and adults for all Nutrition Programs, including, but not limited to, breakfast, lunch and milk. This function should be used in accounting for the School Lunch Fund.

1741 EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITY FEES - Fees collected from or on behalf of students for student activities or organizations which are supervised or administered by the school district, which do not count toward graduation or advancement between grades, and in which participation is not otherwise required. This function should only be used in accounting for the Student Fee Fund.

1742 POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION FEES - Fees collected from or on behalf of students to cover tuition and other fees associated with obtaining credit from a postsecondary educational institution. This function should only be used in accounting for the Student Fee Fund.

1743 SUMMER OR NIGHT SCHOOL FEES - Fees collected from or on behalf of students to allow students to attend school district courses offered during summer session or after the regular school day. This function should only be used in accounting for the Student Fee Fund.




18XX COMMUNITY SERVICE RECEIPTS




1810 COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITIES - Revenue from all community service programs (i.e. day care, busing for preschoolers, community recreation programs, civic activities, and public libraries).


19XX OTHER LOCAL RECEIPTS




1910 RENTAL OF SCHOOL EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES - Revenue received from individuals, groups or organizations for the use of school equipment and facilities, including, but not limited to, gymnasiums and other athletic facilities. Include teacherage rent under this function.



1920 CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS - Revenue received from individuals, groups or organizations for general school purposes but not in payment of any goods or services.



1990 OTHER LOCAL RECEIPTS - Receipts from local sources not otherwise classified.

2000 COUNTY AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICE UNIT RECEIPTS


21XX COUNTY RECEIPTS




2110 COUNTY FINES AND LICENSE FEES - Fines assessed in County Court and fees from licenses issued by the county. Funds are placed in the county school fund for distribution to all school districts of the county based on the annual census of school-age children.



2130 OTHER COUNTY RECEIPTS - Receipts from county sources not otherwise classified.




22XX EDUCATIONAL SERVICE UNIT RECEIPTS




2210 EDUCATIONAL SERVICE UNIT RECEIPTS - Payments received from an Educational Service Unit for equipment, facilities, services, etc. (Do not record grant funds which flowed through the ESU to the school district; those should be recorded under the appropriate State or Federal Receipt function.)



3000 STATE RECEIPTS


3110 STATE AID - Funds collected by the state and distributed to local school districts under the provisions of the Tax Equity and Educational Opportunities Support Act (TEEOSA).



3120 SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS (SCHOOL AGE) - State reimbursement to school districts based on the actual costs associated with the education of special education students.

3125 SPECIAL EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION (SCHOOL AGE) - State reimbursement to school districts based on the actual costs associated with the transportation of special education students.

3130 HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION - Funds appropriated by the state and distributed to the county treasurer in-lieu-of property taxes and in turn allocated to school districts.

3135 PAYMENTS FOR HIGH ABILITY LEARNERS - Payments to school districts received for Learners of High Ability.

3145 ENROLLMENT OPTION PROGRAM (TRANSPORTATION) - Funds distributed to school districts for transportation provided to Enrollment Option students who are eligible for free lunch and who live more than four miles from the attendance center.

3150 STATE REIMBURSEMENT (OF NUTRITION PROGRAMS) - State reimbursement to school districts for services offered to children who qualify for free or reduced lunch programs. This function should be used in accounting for the School Lunch Fund.

3155 TEXTBOOK LOAN - Appropriations by the Legislature to pay for textbooks that are loaned to non-public schools.

3160 PAYMENTS RECEIVED FOR WARDS OF THE STATE OR COURT (REGULAR EDUCATION) - Payments to school districts for educating regular education wards of the court living in a group home, residential treatment centers, or psychiatric hospitals, that have been placed in a school district other than the school district in which he or she resided at the time he or she became a ward of the court.

3161 PAYMENTS RECEIVED FOR WARDS OF THE STATE OR COURT (SPECIAL EDUCATION) - Payments to school districts for educating special education wards of the court living in a group home, residential treatment centers, or psychiatric hospitals, that have been placed in a school district other than the district in which he or she resided at the time he or she became a ward of the court.

