Reporting on key Nebraska K-12 education issues on a daily basis from Susan Darst Williams, a writer who lives at the base of Mount Laundry, Nebraska. To subscribe to this blog's mailing list, and see a variety of other education features and information, visit the main education website, www.GoBigEd.com
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Posted
12:07 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
ONLINE EDUCATION SOARS IN MICHIGAN
Applications for online education in a state like Nebraska, with all our rural schools, are obvious. But here's what's even more exciting: the future in education is in "niches," and the No. 1 "niche" that Nebraska needs to exploit is the high-ability learner.
We have great demographics, for the most part, and a highly-educated set of parents: they combine to produce a higher-than-average percentage of our K-12 students who are working above grade level -- or they would be, if they were allowed to. But the standardized curriculum we're stuck with through standards-based education is preventing a lot of the innovation that gifted kids need.
We could vault to the top of the nation in overall ed quality with an aggressive approach toward helping our smartpantses with online education, part-time attendance, home and school hybrids, parent-led co-ops using distance learning, and so on and so forth.
Check out what Michigan is doing in this burgeoning field:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=543615
(0) comments
Monday, December 18, 2006
Posted
7:57 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
PLENTY OF PRECEDENT FOR SCHOOL CHOICE
http://www.ednews.org/articles/5646/1/When-Liberals-Love-School-Vouchers/Page1.html
(0) comments
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Posted
10:16 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
ARIZONA HAS A BIGTIME PROGRAM
Footnote to Wednesday's GoBigEd story pleading for tax credits to expand private K-12 scholarships for needy children in Nebraska:
Come to find out, more than 22,000 children have been assisted by a similar tax credit in Arizona since it was put in place in 1997.
Donors to the Children's Scholarship Fund of Omaha are supporting1,860 children in K-8 classrooms across the state this year. To contact the group: (402) 554-8493, or csfomaha@archomaha.org
(0) comments
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Posted
10:11 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
BEING TESTED IN METRO OMAHA, WESTERN NEBRASKA
Go to www.randmcnallyclassroom.com and sign up for a free, two-week trial of a neat new multimedia geography curriculum that was launched last month.
At $299 per building, it would be pricey for homeschoolers and small private schools, but oh, so worth it in the countless hours of unique and motivational learning it can provide. A corporate spokeswoman said it is being tested right now in a large district in metropolitan Omaha, and there have been pricing inquiries from western Nebraska as well.
Idea: get a company that does business globally, and isn't that most of them these days, to pay for it, for your school or homeschooling co-op. Most corporations are glad to give a little special help for a sound academic purpose such as improving kids' grasp of geography, history, science, economics, languages, etc. etc.
Here's my feature on this new product, published today on www.GoBigEd.com:
Multimedia Geography
Q. I always thought looking at maps was one of the most boring things in school. Surely they have improved the way they teach geography these days. How in the world (!) do they teach it now?
Geography is one curricular area that has really gained from computer technology. Sound, movement, color and lots of ways to present the facts come alive with computers and make geography instruction exciting and fulfilling.
One new product that deserves a mention is the Rand McNally Classroom, an online service that offers interactive games and activities for students along with traditional reference information, and lesson plans and ready-made assessments for teachers. It’s available on a per-building basis for school districts, private schools and home schools.
On top of the company’s famous atlases, globes, wall maps and books, the multimedia curriculum adds technological wizardry to social studies, geography and history lessons for grades K-12. Besides the maps, there’s information on earth science, populations, economies, languages, holidays and much more.
Pricing is $299 per building, which is expensive for a homeschooler but doable for a homeschooling co-op or organization.
The benefit of per-building pricing is that all of the students and teachers in one high school, for example, can access the curriculum. The curriculum is multidisciplinary. So science teachers could add maps, photos and artists’ renderings to their curriculum, the business teacher could utilize world economics charts, the German teacher could zero in on place names in Germany, and on and on.
Each week, there’s a feature that connects a given map with something that’s going on in the world. Games include place-the-state puzzle, build-your-own-map, continent quizzes, and animated features on various topics, including how maps are put together, and geography terms. Grade-level activities range from a travelogue for a teddy bear for the early primary years, to college-level material suitable for Advanced Placement classrooms.
Teachers can use it to project maps onto a classroom whiteboard using an LCD projector, or students can have the same maps on their individual computer screens. Each map is printable as a PDF file. Students will be able to access the curriculum from home.
For a two-week free trial, go to www.randmcnallyclassroom.com
(0) comments
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Posted
4:21 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
WHEN GOVERNMENT SEEKS THINGS FROM GOVERNMENT
Does it bother you that there are hardly ever any plain old citizens testifying before elected school boards and Legislative committees about school matters? Usually, it’s an attorney, a lobbyist, or both, getting paid handsomely by the hour by us to “represent” -- not us, the taxpayer -- but our paid employees in the government schools.
Does it bother you that we have to pay the legal costs of school lawsuits in which our representatives are basically suing us, the taxpayers, at our expense? That’s what’s going on with a number of these “equity” lawsuits and other legal arm-wrestling over turf and revenues right now.
The recent legal and political messes over the attempted takeover of metro-area schools by the Omaha Public Schools district, and Cat-in-the-Hat style messy legal and political consequences that have ensued, are sure to result in eye-popping legal bills.
The numbers from the 2005-06 school year aren’t yet on file with the state, and this doesn’t even count the legal bills and other expenses of related governmental entities, such as the Legislature.
But to set the scene, here’s what selected big districts in Nebraska spent in the 2004-05 school year on legal services alone*:
Omaha Public Schools $2,489,026
Lincoln Public Schools $478,834
Millard Public Schools $248,567
Westside Community Schools $103,712
Elkhorn Public Schools $45,637
* Source: http://ess.nde.state.ne.us district annual financial reports
2004-05, category #01-2-02310-317
The OPS legal bill was more than five times as big as that of the No. 2 district in the state, the Lincoln schools.
Note, too, that OPS spent $56.52 per pupil that year, vs. $12.52 for Elkhorn.
Gee! Does that mean students in OPS have five times as many rights that need to be upheld as students in any other district?
Or . . . is OPS management THAT bad, that it gets hauled into court so much more, or is the OPS management THAT much more litigious, that it hauls OTHERS into court that much more?
Or . . . is OPS just using to using the courts to get what the elected policymakers won’t give them?
It’s worth a thought.
Along these lines, a colleague did some checking with the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission on school spending for lobbying services, and passed along the findings. These numbers aren’t very big, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens in the coming year:
SCHOOL LOBBYISTS & COSTS *
SCHOOL
2005 $ SPENT
# Pupils
COST/PUPIL 2005
2006 $ SPENT
Bellevue
$15,200.00
9,129
$1.67
$15,150.74
Elkhorn
$8,300.00
3,691
$2.25
$8,000.00
Fremont
$20,527.31
4,498
$4.56
$12,773.11
Grand Island
$15,262.63
8,070
$1.89
$7,539.29
Lincoln
$104,932.07
32,270
$3.25
$43,415.94
Millard
$71,737.69
20,371
$3.52
$23,536.76
Omaha
$53,277.59
46,549
$1.14
$33,611.01
Papillion-La Vista
$1,500.00
8,464
$.18
$14,200.00
Ralston
$8,600.00
3,112
$2.76
$18,512.10
Westside
$30,000.00
5,887
$5.10
$20,132.23
* Source: Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission website, http://nadc.nol.org
(0) comments
Monday, November 13, 2006
Posted
9:17 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
THE LOW-COST WAY TO FIX
LOW-INCOME SCHOOLS
They're applying principles from that best-seller management book, "Good to Great," to figure out how to improve educational delivery and reduce dropout rates for low-income, high-language deficient schools in Arizona.
Doesn't take a boatload of cash. Doesn't take consolidation. Doesn't take an army of educrats. Takes everyday principles of results-oriented good management -- the very thing that's missing from this whole gall-bladder operation over the Omaha Public Schools. Imagine that!
Read what's working in OPS counterparts in Arizona on:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1113latino1113.html
The study itself is posted on:
www.arizonafuture.org
(0) comments
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Posted
1:33 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
GREAT ACCOUNTABILITY IDEA
GETTING MEDIA PLAY
My esteemed colleague Peyton Wolcott of Texas is interviewed on this webcast on her idea to ask school districts to publish their checkbooks online, for accountability and "transparency" in how they're spending our money. Wouldn't have to be fawn-cy; a simple listing of date, who to, what for and the amount would do. Then we'd have a shot at finding out stuff like sending four school psychologists to the same convention in Boca Raton (!!!) at a cost of $2,000, instead of sending just one who could report back to the others.
See the Oct. 19 interview, split into sections of a few minutes each:
http://www.education-consumers.net/briefs/mar2004.shtm
Posted
1:04 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
REQUESTS RATIONALE
FOR OPPOSING EARLY-ED PROGRAMS
Am I a meanie for opposing early-childhood education programs as part of the mission of our public schools?
I don't think so, but a Go Big Ed reader has suggested so, in anonymous comments posted on this blog on my stories revealing the pointlessness of Head Start, the model for Amendment 5, the government preschool addition to the Nebraska constitution that voters unfortunately put in place on Tuesday.
Here's a good briefing on the politics of Head Start, which swept through Nebraska like a hot knife through butter, and got Amendment 5 in place "for the kids":
http://www.education-consumers.net/briefs/mar2004.shtm
Posted
1:01 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
TO CALL FOR RETIRED MILITARY
IN OUR CLASSROOMS
Happy Veterans Day!
If you're really interested in giving more than lip service to honoring our veterans, consider how they could help out in another war that's going on: the war to improve our schools.
One of the greatest innovations we could make in our schools would be to allow for the alternative certification of those who would like to teach, but have spent their careers thus far in the military. If you've put 20 years or more into that lifestyle, you are more than equipped to handle today's classrooms. And, especially at the secondary level, people with subject knowledge and discipline -- like retired military -- would be a tremendous asset. They'd be great in administrative posts, too, but so far are blocked by outdated and pointless regulations requiring a teaching certificate for most school jobs.
Let's keep policymakers informed about this exciting prospect, and hope to see some enabling legislation one of these days in Nebraska.
(0) comments
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Posted
10:08 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
COMING SOON TO NEBRASKA CLASSROOMS?
from www.MassResistance.org
The following article was published in Wednesday's Newton Tab, by columnist Tom Mountain, regarding an incident in the Franklin Elementary School in Newton, Massachusetts. In the hours since the article appeared, enormous outrage has been generated throughout the area. Lexington parent David Parker, who was arrested over the teaching of homosexuality to his kindergartner and is now suing the school system, issued a powerful statement (below the article).
How soon will this be happening in YOUR school? How long will good people continue to be afraid to speak out publicly, and leave the activism to others? You must get involved now!
Nightmare at Franklin
By Tom Mountain
The Newton Tab
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
http://www.townonline.com/newton/opinion/view.bg?articleid=610359
Emer O'Shea knew something was wrong the minute she picked up her daughter from Franklin Elementary School. The third-grader was normally very perky upon seeing her mother and new baby sister, but this time she glanced at her mother without indicating what was wrong, except to say that the school's social worker had visited the class. But Emer soon heard from another parent about what had happened in her daughter's class that day, and she was both stunned and mortified. The next day her young daughter finally opened up with a question that would baffle most parents of an 8-year-old child, "Mommy, is it possible for a man to have an operation to become a woman?"
Transgenders and transvestites. These were the topics that a staff member at Franklin School in West Newton chose to teach to a class of third-grade children. The school's social worker described to the children that some men like to dress up as women, and yes, some men even have operations to change into women.
The opportunity for this "teachable moment" - the kind that Superintendent Jeff Young likes to portray as merely responding to some child's "random questioning"- occurred when the social worker was describing various families outside of the traditional mommy-and-daddy norm and showed the class a picture of a woman with two children, asking what they saw in the picture. A child then raised his hand to tell her (are you sitting sit down for this?) that he thought the picture was of a man who had a sex change operation and was now a woman. Apparently, the child's own father was undergoing such an operation (which he/she has since completed).
The social worker then elaborated on this "teachable moment." But this wasn't just any social worker employed by the Newton Public Schools. This was Laura Perkins, former board member of GLSEN, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network; or rather, "Laura Perkins, MSW, Franklin School and the Newton Early Childhood Program," according to the GLSEN Boston Conference, where she hosted a seminar in which the "Rationale for integrating GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender) issues in the early elementary years will be presented" and "classroom lessons demonstrated."
As a result of this particular "classroom lesson," Emer's daughter was petrified. For an 8-year-old accustomed to a child's world of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, the little girl had nightmares, and explained to her mother she was scared that her baby sister could turn into a boy.
So Emer did what any normal responsible parent would do - she demanded an explanation from the principal, Cynthia Marchand. She and several other parents from this class met with the principal who, according to Emer, responded defensively and fully backed her staff member.
Emer then went to Superintendent's Young's office with her concerns. She handed Mr. Young a written description of what happened, whereupon the superintendent promised to respond to her soon. He didn't. So after three weeks, she called to make an appointment.
As Emer described it, Mr. Young remarked that the Parental Consent Law didn't apply to this situation because, he claimed, the topic of discussion was not planned for. He concluded that it was really just "a teachable moment."
When I asked the superintendent via e-mail if it is the policy of the Newton schools to teach 8-year-old children about sex change operations, he responded "No").
"Arrogant" is how Emer described the superintendent's demeanor towards her. He declined to shake her hand at the meeting's end, and didn't even bother to acknowledge the baby she was holding.
The superintendent wants us to believe that just because the class was taught by a GLSEN activist who has specialized in "integrating GLBT issues in the elementary years" and even though the principal, social worker and probably half the school knew that there was a child in that very class who just happened to have a father who was undergoing a sex change operation, there is no evidence that this was planned, or rather, set up. So, in Mr. Young's convoluted logic, the state law which mandates that parents must be informed whenever anything of a sexual nature occurs in the classroom did not apply here.
It just happened, you see. A mere coincidence. Just like a few years before when a Burr School first-grade teacher chose to out himself to his first-grade class. This was a hide-from-the-media moment for the superintendent, since it was later revealed in Bay Windows, the Boston gay weekly, that the teacher had discussed this probable scenario with his principal well in advance of his proclamation to his class of 6-year-olds.
Predictably, Emer got nowhere with the school administration. She went through the typical phases that any parent who raises these issues is forced to endure. The stalling, ignoring, belittling. The attempts to isolate her, put her on the defensive, make her feel like the aggressor - the intolerant, unsympathetic, backward parent: common tactics to make parents like Emer go away. After all, Mr. Young and his cohorts now have years of experience dealing with such parents.
But Emer would not go away.
Fed up at the lack of response from the school, she raised the issue in front of a large audience of staff and parents at Franklin's curriculum night. "Can we see the social worker's curriculum for this year, as last year there was inappropriate information given to the elementary-age children?" she publicly asked Cynthia Marchand. In other words, could the principal guarantee that staff members would not teach the young children about men having sex change operations? To which the principal responded that she would speak to Emer in private about it (a preferred tactic by Newton administrators). Emer would not back down; after 10 months of being ignored she demanded an answer right then and there. But the principal wouldn't budge.
As Emer described it, afterwards Mrs. Marchand coaxed her into her office, whereupon she loudly chastised Emer for "her inappropriate behavior." She berated Emer because (you'd better sit down again for this) the Franklin School father who had a sex change operation and was now a "woman" had been sitting in the audience with his wife (they're still married) when Emer broached this highly sensitive topic. "Cindy, stop shouting at me!" Emer responded to her child's principal. (My calls to the principal and social worker for comment were not returned, but Mr. Young did respond by e-mail: "No," the social worker and principal would not be suspended or reprimanded, he wrote. He ducked my question as to whether or not he intended to apologize to Mrs. O'Shea, stating that he and other staff had already "spoken with the parent already.")
Emer had enough. She decided to pull her daughter out of the Newton Public Schools and, at great expense, send her to a private school. (Mr. Young again responded "No" when I asked if the school department would be paying for the child's private school tuition).
A few days later, she walked into the Franklin office once again, this time with her now fourth-grade daughter and infant baby to inform the principal and secretary that her child would no longer be attending Franklin School.
"Good," Mrs. Marchand allegedly responded, in the presence of Emer, the secretary, a teacher and Emer's daughter. The principal then turned and walked away.
Think of that. Think real hard.
Tom Mountain can be reached at tmount117@hotmail.com.
Newton school system general website:http://www.newton.k12.ma.us/
Franklin Elementary School website:http://www.newton.k12.ma.us/schools/elementary_schools/franklin.html
Posted
11:20 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
TURNING A SMALL 'l' INTO A BIG 'W'
Good thing our daughter’s a good softball player. It gives us the perspective that a relatively low batting average is still pretty good, against some tough pitching. The way the big anti-quality, anti-local control outfits like the Nebraska State Education Association threw their money against fiscally conservative candidates in education-related races Tuesday, campaign strikeouts were to be expected.
I’m especially sad about the four good fiscal conservatives who all almost – but not quite – unseated union party-line incumbents on the State Board of Education. I have some ideas about next time. Woulda! Coulda! Shoulda! I hope those good people will take heart by how many votes they got for how few dollars they had available to spend. I hope they’ll run again, with my promise that we’ll get more organized to get them more cannon fodder for their media machines next time.
But the game’s not over. Actually, things are looking up. We’ve got a new offense in place – Nebraska policymakers who are open to the solutions provided by school choice, in everything from better quality curriculum to more meaningful local control and property-tax relief.
Enough good people were elected Tuesday who will support progress, change, innovation and quality – translation: school choice – that I have high hopes for the next four years.
Congressmen Lee Terry and Adrian Smith both have said they could go for some form of school choice, perhaps tuition tax credits or vouchers for disadvantaged kids. Eight of the 13 candidates for the Legislature that GoBigEd picked because they indicated they could support school choice in some form won on Tuesday. That’s critical mass, added to those already on board. They’ll need data, but it’s out there, so I’m excited.
We know Gov. Heineman has said he wants to lead the charge to salvage the Class I country schools. That was strikingly seconded by the voters Tuesday in repealing the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad LB 126 that forced small schools to consolidate with big ones. That vote went a long way toward discrediting State Sen. Ron Raikes, chairman of the Legislature’s Education Committee, who is committed to big-government, centralized-power solutions to education’s problems. I hope he takes Tuesday’s vote as a wake-up call that he needs to do some more talking and learning about the future of education and what people want, or get out of the way and step aside as Ed Committee chair. Another hopeful sign is that Heineman did try to help with the OPS mess instead of caving in to OPS’ demands for “one city, one school district,” and has said he wants to keep trying.