3165 BIRTH TO AGE 5 SPECIAL EDUCATION (STATE) - Payments to school districts from the state for educating special education children through age five.

3175 ADULT BASIC EDUCATION - Funds appropriated by the state to pay for volunteer coordination activities at school districts.

3180 PRO-RATE MOTOR VEHICLE - Payments made by the owners of a fleet of apportionable vehicles in-lieu-of registration. This money is distributed to county treasurers for redistribution to political subdivisions based on the relation of the subdivision's levy(ies) to the total levy in the county.

3185 STATE EARLY CHILDHOOD - Appropriation by the Legislature to provide early childhood services in the school district.

3200 STATE APPORTIONMENT - Money apportioned as each school district's share of the state's Temporary School Fund. This money is distributed based on the annual census of school-age children.

3300 IN-LIEU-OF SCHOOL LAND TAX - Portion of the state's Temporary School Fund received in-lieu-of property taxes on school or saline land located in a school district. The funds are distributed based on an appraised value of the School Land and the property tax levy(ies) of the school district. (2000-01 was the final year that In-Lieu-Of School Land Taxes were distributed to most school districts.)

35XX STATE CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS - Payments to school districts from the Education Innovation Fund (Excellence in Education), the School Technology Fund, the Quality Education Accountability Act, Teacher Mentor Grants, Distance Learning Network Completion Grants, Special Music Distance Education Projects and grants from NAEP. Individual grants should be further coded in order to separate them from other categorical grants. The expenditures for the particular grant should be coded under a matching expenditure function to facilitate a comparison of receipts and expenditures for each grant received.


3510 EDUCATION INNOVATION FUNDS
3511 MAJOR COMPETITIVE/MINI GRANTS
3512 QUALITY EDUCATION INITIATIVE PAYMENTS
3513 TEACHER MENTOR GRANTS
3514 DISTANCE LEARNING NETWORK COMPLETION GRANTS
3515 SPECIAL MUSIC DISTANCE EDUCATION PROJECT
3520 RULE 88 (School Technology Fund Program)
3530 NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) GRANTS


3990 OTHER STATE RECEIPTS - Any receipt from a state appropriation not included in any other category.


4XXX FEDERAL RECEIPTS


4100 ESEA TITLE I, CARRY OVER FROM PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR - Title I funds received in the current year from previous fiscal year funds. (See Table IV)

4200 ESEA TITLE I, CURRENT FISCAL YEAR - Title I funds received in the current year from current fiscal year funds. (See Table IV)

4300 ESEA INNOVATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM STRATEGIES - Innovative Education Program Strategy funds received for Title V (See Table V) and Teacher and Principal Training and Recruitment.


4310 ESEA TITLE II, PART A - Teacher and Principal Training and Recruitment (new 2002/03)

4320 ESEA TITLE V - Innovative Programs

4400 IDEA TITLE VI-B , BIRTH TO AGE 5 SPECIAL EDUCATION - Title VI-B entitlement funds received for physical and/or occupational therapy special education programs to children through age five.



4401 IDEA TITLE VI-B PROGRAMS - Title VI-B funds received for special education programs for children through age five.

4402 IDEA TITLE VI-B TRANSPORTATION - Title VI-B funds received for special education transportation for children through age five.

4403 IDEA TITLE VI-B SPECIAL PROJECTS - Title VI-B funds received for special education special projects for children through age five.




4410 IDEA ENROLLMENT/POVERTY - Title VI-B funds received from special education for children through age twenty-one.

4450 MEDICAID IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS - Payments from Health and Human Services for special education physical, occupational or speech therapy services provided to verified special education and Medicaid-eligible children.

4455 MEDICAID ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES - Payments from Health and Human Services for administrative outreach and case management activities.