Here’s another reason things are looking up:
Since the voters Tuesday decided to make early childhood education part of the mission of the K-12 schools, in the utter absence of any evidence that those sorts of programs actually benefit kids in the long run, the voters showed that they want to help kids, no matter what. They really do want to help, even though they know it’s costing them, big time. So since private schools are cheaper than public schools, and do a better job for disadvantaged kids in particular and all kids in general, that vote is a public mandate to go forward with a school-choice system that could help all us, but especially those disadvantaged by living in the inner cities or in the rural hinterlands. In stark contrast to early-childhood ed, school choice has been proven effective with increased test scores, higher graduation rates and lower costs. So it’ll be a no-brainer now.
Combine that with the fact that the people voted down the constitutional spending lid of Initiative 423 – indication that the electorate wants flexibility for its public servants even though it’s costing them, bigtime – and things are looking good for school choice. Not that school choice costs more – it doesn’t; it costs less – but because it’s something new, and will require everyone to keep an open mind and stay flexible.
We’re not talking about a school choice system that will decimate our public schools. We’re talking about a school choice system that will help maybe 5% to 10% of the student body – poor kids, and rural kids. When people see how great it works, a few years down the road, there’ll be critical mass to get school choice for the middle class, too, and that’ll be a good thing.
What’s ironic is that the sitting State Gourd of Education (whoops – Freudian slip) and state education poohbahs all appear to be so fossilized into union protectionism and bureaucratic empire-building that they will be left out in the cold, politically and procedurally, in all of this. They will be left gasping for breath as others NOT charged with the state’s educational system wind up making the much-needed changes while they sit to the side sucking the thumbs they’ve been sitting on for 25 years as other states have moved into the school choice arena.
It won’t be pretty, for them. But for the rest of us, TOUCHDOWN! School choice is the educational equivalent of the West Coast Offense. It can give the poor kids an honest chance at educational quality and opportunity, and the country kids can get their schools back.
We can . . . Restore the Order! So let’s bring it!
(5) comments
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Posted
11:04 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
'YOU AREN'T THE BOSS OF ME!'
Ooh, I like the spirit of this scholarly and to-the-point report from the Maryland Public Policy Institute. They note that the teachers' unions are out there this campaign season telling voters what to do, but nobody ever, EVER asks them WHY they do what THEY do. :>)
Here's a cool report I'd like to customize for Nebraska: "Fifteen Questions Maryland Teachers Should Ask Their Union."
www.mdpolicy.org/docLib/20061106.PolicyReport20068.pdf
Posted
10:47 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
GOV. ROMNEY KNOWS UNIVERSAL PRESCHOOL'S A CROCK,
BUT NEBRASKA ED LEADERS ARE TAKING US THERE, ANYWAY
http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2006/08/05/romney_vetoes_universal_prekindergarten_in_state/
Posted
10:00 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
AND COMIC RELIEF: ELECTION GRAB BAG
Congratulations to all candidates and voters! We made it to Election Day, and the end is in sight. Special thanks to all those who worked so hard in state and local school-board races, and for state senators who will make improving education a high priority. Three cheers for the wonderful army of Nebraskans who waged what looks to be a successful campaign to restore our state’s elementary-only country schools by urging “repeal” on Referendum 422.
Looks like Amendment 5, which will put K-12 school bureaucracies in charge of early-childhood education, is going to pass. What a shame. It takes probably one week to equip a child with kindergarten readiness, but now Nebraska taxpayers are going to have to pay for babysitting, basically, from birth to age 5. Oh, well, though, eh? We’re driving another nail in the coffin of the dream of an equal, constructive, all-encompassing public education system in Nebraska. Middle- and upper-class parents are going to choose private day care and preschools to avoid all the governmentese of the government early-childhood programs. Their kids won’t mix with diverse kinds of kids, and income-based segregation will widen. From private preschools, parents with means will enroll their kids in private K-12 schools. Again, the melting pot will separate into layers instead of mixing. This change will increase the already-huge gap between rich and poor in this state. But it is what it is, and here’s hoping we can make the best of it.
It doesn’t appear that Initiative 423 has a chance of winning, which is too bad. But in the aftermath of the discussion it raised, especially Nebraska’s tax problems, here’s hoping that voters will toss out the incumbents on the State Board of Education. Why? They put in place all the policies and mandates that have CAUSED Nebraska’s spending on K-12 education to increase by 43.6% in the last eight years. Academically, they’ve brought us mediocre results, and economically, they’re putting many of our job-producing, wealth-producing taxpayers in precarious positions.
According to http://ess.nde.state.ne.us, average cost per pupil in Nebraska has increased from $5,589 per year in the 1997-98 school year, to $8,013 in 2004-05, the latest figures available from the Nebraska Department of Education’s website.
Voters apparently aren’t thinking the way to control that is to put a modest spending cap in the state constitution with Initiative 423. So be it. But we could do just as much good with a fiscally-conservative, common-sense State Board of Education – one which would deep-six Nebraska’s enormously expensive and totally farcical assessment system, allow a modest amount of school choice since our private schools are doing better than our public schools both in academic quality and cost-wise, get some innovations going to zero in on meeting the needs of needy urban and isolated rural students and teachers, allow (finally!) alternative teacher certification to break the propaganda chokehold of the teachers’ colleges and unions, and most of all, get our teachers trained in systematic, intensive, explicit phonics instruction so that our kids can become first in the world in reading – which they would if they were taught to read correctly in the first place.
I’m not sure the following candidates would go for all those things. But I am sure of one thing: they’d be much more likely to innovate, achieve, and cut out the fluff than the rubber-stamp, union-kissing incumbents on the State Board.
Please, please, please vote for, and urge your friends to vote for:
District 5: Alan Jacobsen
District 6: Marilyn Carpenter
District 7: Paula Pfister
District 8: Dick Galusha
COMIC RELIEF: ELECTION GRAB BAG
Quote of the Day:
Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.
-- George Jean Nathan (1887-1958),
drama critic and editor
Useless Trivia of the Day:
Ancient Greece had one of the earliest forms of democracy, since at least 508 B.C. Each year, the Greeks had a negative election. Voters were asked to cast a vote for the politician they most wanted to exile for 10 years. Votes were written on broken pots, ostraka in Greek, and from this name comes our present word to ostracize.
If any politician received more than 6,000 votes, then the one with the largest number was exiled. If no politician received 6,000 votes, then all remained. If there was a fairly even spread of votes, nobody would get over 6,000 and no one would get exiled -- hence only very unpopular politicians were ostracized and exiled.
Corny Joke of the Day:
Five surgeons are discussing the types of people they like to operate on.
The first surgeon says, "I like to see accountants on my operating table, because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered."
The second responds, "Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded."
The third surgeon says, "No, I really think librarians are the best; everything inside them is in alphabetical order."
The fourth chimes in: "You know, I like construction workers. Those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over."
But the fifth surgeon shut them all up when he observed: "You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There are no guts, no heart, no brains, no spine, and the head and the hind end are interchangeable."
Agenda, 2008 Democratic National Convention:
7:00 P.M. Opening flag burning.
7:15 P.M. Pledge of allegiance to U.N.
7:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
7:30 till 8:00 P.M. Nonreligious prayer and worship; Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.
8:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:05 P.M. Ceremonial tree hugging.
8:15 - 8:30 P.M. Gay Wedding; Barney Frank Presiding.
8:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:35 P.M. Free Saddam Rally; Cindy Sheehan, Susan Sarandon.
9:00 P.M. Keynote speech: The proper etiquette for surrender; French President Jacques Chirac.
9:15 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
9:20 P.M. Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund.
9:30 P.M. Unveiling of plan to free freedom fighters from Guantanamo Bay, by Sean Penn.
9:40 P.M. Why I Hate the Military, A short talk by William Jefferson Clinton.
9:45 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
9:50 P.M. Dan Rather presented the Truth in Broadcasting award, presented by Michael Moore.
9:55 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
10:00 P.M. How George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World Trade Center Towers, by Howard Dean.
10:30 P.M. Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Mahmud Ahnadinejad.
11:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
11:05 P.M. Al Gore reinvents the Internet again.
11:15 P.M. Our Troops are War Criminals, by John Kerry.
11:30 P.M. Coronation of Mrs. Rodham Clinton.
12:00 A.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
12:05 A.M. Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home. . . .
(0) comments
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Posted
10:53 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
REPORT REVEALS GROWTH OF
NONTEACHING PERSONNEL IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Whoa. I didn't know this. I knew teachers were becoming the minority among school staffs in public schools because of union machinations and administrative empire-building, but I didn't realize it had gotten this bad.
Wonder if this ratio holds up between Nebraska public and private schools, too.
Here goes:
In Arizona, 72% of private school staff are teachers . . . but only 49% of public school staff are.
Doesn't that just show the impact of The Blob? The more people we throw at K-12 education, the worse the product becomes. We know this, since private schools almost always have higher test scores and are judged to be doing better than public schools. But we keep increasing the nonteaching staff and all the related costs, anyway.
See: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article.php?/1152.html
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Posted
11:49 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
244 Sq. Ft. Per Pupil in Elkhorn?
Election May Bring School Choice?
‘Ghost Schools’ Smear Just a Dirty Campaign Trick?
State Educrats Casting Magic Spell With Stats?
The proposed $96 million school construction bond issue that’s on the Nov. 7 ballot for voters in Elkhorn has apparently cast a spell over the common sense of the media and taxpayers, because nobody has noticed that the second high school would have 244 square feet per pupil.
In the October issue of EPS Highlights from the Elkhorn Public Schools, details of the bond proposal show that the high school proposed for 204th and Pacific Streets would be on 63 acres, would cost $56.5 million, and would have 244,310 square feet for a student body of 1,000.
That’s 244 square feet per pupil, at a cost of $56,500 per pupil.
That’s like allocating two rooms of the average sized house for each student! And think of the paper, pencil, chalk and books you could buy for $56,500!
The proposed middle school in the bond issue would cost $20.9 million and have 110,500 square feet for 600 kids, or 184 sq. ft. per pupil. The proposed new grade school would have 137.5 sq. ft. each.
So why 244 sq. ft. for the high school kids? Do they expect them to be a lot more obese, or haven’t they taken the pop and candy machines out of the buildings at long last? Or are the space allocation numbers inflated because they going to put the softball field under roof, like a shrine, now that they have won three straight Class B state championships in a row? (Shameless plug by the mother of a new grad from there!)
I mean, geesh. Haven’t we been hearing for years that in inner-city Omaha they don’t have carpet for the classroom floors, the English novels are yellowed and tattered, and there are plenty of kids so poor they don’t have shoes that fit and they never get a birthday cake? No offense, but $96 million for a district with 3,952 kids is pretty lavish. It comes to $24,291 apiece. Remember how the Omaha Public Schools almost didn’t get their $254 million bond issue passed a few years ago, because it seemed like too much for a district with 45,000 kids? That came to $5,644 apiece, less than one-fourth as much per pupil.
For another example, get this. The Iowa grassroots organization on education, Iowalive (http://iowalive.net/), has done space allocation comparisons between schools and private-sector operations. They said a typical business has 15 square feet per manufacturing assembly operator, 16 square feet per student in a training room, and 25 or more square feet per engineering work station -- depending on the engineering function performed. It is estimated that journalists working at large Iowa newspapers would have about 20 square feet of space each.
Iowa schools that Iowalive studied had less than 40 square feet per pupil, and that included space for “ancillary items” and persons in place to support the student, school employee or work station, though their statistics did not include administrative offices, hallways, restrooms, gymnasiums or cafeterias.
So hey. Maybe Elkhorn’s new high school classrooms are going to be of modest proportions, after all, but the school is just going to have ‘way, ‘way, ‘way wide hallways, especially outside those administrators’ offices. They’re bound to have really, really big heads, the way things are going for them out there.
And what will Elkhorn say to OPS and other lower-income districts? Well . . . maybe not “trick or treat.”
ELECTION MAY BRING SCHOOL CHOICE
Be still, my beating heart. But if next Tuesday’s election goes a certain way, we could have a majority of elected public officials in this state who could support school choice, at long last!
Be sure to check www.GoBigEd.com’s election picks before you go to the polls, and spread the word. (Also shown on this blog, posted 10/24)
Although some readers have differed with GoBigEd’s picks in certain races, the main consideration was whether the candidate would support tuition tax credits, vouchers or some other form of school choice, to get Nebraska off the dime and into the 21st Century in terms of returning say-so to the “breeders and feeders” – parents and taxpayers.
‘GHOST SCHOOLS’ SMEAR
WAS JUST A DIRTY CAMPAIGN TRICK?
It doesn’t look good for State Sen. Ron Raikes. To get his school consolidation bill passed the session before last in the Unicameral, he told his colleagues that the forced consolidation of Class I country schools into larger town districts would save Nebraska taxpayers millions of dollars, the Class I schools were spending boatloads more money than bigger districts and weren’t as good academically, had caused “white flight” because of racial prejudice away from town schools, and were peppered with “ghost schools” which were soaking up taxpayer dollars every year but didn’t have any pupils enrolled.
Those have all been shown to be wrong. He’s been busted, busted with whipped cream, and busted with a cherry on top, by the Class I supporters on: http://www.nebraskansforlocalschools.org/ExposingTheTruth1.html
The “ghost schools,” for example, were operating totally within Nebraska law, using the revenues to dispose of closed school property and living up to contracts and so forth. Since Raikes could have found that out with one phone call, on top of the other misstatements he has made, he looks pretty bad on this, and the Class I supporters are pretty mad about it, as well they should be.
They urge people to vote to REPEAL on Referendum 422.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens to Raikes’ chairmanship of the Education Committee, if LB 126 is repealed and the courts keep agreeing that his other “baby,” the “Let’s Turn OPS Into Van-Choc-Straw and Make One Mega-District Ruled By Big Brother” school law, LB 1024, is an illegal, ill-conceived klunker.
STATE EDUCRATS CASTING
MAGIC SPELLS WITH STATS?
Nebraska already has one of the biggest credibility gaps in the nation in the huge gulf between the glowing reports of “woo hoo!” and widespread genius that our homegrown “assessments” say about student achievement – in stark contrast to the “so-so” and “oh, no” results of nationally-standardized, objective, neutrally-prepared assessments such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
So it’s a bit ghoulish and ticklish this Halloween to ponder the latest glowing report about test scores. For example, the fourth-grade darlin’s in Douglas County West in Valley did smashingly well on their district-prepared writing assessment – 100% proficient! And they were 100% proficient on the district’s fourth-grade math test! And darn near – 99.6% proficient! – on the reading test.
Wow! They must all be brainiacs out there, with fabulous teachers and crackerjack curriculum! Give those administrators a big, fat raise!
‘Course, those numbers look downright spooky, compared to the nationally standardized tests the same age group, at least those in Grades 3-5, took the year before. You can find them on www.nde.state.ne.us (Note: fewer than 10 youngsters came from the Waterloo school district that was merged with Valley’s; statistics are blocked for small student groups for privacy reasons, so the following are Valley numbers only.)
My, my, what different scores, though: instead of 100% for math, just 64.45% of them did as well as, or better than, the national average, and in reading, instead of 99.6% proficiency, just 78.26% equaled or bettered the national average.
In another big, objective, national measurement, the ACT college admissions test, the Valley-Waterloo kids did even worse. Far short of the implications of those 100% test scores, the upperclassmen in Valley scored 20.8 on the 36-point ACT scale that year, lower than the state average of 21.8 and the national average of 20.9. And the Waterloo kids scored a 21.6, even further beneath the state and national averages.
It kind of takes the glow off those statistics, and Nebraska’s so-phony-it’s-scary assessment system, doesn’t it?
Then again, it’s Halloween! You can be anything you want! With the state education department’s costume ideas for dressing up quality control to be whatever works for THEM, we can ALL be boneheads this year . . . and at the NDE, no doubt they’re giving out SUCKERS to the li’l taxpaying trick-or-treaters.
I’m sighing a big Halloween BOO. As in . . . BOO-HOO!!!
(0) comments
Monday, October 30, 2006
Posted
9:21 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
BY ANGIE PALMER, THE 'PAULA REVERE'
OF NEBRASKA'S SMALL SCHOOL ARMY
Here are two excellent letters to the editor written by Nebraskan Angie Palmer, a researcher and activist supporting Nebraska's rural grade schools and the repeal of LB 126 on the Nov. 7 ballot as Referendum 422:
--------------
When LB 126 was passed, we were told that Nebraska had too many school districts. According to the Legislature, we needed to eliminate districts to save money. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.
Today we have 339 fewer school districts than we did in 1999 and 1500 less students. Despite this fact, Nebraska employs nearly 700 more teachers and 100 more administrators and principals. The cost per pupil has skyrocketed. Fewer districts, but the costs are higher.
Another example of higher costs can be seen in counties with one or two school districts. The districts in these counties cost as much as $9000 more per pupil than the state average. Again fewer districts, but the costs are higher.
The Legislature said that eliminating Class I schools would save Nebraska taxpayers over $12 million. This is simply not true. LB 126 is costing Nebraska taxpayers $30 to $45 million more. Once again fewer districts, but the costs are higher.
So what are we gaining from eliminating districts? We are gaining higher taxes, more time spent traveling to school, dwindling opportunities for students, and less local control.
On November 7 tell the Legislature "no thanks" and vote "repeal" on Referendum 422 to take back control of your school and your taxes.
----------------------------------
When LB 126, the Legislative bill that dissolved Class I schools, was passed in the Legislature in 2005, it was touted as a way to improve efficiency. However, the law has done just the opposite in Nebraska and in Phelps County.
A recent Citizen article reported on comments that Holdrege Public Schools' superintendent, Cinde Wendell, made at a recent school board meeting. Supt. Wendell stated that Holdrege Public Schools is facing financial issues because of the assimilation of the rural schools under LB 126. Holdrege's financial problems can be eliminated simply by voting "repeal" on Referendum 422 on November 7th.
LB 126 forced the dissolution of all Class I districts (rural elementary-only schools). Prior to the passage of this bill, six K-12 schools contributed to the financial obligations of Funk, R-4, and R-7 in proportion to the amount of land valuation that was affiliated with each K-12. However, under LB 126 Holdrege is now solely responsible for the cost of operating all three of these schools. Over $92 million in land valuation is no longer used to help operate these schools.