4500 TITLE 8 (IMPACT AID) - Funds received from the federal government when school district boundaries include federal land such as military installations or Indian reservations.

4600 JOHNSON-O'MALLEY - Funds received from the federal government for supplemental programs to meet the special educationally related needs of eligible Indian students.

4620 FLOOD CONTROL - Funds received from the federal government and distributed through the county for lands within the school district set aside for flood control purposes.

4640 FOREST RESERVE - Funds received from the federal government and distributed through the county for lands within the school district set aside as national forests.

4690 OTHER FEDERAL NON-CATEGORICAL RECEIPTS - All non-categorical funds received from federal sources not otherwise classified.

4700 FEDERAL VOCATIONAL & APPLIED TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION (CARL PERKINS) - Federal assistance to eligible recipients for improving educational programs and services leading to academic and occupational skill competencies needed to work in a technologically advanced society.

4750 SCHOOL TO WORK - Federal funds received through the Federal School To Work program for establishing programs which integrate school-based and work-based learning, vocational and academic education, and secondary and post-secondary education.

4800 FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT (OF NUTRITION PROGRAMS) - Federal reimbursement to school districts for services offered to children who qualify for free or reduced lunch programs. This function should be used in accounting for the School Lunch Fund.

49XX OTHER FEDERAL RECEIPTS - Record the amount of federal funds received through the following federal programs according to the designated coding for each program:




4910 INDIAN EDUCATION
4920 CAREER EDUCATION
4925 ESEA TITLE III - LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (NCLB)
4930 FEDERAL ASBESTOS
4935 SCHOOL RENOVATION, IDEA & TECHNOLOGY
4940 HEAD START
4945 CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM
4950 ESEA TITLE I, SUBPART A OF PART B - READING FIRST
4955 ESEA TITLE II, PART A - DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER - MATH/SCIENCE
4960 ESEA TITLE IV - DRUG FREE SCHOOLS (NCLB)
4965 GOALS 2000 (Includes STAR Grants)
4970 STAR GRANTS (NCLB) (new 2002/03)
4975 INNOVATION IN EDUCATION PROGRAM (FRAMEWORKS)
4980 ADULT BASIC EDUCATION
4985 ESEA TITLE II, PART D - TECHNOLOGY (NCLB)



4990 OTHER FEDERAL CATEGORICAL RECEIPTS - Receipts from all other federal categorical sources not otherwise classified, including, but not limited to, Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP).

4995 CATEGORICAL GRANTS FROM CORPORATIONS & OTHER PRIVATE INTERESTS - Categorical grants received from corporations, foundations and other non-governmental sources.

5XXX NON-REVENUE RECEIPTS


5100 SALE OF BONDS - Bond issuances approved in accordance with law and secured by a levy on property. Receipts from the original bond issuance should be recorded in the Special Building Fund; receipts from a re-funding bond issuance should be recorded in the Bond Fund.

5110 QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BONDS - Bond issuances approved in accordance with Rule 87 (92NAC87) Regulations Governing Qualified Zone Academy Bonds Allocation.

5150 TAX ANTICIPATION NOTES - Monies borrowed which will be repaid from future tax receipts.

5200 LONG TERM LOANS - Borrowed money secured through the issuance of promissory notes which will not be repaid during the current fiscal period.

5300 INSURANCE ADJUSTMENTS - Funds received as settlements to insurance claims.

5400 SALE OF PROPERTY - Receipts from the sale of useful equipment and other property.

5500 TRANSFERS FROM FUNDS (INCOMING) - Money received by the General Fund from other funds or by the Activities, School Lunch or Bond Fund from the General Fund.

5610 CASH BALANCE FROM MERGED/DISSOLVED SCHOOL DISTRICTS - Cash transferred from other school districts which are merging with or dissolving into the school district.

5650 CASH BALANCE FROM NONRESIDENT HIGH SCHOOL TUITION FUNDS - Funds belonging to the district remaining in the county non-resident high school tuition fund and transferred into the General Fund.

5690 OTHER NON-REVENUE RECEIPTS - All other non-revenue receipt items not otherwise classified, including refunds of overpayments (cash only). Whenever possible, refunds should be abated against outstanding bills or claims.

9000 NON-PROGRAM RECEIPTS - The receipts resulting from temporary intra-agency transactions such as cashing Certificates of Deposit. (See Non-Program Expenditures for offsetting entries). Note: If Non-Program Receipts exceed Non-Program Expenditures, the difference should be recorded as a receipt to the district. If Non-Program Expenditures exceed Non-Program Receipts, the difference should be recorded as an expenditure to the district.

Posted 12:22 PM by Susan Darst Williams

This week we’re focusing on the politics of K-12 education.

-------------------------

ED POLITICS SERIES: THE ONLY THING THEY UNDERSTAND

You can put the most intelligent people on school boards with the best character and horse sense. They can care incredibly much about children and the community. They can be eager to pour their hearts into making our schools the best they can be.

And yet shortly after beginning their service, most of them will be left scratching their heads and feeling as though they’re just rubber stamps or spinning their wheels, wondering why they can’t get anything done.

It’s not them. It’s the system.

Politically speaking, the education system has the general public by the short hairs. Even the most charismatic of political leaders can’t do much about it.

Elections are still important, of course, and we need to put the best possible people on state and local school boards and in legislative seats. But the bottom line is, the “system” has won the battle for the balance of power, between the political realities, the unionization, the funding realities, and on and on and on.

We, the people, are stuck on the wrong end of the seesaw, power-wise.

That’s the conclusion more and more people are drawing about our public schools. Could it be that we have overpoliticized them, to the point where they can no longer fulfill their mission?

An article in today’s World Net Daily suggests that. Apparently the Southern Baptist Convention is going to consider calling its millions of members to pull their children out of government schools, and send them to private Christian schools, or homeschool them.

See:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38322

The main impediment to this, they say, is massive denial on the part of parents that there is anything wrong with the schools. That’s reflected in the nearly constant approval of multimillion dollar bond issues and the acceptance of ever-increasing budgets and staffs despite flat or declining enrollment, and evidence of sagging academic achievement.

The article quotes proponents of “exodus” as predicting that if 10-15 percent of children are pulled from government schools, the "$500 billion behemoth" will be delegitimized and will collapse financially.

That’s the last thing any of us wants to see. But most observers have said for years that the only thing the public school “educracy” understands is loss of enrollment.

That’s the only thing that can make them change. Not more money and not better school-board members. They already have plenty of both.

The only political capital we have is where we enroll our children.

Would an “exodus” help Nebraska’s public schools? Not in the short run: there’d be chaos.

But in the long run, it might just be the only way.

Posted 2:44 PM by Susan Darst Williams

This week we’ll focus on the politics of K-12 education.

-------------------------

ED POLITICS SERIES: A FEW PICKS FOR ELECTION DAY

Many thanks to the volunteers who put together the handy-dandy election guide that you can visit for free:

www.voterinformation.org

You can go there to plan your voting decisions and see how I came up with mine, listed below.

A surprise donation to these people would be much appreciated, because they do have expenses in providing this public service. Call it a Mother’s Day gift for your motherland, and support the American way by supporting them.

Primaries aren’t as big a deal, but here are a few picks for positions that directly or indirectly affect education and the quality of life for children in Nebraska. You can use your vote to encourage ‘’the good guys’’ for the general election next fall, if it applies:

State Board of Education:
District 2, Ann Mactier
District 3, Jim Scheer

District 66 School Board, 6-year term:
Vote just once, for Ruth Ann Popp

Omaha Public Schools School Board:
Subdistrict 2, Karen Shepard
Subdistrict 6, Jim Enright
Subdistrict 8, Mark E. Rosenquist

State Legislature:
District 9, Scott Knudsen
District 31, Don Hudgens

Douglas County Commissioner:
District 5, Chip Maxwell