LB 126 was supposed to save $12.7 million. However, at a recent education conference it was revealed that dissolving Nebraska Class I schools will cost taxpayers between $30 and $45 million more than it cost for Class I schools to operate independently. How is this efficient?
Eliminate Holdrege's financial problems by voting "Repeal" on Referendum 422. Take Back Local Control. It's about your kids, your schools, your choice and your taxes.
(0) comments
Friday, October 27, 2006
Posted
10:32 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
POINTS TO CERTAINTY OF TAX INCREASES
WTIH NO EVIDENCE OF ACADEMIC BENEFIT
IF SCHOOLS ADD 'BIRTH TO AGE 5' MISSION
Thanks to former Nebraska State Board of Education member Kathy Wilmot of Beaver City, Neb., for this op-ed urging a "no" vote on Amendment 5, which would grant authority for funding and programming over early childhood education to our public schools. See my issue brief on www.GoBigEd.com under "Public Policy Briefs." Here's her take:
Constitutional Amendment 5: The rest of the story
Voters are being inundated with ads and editorials of half-truths about Amendment 5 – the early childhood education “cure." These propaganda pieces are all “fluff." Remember -- your mama told you, “The devil’s in the details."
The Nebraska Department of Education defines an “early childhood education program” as “any prekindergarten part-day or full-day program with a stated purpose of promoting social, emotional, intellectual, language, physical . . . learning for children from birth to kindergarten entrance age and family development and support” which are delivered in the home.
The Legislature’s Biennial Budget document states if Amendment 5 passes, the end result is a “decrease the amount of state apportionment distributed to school districts” by an estimated $1.8 million per year. This reduction “decreases local school district resources” which will result in a need to increase state aid. Translation: Taxpayers will be required to dig deeper and tax levy will need to increase.
Any school or ESU operating an Early Childhood Education program is required to comply with Rule 11 (Nebraska Department of Education). Some mandates include:
-- Comprehensive services which include “involvement and support and access to . . . medical, dental, social, and mental health services.”
-- Teachers with valid teacher’s certificates
-- Home visitor with at least a bachelor’s level degree who delivers home-based services in the home
-- Staff that speak the language(s) of the students in the group
-- Staff to child ratios of 1:4 for ages birth to 18 months; 1:6 for ages 18 months-3 years; 1:10 for ages 3 years-kindergarten age
-- Activities respecting diversity of races, national origin, gender and emphasis on culture and ethnicity
In addition to these facts, much research has shown that intellectual gains from pre-kindergarten education disappear at around the second and third grade levels. Other research has found children in such settings are more likely to exhibit behavior problems in primary school.
It is important that we provide a free, public education for children from kindergarten through the high school grades as currently required in our State Constitution. Amendment 5 expands the use of taxpayer dollars to “educate” birth to kindergarten age. I encourage you to vote NO to Constitutional Amendment 5
Kathy Wilmot
Beaver City
For further research:
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/ECH/RFP%20Endowment/Overview.pdf
http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/reports/fiscal/budget/2006budget_0506.pdf
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/ECH/CompMemo0506.pdf#search='nebraska%20department%20of%20education%20early%20childhood%20memo%202006
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Posted
11:25 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
AND BEHAVIOR MOD IN SCHOOLS:
"IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO DESTROY A CHILD"
Whoa. If you know anyone with a child, send this link, along with a brochure on homeschooling or private education:
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom64.htm
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Posted
11:19 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTING TO FORCE
PRIVATE SCHOOLS TO TEACH DARWINISM AS FACT
Thanks to the valiant Bruce Shortt, the Paul Revere of the "get the kids out of the government schools, and fast" movement, for this item:
It seems that, in Canada, every child needs to have an "adequate" education, and since Canadian science standards call for Darwinian evolution to be taught as fact -- just as American standards do for the most part, including Nebraska's -- then private, mostly Christian schools that dare to teach intelligent design and creation science as well as teaching the many flaws, hoaxes and mysteries of evolution aren't judged to be meeting the "adequacy" standard and are now facing regulatory extinction.
And you say it can't happen here? Wanna bet?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c5715990-a9eb-45f2-9c66-26d3ea3c56fa&k=4546
Posted
4:56 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
FOR ED-RELATED RACES AND ISSUES
(note: district maps available for this story on www.GoBigEd.com)
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
District 5: Alan Jacobsen
District 6: Marilyn Carpenter
District 7: Paula Pfister
District 8: Dick Galusha
SELECTED BOARD SEATS, EDUCATIONAL SERVICE UNITS (map on http://www.nebraska.gov/education/esu_map.phtml):
#1: Wesley Wilmot
#6: Bev Bennett, Darrel Eberspacher
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA BOARD OF REGENTS:
District 4: Jim Nagengast
District 5: Dr. Robert J. Prokop
District 8: Dr. Randy Ferlic
SELECTED STATE LEGISLATURE SEATS:
DISTRICT 2: Jerry O. Bond
DISTRICT 4: Pete Pirsch
DISTRICT 6: John E. Nelson
DISTRICT 10: Mike Friend
DISTRICT 14: Tim Gay
DISTRICT 16: Jeff Bush
DISTRICT 18: Mick Mines
DISTRICT 28: Bob Swanson
DISTRICT 30: Tony Ojeda
DISTRICT 34: Greg Senkbile
DISTRICT 36: John Wightman
DISTRICT 40: Cap Dierks
DISTRICT 44: Mark Christensen
------------------------
NEXT WEEK: SELECTED SCHOOL BOARD RACES, BOND ISSUES AND BALLOT ISSUES
(0) comments
Monday, October 23, 2006
Posted
12:14 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
IN 'SMART STATES' RANKING
All the criticizing of Nebraska education that I do in this blog needs to be put in perspective. Yeah, we aren't the greatest. But heck, we aren't the worst. In this publisher's annual ranking, we come out 11th in a compilation of rankings on various stats that have something to do with education, and the quality and cost-effectiveness with which it is delivered. With some work, we could be Numero Uno. But for now, this ain't bad:
http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank06.htm
(0) comments
Friday, October 20, 2006
Posted
1:08 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
OF CLASS I SCHOOLS WIPEOUT
Another voice endorsing the repeal of LB 126, on the Nov. 7 ballot as Referendum 422:
http://www.kearneyhub.com/site/news.asp?brd=268&pag=460&dept_id=577573
(0) comments
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Posted
11:53 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
IN NATIONAL WRITING ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS
Gulp. Nebraska produced just five of the 606 students honored in the annual National Council of Teachers of English Achievement Awards. One student each from Creighton Prep, Elkhorn, Lincoln Southeast, Lincoln Southwest and Lincoln High were honored. See: http://www.ncte.org/about/awards/student/aa/125387.htm
Garbage in, garbage out: our reading curriculum is so crummy that it is not a surprise that our writing production would be so . . . well . . . so-so.
This is another clue that the statewide writing assessment is not telling Nebraska parents and taxpayers the truth about how well our students write. That assessment is highly touted by educrats and superintendents because its inflated, subjective scoring system masks the truth about our weaknesses and makes almost every Nebraska student look like Ernest and Ernestine Hemingway. It's so bogus it's not worth the paper it's . . . well . . . printed on.
Posted
11:40 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
TO LEARN MORE ABOUT LEARNING DISABILITIES
The 31st annual state convention of the Nebraska Learning Disabilities Association is set for Oct. 28 in southwest Omaha at ESU #3, 6949 S. 110th St. Speaker is Nancy Mather, Ph.D., a nationally renowed LD expert. For more on this important event, see www.ldanebraska.org
Also this week, Nebraskans were offered a chance to learn more about "dual diagnosis" students -- those who are both gifted and learning disabled -- at a speech and Q&A session led by Marlo Rice, a school psychologist and education consultant. It's uncanny how similar the traits of giftedness are to the traits of what educators label "learning disabilities." The event was held at the Westside Community Conference Center.
Posted
9:37 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
2006 MILKEN EDUCATOR GETS $25,000
Fourth-grade teacher Angie Deck, 29, of the Elkhorn Public Schools is one of 90 teachers nationwide to receive a $25,000 award as a 2006 Milken Family Foundation National Educator.
The award is based on educational talent, accomplishments, leadership potential and inspiring presence.
She's a Millard North and UNL graduate and has taught at Spring Ridge Elementary School for seven years.
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Posted
12:52 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
READING HUBBUB IN MCCOOK;
THE BOONDOCKS STRIKE BACK
Kudos to longtime Nebraska education activist Vaughn Anderson for this disturbing comparison of how Nebraska pupils look “on paper” in the internal assessments prepared by Nebraska educators to measure their own performance, vs. how Nebraska kids look on the nationally standardized test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
It puts one’s teeth on edge. Nebraska pupils look just ducky on our own tests, the STARS, with most score averages in the 80th percentile . . . but they look positively putrid on the national test, the NAEP, with most averages down in the 30th percentile, the rumdum department.
According to the Nebraska tests, the vast majority of Nebraska pupils are doing just fine. According to the national one, more than two-thirds of them are reading or doing math at or below grade level, with relatively small numbers actually working at a level that the feds would term “proficient.”
This is true all around the country, where educators have been given the ability to create their own evaluation tools. There’s a huge gap, in most states, between test scores on home-grown assessments vs. the more objective ones with a larger, more diverse base of comparison. Educators typically defend their honor by saying that the NAEP doesn’t align with the curriculum they’re teaching as well as their own tests do, but the rest of us say duhhhh. Maybe that’s the POINT.
I mean, I can buy it that a national test might be more into politics and other nonacademics than a Nebraska-designed test, but I doubt it’s all that much, and anyway, how much “spin” can there be on a math test?
Sure looks like the local ed yokels have cooked the books to make themselves look good and deceive parents on how their kids are REALLY doing, compared to similarly situated kids nationwide.
From what I’ve seen, Nebraska has one of the widest “testing credibility gaps” in the country.
Ew! Ew! Ewwwwww!
See Anderson’s stats:
-------------------
Does STARS give us reliable
data on school achievement?
Math
Proficient or Advanced
(2005 NAEP)
Grade 4: 36%
Grade 8: 35%
Meeting or Exceeding State Standards
(2004-2005 STARS)
Grade 4: 87%
Grade 8: 81%
Reading
Proficient or Advanced
(2005 NAEP)
Grade 4: 33%
Grade 8: 35%
Meeting or Exceeding State Standards
(2004-2005 STARS)
Grade 4: 84%
Grade 8: 85%
NAEP
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as "the Nation's Report Card," is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subject areas. Under the current structure, the Commissioner of Education Statistics, who heads the National Center for Education Statistics in the U.S. Department of Education, is responsible by law for carrying out the NAEP project.
Reading Hubbub in McCook:
Clapping and Comprehension
Parents were up in arms at a McCook School Board meeting last week over a change to “Reading Mastery.” That’s a reading curriculum that has been controversial everywhere it has been implemented. It has been demonstrated to be effective for low-income children and non-English speaking immigrants who have trouble with language learning in the first place.
The question is, how much can it help middle-income kids from good homes in the heart of Nebraska? Why is it a better choice than good, old-fashioned phonics-only instruction? That’s what the McCook parents wanted to know.
Teachers reportedly weren’t saying much, but 50 to 60 citizens piled in to the school board meeting, a few overwrought, to challenge the efficacy of the system. It’s based on the principle of direct instruction by the teacher, which is good, but it uses methods such as hand-clapping and choral sayings by the children which some parents believed to be “dumbing down.”
Read more about it on: http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1172085.html
The Boondocks Strike Back:
Senator, Class I Leader Rebut Raikes, Witek
When Ron Raikes, the Ashland state senator who is chairman of the Legislature’s Education Committee, said that forcing the Class I elementary-only grade schools in rural Nebraska to consolidate with in-town K-12 districts would save $12 million, the other senators listened up, and approved LB 126.
When State Auditor Kate Witek correctly reported that some of the Class I schools had budgets but didn’t have any pupils enrolled, they felt justified.
Now many of them are sorry – because the measure has actually COST Nebraska millions, both officially in increasing staff, curriculum and space needs in the K-12’s, and unofficially in increased transportation costs for families. Meanwhile, the Class I schools came out with higher test scores on average than the bigger K-12 world in Nebraska. And the “ghost schools” turned out to be legitimate, operating on an administrative basis as required to maintain the school’s skeleton in case a family with children moved into the district.
The realities of what bad public policy it really was, educationally and financially, to try to wipe out the Class I country schools is a key reason why senators such as Abbie Cornett of Bellevue are speaking out for the repeal of LB 126, which is on the Nov. 7 ballot as Referendum 422.
Also over the weekend, Class I’s United leader Mike Nolles of Bassett had an op-ed in the Lincoln Journal-Star which rebutted claims by Raikes and State Auditor Kate Witek that overspending was rampant in the Class I schools because they are generally “under the radar” politically. Nolles made three points in rebuttal:
-- Carrie Hansen, a half-day kindergarten teacher and full-time administrator for the small Stull School near Plattsmouth was criticized by Raikes, among others, for making a salary of $101,050. But Nolles pointed out that she has 51 years of teaching experience, and under Nebraska law – which Raikes as a state senator is responsible for -- a teacher’s salary is based on years of experience.
-- Glen Public School in rural Sioux County was criticized for attempting to spend $14,233 on a trip to Hawaii. But it wasn’t local tax dollars being spent; it was a federal grant. Nolles said the Glen school had three students and knew it would be their last year open. For two years, this school had produced finalists in the prestigious National History Day contest, competing in Washington, D.C., and being featured in a National Public Radio series about the excellent educational opportunities in small schools. “The Glen school thought an exchange program with a Hawaii school would be a good idea, as it would incorporate other historical visits,” Nolles wrote. The trip was going to be paid for with REAP funds — Rural Education Assurance Program, awarded and administered by the U.S. Department of Education. Under the program, a school is awarded money; if the money isn’t spent, it goes to another rural school.
-- Also criticized was a limousine trip to a Hastings museum by South Akron School in rural Boone County that cost $1,349. Once again, Nolles said, the trip was paid for with REAP funds. He said the school’s insurance provider would not allow parents to transport students, but when the school board checked with the local bus company, it found that for 14 individuals a limousine was the only way to transport the students on their field trip to the Hastings museum in one vehicle. The alternative was to rent two vans, which would have cost considerably more than the limousine rental, Nolles said.
(0) comments
Monday, October 16, 2006
Posted
4:30 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
HOST EDUCATION SUMMIT
IN KEARNEY LAST FRIDAY
Thanks to Angie Palmer, a Class I's United supporter, for this account of the meeting:
Supporters for the Repeal of Referendum 422 gathered October 13 for an education summit to launch the start of their campaign. Over 200 supporters gathered in Kearney to listen to Governor Heineman, Sen. Adrian Smith, Sen. Mike Foley, Sen. Abbie Cornett, Pete Ricketss, Former Attorney General Don Stenberg, as well as Class One attorney, John Recknor share their support for a repeal of Referendum 422.
Sen. Adrian Smith, a class one graduate and leading senator against LB 126, told the group that there needs to be local flexibility to allow Class One schools. Class One school offer rural students opportunities that they would not otherwise have.
Smith explained that in an attempt to close these schools arguments were made that Class One schools did not offer quality. However, once that was proven to be completely untrue, the argument changed to "Class One schools have too much quality; and it isn't fair."
He said, "When you take away quality so everyone can be equal, I won't tell you what that is; but it isn't capitalism."
By eliminating Class One schools the state is getting rid of the ability to reward excellence. Nebraska will lose excellence if it isn't rewarded.
Smith said that we need to repeal referendum 422 so flexibility will be allowed. Once the bill has been repealed the Legislature should step up to allow the schools to be reestablished.
The only thing that 126 did was to eliminate local school boards. Generally, Class One board members are parents. So basically all his bill did was to eliminate parental involvement in local school decisions.
"Just allow us to have local control over our decisions," Smith said.
Sen. Abbie Cornett, a state senator from Bellevue, spoke of the two most difficult decisions that she has made as a state senator. She said that the most difficult decision was about LB 126. She based her decision on the things that she heard at the time. She was told in 2005 that Class One schools cost too much, that Nebraska was ranked as a state with one of the most school districts, but ranked one of the lowest for student population, and eliminating Class One schools would reduce taxes.
"Now, I come to find out that it is NOT saving money!" Cornett said.
A year later LB 1024 was introduced. Cornett said that this bill is the absolute opposite of 126. The arguments that Class One supporters used were the same one that Raikes and Chambers used to get 1024 passed. Chambers said that breaking up districts would give more local control and better achievement. "The arguments were the same!" she said.
LB 1024 will not save money either. It will cost $26 million for bussing which will be paid for with state aid. Everyone in the state will be paying for this. Levies are going to be greatly increased.
"Where is the savings?" Cornett asked.
Cornett said, "We have forgotten what this is about. It is about how to best educate our children. We need choice. Everyone should have the right to choose what's best for our kids."
Former Attorney General Don Stenberg's inspirational speech brought a standing ovation.
"This fight is not over. This is a fight that we must win. This is a fight that we can win. This is a fight that we WILL win!" Stenberg said.
He outlined the strategy by saying that first we must win the referendum and secondly win the federal court lawsuit.
A brief history of the events leading up to the present was given. Stenberg said that supporters gathered enough signatures to grant a referendum vote in November. The District Court granted an injunction to stop implementation until after that vote. Despite the court decision, the Reorganization Committee met and dissolved the Class One schools denying Nebraska residents the right to vote and violating our due process.
"LB 126 is bad legislation and dissolving the schools before the vote is bad public policy." Stenberg said.
John Recknor, Class One attorney, said that LB 126 not only hurts Class One schools, its also bad for ESU's, and K-12 schools. He said that the problem is a heavy reliance on property taxes. There is a presumption of wealth if you own land. Consolidating schools doesn't save money because the land base stays the same. LB 126 does not save money, but rather it is costing $30 million because of the increase in teacher salaries and benefits and increase transportation costs.
When asked when the schools would be reestablished after a successful referendum, Recknor said that he would expect them to be reestablished immediately. He said that the Supreme Court said in the Pony Lake case that the referendum vote is not advisory because if repealed "the act is abrogated." According to Black's Law Dictionary abrogated means to repeal back to the beginning, like it never existed.
Sen. Mike Foley, a candidate for State Auditor, spoke of the two issues that interest him the most, the right to life and fiscal responsibility. He said that fiscal responsibility doesn't mean closing schools. Waste in state agencies is where the real problem is and that is what he would like to stop as the State Auditor.
Foley told the crowd, "Don't quit, stay with it! You will eventually win."
Pete Ricketts, U.S. Senatorial candidate, told those in attendance to stay involved. "Bad things can happen if you don't get involved."
Ricketts compared LB 126 with the federal law No Child Left Behind. It's a cookie cutter answer for the whole nation, and it doesn't work. LB 126 is the same story. We need to take the responsibility of maintaining educational quality away from the government and give it to the local people.
Governor Dave Heineman said many K-12 schools have told him that Class I students are their best and brightest students. Why change it? LB is not saving money.
Heineman says that he believes in quality, school choice and voluntary, not mandatory consolidation.
He told the group that this referendum vote is crucial, but it will need to be a grassroots effort. Everyone needs to get involved and work hard to get this law repealed.
"If the repeal succeeds, this will mean that the voters want Class Is to be reconstituted. When the voters have spoken no voice should be heard louder. A vote to repeal means that schools have the right to come back." the Governor said.
Posted
1:05 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
ON CLASS I SCHOOLS ISSUE
U.S. District Judge Lyle Strom decided today to wait to rule on a key case involving Nebraska's Class I elementary-only country schools until after the Nov. 7 election, when voters will decide whether to keep the Legislature's forced consolidation law in effect or repeal it.
The judge's ruling would be moot if voters decide to stay with Legislative Bill 126, the consolidation law. It's most likely they'll repeal, though, and he can just take up the matter then.
Still, this sensible decision probably saved federal taxpayers a pretty penny in needless keystrokes, so good job, Judge.
Posted
11:36 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
NOT WITH THE 'LEARNING COMMUNITY,'
BUT A KINDER, SIMPLER, CHEAPER WAY: SCHOOL CHOICE
The whole reason behind the Legislature's craftsmanship of a mega-large, metro-area "learning community" for public school districts in the Omaha area is to try to beat back the "Robin Hood" lawsuit of the Omaha Public Schools, attempting to show that there aren't "adequate" resources in OPS because OPS residents are poorer than in the 'burbs.
The "learning community" is being sold as a way to end racial segregation in metro-area schools, which is a good goal, as far as it goes. Of course, racial minorities would much, much, MUCH rather have their children reading, writing and figuring on grade level or better than simply sitting next to a white kid.
So here's a way to have it all, that would be far cheaper, far better, and far less destructive of OPS' neighboring public-school districts:
School choice. When parents can choose their child's school, segregation begins to ebb away. In two cities with voucher programs, the private schools are now 20% LESS segregated than the public schools. Read it for yourself, and imagine how much better Omaha's reputation would be if we did this, instead of creating a "white" district, a "black" district and a "brown" district under Sen. Ernie Chambers' plan:
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/news/2006-08-31.html
(0) comments
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Posted
9:59 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
MUSTERING SUPPORT FOR REPEAL OF LB 126
http://www.kolnkgin.com/home/headlines/4397967.html
(0) comments
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Posted
10:31 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
POOR KIDS NEED GOOD SCHOOLS, NOT GOOD DAY CARE
An education guru on my www.education-consumers.com listserv shared new stats from last school year for his state, Vermont, which he says prove that the real problem with K-12 education isn't a better start -- but a better middle and finish.
Since 85% of the state's second-graders meet or exceed the state's learning standards for that age group -- more than twice as many as in the higher grades -- that shows that parents are already doing a good job sending their children to school ready to learn. The problems, and the needs, are much later than preschool and early primary grades.
If you look at the test scores and dropout rates for disadvantaged vs. advantaged kids, he says, it's clear that paying for more early-childhood education services wouldn't make much of a difference and would be, in his words, "an academic waste of time."
On the other hand, he pointed out, shaping up the middle-school and high-school curriculum and instruction has a lot of potential, without adding any cost, because that's where the need really is. That doesn't mean lower class sizes -- Vermont already has the lowest class size in the nation, with close to the top in per-pupil spending -- and yet it has a dropout rate of 25%, one of the highest in the nation.
The findings inform Nebraska voters who must decide whether to start treating -- and funding -- early-childhood education from birth through age 5 the same way we now treat and fund K-12.
In Vermont:
-- approximately 40% of K-12 students fail to meet minimum state standards;
-- 2nd graders continue to perform best of all students with 85% meeting minimum standards;
-- student success rates continue to decline consistently from 4th grade to 8th grade to 10th grade assessments;
-- student enrollments continue a 10-year decline (15% statewide, 45% in his district);
-- student/teacher ratios have decreased from about 16:1 to 10:1 over the 10-year period;
-- per-student costs have nearly doubled during the period, from about $6,800 to nearly $12,000 per student.
(0) comments
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Posted
2:10 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
UNDER THE PILLOW OF STATE SENATORS,
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS, SUPES AND JUDGES
You know those "equity" and "adequacy" school lawsuits that clog the courts and force taxpayers to throw more and more money down a rathole so that schools can keep doing more and more expensive things that don't work for poor kids and recent immigrants?
We've got that going on in Nebraska, too. The boneheaded principle behind it -- that more money is the answer for struggling students -- is what's fueling the craze toward the "Learning Community" for metro Omaha, and fistfights over what should happen to OPS, the Overly Politicized Spendathon a.k.a. the Omaha Public Schools.
Well, how come our policymakers don't know that more money is NOT the answer? Maybe because they need this book by my hero, ed finance guru Eric Hanushek. How I wish Nebraska's ed leaders would read this. Then they'd realize that the answer is classic curriculum, traditional instructional techniques, better time management, less kowtowing to silly union regs, less interference by pointy-headed educrats, and all kinds of simple things like that . . . NOT just throwing money at the persistent income-based racial achievement gap that stains Nebraska education:
http://www.ednews.org/articles/2579/1/Courting-Failure-How-School-Finance-Lawsuits-Exploit-Judges-Good-Intentions-and-Harm-our-Children/Page1.html
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Posted
1:11 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
INITIATIVE 422 AND THE CLASS I DEBATE --
POINT VS. COUNTERPOINT
The Nebraska Legislature’s Legislative Bill 126 basically is forcing Nebraska’s remaining Class I rural elementary-only schools to consolidate with larger K-12 districts in towns and cities against the will of the parents and teachers in small communities.
A petition drive by Class I supporters got the issue on the Nov. 7 ballot for voters to consider overruling the Legislature, and letting the Class I school boards resume operations.
The measure is Initiative 422.
Should it happen? Should the Class I country schools be revived?
Here are some pro’s and con’s:
Do Class I grade schools do as good a job academically as larger K-12 districts, as measured by standardized tests?
Yes. For the most part, Class I schools do even better than K-12 districts in cities and towns.
According to www.nebraskansforlocalschools.org, in 2004-05, the average standardized test score in reading for Grades 3-5 in the Class I schools was 72.22%, significantly higher than the state average of 65.32%.
The reading quality differential becomes larger in Grades 7-8, when the Class I pupils posted an average score of 74.16% vs. the state average of 61.96%.
For math, the small schools posted Grades 3-5 average scores of 74.95% vs. 69.14%, while the Grades 7-8 Class I pupils outstripped the state math average by 78.87% to 64.69%.
How does per-pupil spending compare in Class I schools vs. larger districts?
It’s virtually the same. According to State Education Department figures, the average per-pupil cost of Class I districts was $8,028, vs. $8,013 per pupil statewide.
While there are several Class I districts with eye-popping costs per pupil – upwards of $20,000 per pupil in Tri-View Public School in Adams County, for example – the reason is that there may be just one or two severely handicapped children in special education in a tiny student population. The spending average increases exponentially because of the incredibly high cost of special ed in some cases, but the actual cost per pupil of regular-education students in that school may actually be lower than the state average.
Of course there are a few schools in which spending exceeds the state average, but that’s true in all sizes of districts.
The main consideration is the statewide average, which is virtually equal between Class I schools and all others. That’s important, given the fact that Class I schools don’t have the economies of scales that other districts do. It reflects an excellent record of cost-efficiency on the part of Class I school boards and educators.
But weren’t the Class I schools consolidated into larger districts to save money?
That was the story. But it hasn’t happened. Ironically, the claim on the legislative floor was that LB 126 would save the state $12 million a year by closing the Class I schools. But according to the state’s own figures, LB 126 is costing Nebraska about $3 million a year, largely for added personnel and operations expenses resulting from the added enrollment.
Districts such as the North Platte Public Schools have complained about increased costs, and that isn’t even counting the additional gas costs for individual families all across the state that now have to transport their children many more miles per day to and from school, against their will.
Why should Class I schools get any state aid to education, sharing in state sales and income tax? Aren’t they all extremely rich from property taxes collected on farms, while they have relatively small student populations to educate?
According to state figures, the average amount in state aid received by Class I schools per pupil was $1,908 in the 2004-05 school year. That compares to $2,698 per pupil in the Omaha Public Schools and $2,183 in the Millard Public Schools, two much bigger districts with huge property valuations all told.
State aid to education was intended to provide consistent funding for the state’s public schools and a means to assuage the impact of rising property valuations and falling farm incomes. It hasn’t worked out that way; political realities have resulted in more state aid going to districts with lots of low-income and non-English speaking pupils, leaving rural Nebraska property owners choking on higher and higher school taxes.
Actually, there are Class I schools that received insultingly low amounts of state aid in recent years: Strang Public School in Fillmore County received $218 for each of its five pupils, for example, while Ashby Public School pupils in Grant County received $104 apiece and Pleasant View in Keya Paha County received a dollar apiece.
Considering the tiny amount of state revenue that’s assisting in the education of the children in those schools, it must stick in the local residents’ craws to see their schools being demolished by State Department of Education, State Board of Education and State Legislature policies, even though their schools are doing a better job for less cost than in the big cities.
It’s hard to feel good about that, as a Nebraskan dedicated to a fair shake for each and every child in the state, regardless of their geographical location.
Is it true that there has been “white flight” out of town schools into rural Class I schools to sidestep immigrant children of minority races, in parts of Nebraska with recent increases in non-English speaking students?
No, that appears to be a false claim, though it reportedly was a powerful factor in the decisions of a majority of state senators to approve LB 126 a year and a half ago, and put enormous pressure on the more than 200 remaining Class I schools to consolidate with K-12 districts.
And yes, there have been enormous shifts in the demographics of schools around towns such as Schuyler and Lexington, where there have been large influxes of Hispanic people in recent years.
But the facts don’t show that longtime citizens who are white and English-speaking moved their children to rural Class I schools to “duck” immigrant children.
According to www.nebraskansforlocalschools.org, only 16 of approximately 300 white students in the Lexington area have opted in to nearby Class I rural grade schools, which themselves are 40% minority.
The group also contends that the three Class I’s nearest to Schuyler have gained just 32 new white pupils between them in recent years, far less than a measurable migration.
The Class I schools in those areas actually are more racially integrated than the typical suburban Nebraska school. In fact, of the 13 Nebraska districts in which racial minorities actually form the majority, four are Class I’s, according to Nebraskans for Local Schools.
It appears that enrollment growth in Class I’s around Schuyler resulted from concerns about academic quality in the Schuyler town school, not racial prejudice. Rather than “white flight,” what we may be seeing is “quality flight.”
According to Nebraska Department of Education enrollment statistics compiled by Angie Palmer, a Class I supporter, in the 1985-86 school year in the Schuyler Public Schools, there were 588 white children and 12 Hispanics. By 2000-01, that ratio had changed to 331 whites and 466 Hispanics.
However, in the nearby Class I schools, the populations had changed only slightly: Colfax grew from 20 to 35 white students and from 0 to 2 Hispanics in that timeframe, while Fisher dropped in white student population from 45 to 38, and increased in Hispanics from 0 to 4.
In the same five years, white populations grew more markedly in the K-12 districts close to Schuyler, and even if that is evidence of “white flight,” it’s moot, since LB 126 dealt only with Class I schools and wouldn’t do anything about enrollment flow between K-12’s. Note that Clarkson grew from 160 to 206 white students, and from 0 to 4 Hispanics, while Howells grew from 193 to 222 whites and one to three Hispanics, and Leigh increased from 229 to 282 whites and 0 to 4 Hispanics.
Ms. Palmer’s research turned up significantly higher test scores in all of these other schools, both Class I’s and the neighboring K-12’s, than the Schuyler Public Schools. She suggests that is the reason for the relative loss of enrollment in Schuyler. In the 2004-05 school year, 58.54% of Schuyler pupils in Grades 3-5 were reading below the U.S. average, and 54.88% were doing math below par.
That, Ms. Palmer said, is the real story – and, she contends, there is no evidence of race-related prejudice or bias in enrollment data in that area, contrary to what might have been said in the Unicameral, and in the political arena concerning Initiative 422 today.
Do Class I educators have more freedom with curriculum than educators in larger districts do, and is that good or bad?
Apparently, they do. And most reasonable people would say that alternatives are always helpful, not harmful. If it weren’t for kids in private schools getting traditional math instruction in the 1970s and ‘80s, the entire nation might have shifted to “new math” and we’d all be basically incompetent with numbers. Since the public schools could clearly see that their graduates were not doing as well as the private-school graduates, though, public schools shucked “new math,” at least for a while.
We may need to keep the Class I schools, if for no other reason, then as an alternative to big-district standardized curriculum that may not be very good, even if it is “popular” with educators.
As an example, North Platte Public Schools board member Molly O’Holleran has praised Shurley grammar and writing curricula that she learned about from former Class I teachers who have joined the K-12 district in consolidations. Class I teachers have been known to produce grade-school children able to read at a 12th-grade level, and a number of Class I students have gone on to star in their K-12 high schools and on to college and beyond.
Why is it fair that a Class I teacher may have only six children to teach, yet a teacher in a larger district may have more than 20? Isn’t this a fairness issue for educators as well as for equal opportunity for students?
Why is it “fair” that teachers in Omaha and Lincoln can expose their students to the symphony, museums, science labs, architects, astronomy programs and who knows what all else, when the rural teachers don’t have those facilities anywhere near at hand?
Why is it “fair” that urban teachers have school counselors, school nurses, school librarians and other full-time support staff to lean on, when rural teachers are on their own?
It doesn’t seem “fair” to punish a Class I teacher by taking away her job just because her class size is smaller than an urban teacher’s. It actually may make her work harder, because small classes imply giving each student individualized attention, and that can be tougher and more draining than even the advanced-normal-struggling triage that teachers in large classrooms usually employ.
The Nebraska State Education Association, the teachers’ union, has been a powerful foe of Class I schools, apparently because smaller teacher salaries are more acceptable in tiny country schools than in K-12 town districts, and the union wants to get average salaries higher in the state any way it can.
Aren’t Class I schools for rich farm kids? Hardly any of them are poor enough to get free or subsidized school lunches, for example. If we close their schools, why can’t they just go to private schools, since they can apparently afford it?
The hostility toward rural families and ignorance of their economic situations revealed by this issue is truly disappointing. First, the family incomes of the Class I student population are actually a lot closer to the state average than the statistics imply. This is for the simple reason that statisticians assess the amount of poverty at a given school based on how many pupils qualify for free or reduced-price school lunches. So many Class I schools are so small that they don’t have lunchrooms or offer hot lunches, there’s no sense in applying for the federal aid. So the kids in any given Class I school might actually be poorer than in the town and city districts, but the stats wouldn’t show it.
As for expecting them to switch to private schools, note that any private schools that might be available would also be many miles away, in the same towns where the public schools are located. So it would defeat the purpose of the Class I families that want to retain local schools. And it would not seem to be fair public policy to deny anyone a free public education just because of their geographical location.
Weren’t Class I schools just caught spending all kinds of money on all kids of frivolous things? Weren’t there a bunch of them receiving tax dollars every year without having any kids enrolled? Isn’t it a bad idea, with our school taxes constantly going up, to let Class I schools continue to operate under the radar because they are so isolated?
Questions have been raised by State Auditor Kate Witek (see http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/4295872.html) but nothing illegal was found and nothing more will be done (see http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/4295872.html).
A lot of school spending is a judgment call; would it make headlines, for example, that a District 66 administrator took a trip to Japan recently to tour schools there, or that a Westside High School teacher took a class on a chartered plane for a day field trip to Washington, D.C.? Or should it? How about the cost per square foot of new carpet in schools in Blair, or the cost of the theater curtains at Lincoln North Star?
Perhaps items like these all should get more public review than they do now. Scrutiny of school spending is always in order. But with the more than $2 billion a year of K-12 spending in Nebraska each year, it seems counter-productive and politically motivated to zero in on a few thousand here or there, and ignore the big picture.
The “ghost schools” amounted to an inflammatory charge during the LB 126 debate that 11 of the then-210 Class I schools had budgets, but no pupils; it turns out that the money was being used to liquidate assets for schools in the process of dissolving, or to contract out the educations of district children to other districts. There was no monkey business involved and no charges were filed or money demanded to be repaid. The “ghost schools” were doing the right thing. It would have been irresponsible not to fund those functions, even if it looked “bad” on paper. See http://www.classonesunited.com/SchoolsWithZeroStudents.html
Class I schools are no more or less “under the radar” for how they spend money than any other district in the state. You can see audited financial reports for all Nebraska districts any time you want on the State Education Department’s website, http://ess.nde.state.ne.us and go from there for more information to local districts. Since tax dollars are public funds, school spending decisions are fair game for your review and criticism.
Isn’t it too late for the Class I schools that have already merged in to the town schools? Their teachers are already working at other jobs and everything would have to start over from scratch. Is it realistic to think the Class I’s can be revived?
Here’s what one Class I advocate has to say about that: “Definitely, although it may take our Class I schools awhile to recoup from the damage the larger districts that absorbed them already did in the meantime.
“Our fairly new elementary school, with its quality, caring staff that gives students much individual attention, has been taken over by a larger district. Everyone in the community with young children says our schooling is far superior to that of the larger district, which threatens to eventually completely close our elementary school.
“The first thing the large district did was spend all the money at its secondary school that our small district had accumulated.
“We would start over without the funds we had saved, but we can do it. We want the best for our children, and it's clear we need to re-establish our Class I district to do it.”
-----------
See more on this issue on www.nebraskansforlocalschools.org and www.classonesunited.com
(0) comments