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}
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
Posted
8:11 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
KIDS DON'T LEARN IN ARTIFICIALLY DIVERSE CLASSROOMS
Well, what do you know? A world-class political scientist finally says what we all know -- everybody but the educrats, that is: nobody learns when you group kids too diversely. This fact will never help get the gifted kids into their own classrooms, of course -- but if the educrats grasp that the academically struggling need to be with their peers in order to learn, rather than looking even worse than they are because they're sitting next to a superstar, maybe we can finally get some reality in everything from reading group assignments to the end of forced integration schemes:
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=FT&Date=20061008&ID=6085419
(0) comments
Monday, October 09, 2006
Posted
9:30 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
INNER-CITY L.A. CHARTER HIGH SCHOOLS
CREAM REGULAR PUBLIC SCHOOL COUNTERPARTS
Yoo hoo: how come Nebraska doesn't allow charter schools? Isn't that the solution for Benson, South, Northwest and other high schools with obvious underachievement by minority and low-income students in Omaha? SImilar to the vouchers for low-income kids in failing schools being offered in many other cities, charter schools are a good solution that so far Nebraska educators are totally ignoring, to everybody's detriment, especially low-income students.
Look at the incredibly better test scores coming out of charter high schools in low-income Los Angeles, where teachers are being paid more and expected to do more with tough-to-teach kids . . . and are coming through:
http://www.ednews.org/articles/2101/1/GREEN-DOT-PUBLIC-SCHOOLS-ACHIEVE-UNPRECEDENTED-API-TEST-SCORES/Page1.html
Posted
9:20 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
A TICKET OUT OF OPS?
Here's a good story from the Cincinnati Enquirer about 800 and some kids in failing inner-city schools in Cincinnati who got a free ride to local private schools in order to get up and out of the educational ghetto. This is what we should do about the low-income kids who are really struggling wtihin the Omaha Public Schools, not re-invent a gigantic new bureaucracy with the "learning community" that would disrupt everybody, including those whose schools are OK:
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061008/NEWS0102/610080364/1077/NEWS01
Posted
4:40 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
ADD/ADHD AND OTHER LEARNING DISABILITIES
AT OCT. 17 MEETING IN OMAHA
Jeanne Smay, special education supervisor for the Omaha Public Schools, will share tips for success for students with ADD/ADHD and other learning disabilities at the monthly meeting of the Omaha Learning Disabilities Association. The meeting is planned from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. at First Christian Church, 6630 Dodge St.
The group is for parents and teachers. No child care is available at the meeting. You do not have to be a member to attend. For information, call 348-1567 or see www.hometown.aol.com/omahaLDA
Posted
4:33 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
ALAN JACOBSEN
HOLDS ESU WONKS' FEET TO THE FIRE
Ooh, good job by Lincoln area businessman Alan Jacobsen, an Educational Service Unit #6 board officer who's running for the Nebraska State Board of Education against incumbent Patricia Timm.
The North Platte Telegraph picked up his contention that the statewide Educational Service Unit Administrators' Association should be subject to Nebraska's open meetings law. Jacobsen contended that the group is administering the expenditure of taxpayer dollars through an interlocal agreement of Nebraska's 19 ESU's, but is not posting agendas or allowing the press and the public to attend meetings.
The Nebraska Attorney General's Office is investigating.
Jacobsen's stands on ed issues are excellent. See them on the voters' guide website, www.votyerinformation.org/vg-home.html?main=race_info.html&ride=race_list.html
(0) comments
Friday, October 06, 2006
Posted
9:27 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
MAKE SCHOOLS POST THEIR CHECKBOOKS ONLINE
They're doing it in Texas. It's a good accountability tool. We gave public schools all kinds of technology, for heaven's sake. Let's make them use it in a way that would help everybody:
http://www.peytonwolcott.com/HonorRoll.html
(0) comments
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Posted
12:26 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
EVIDENCE SHOWS AMENDMENT 5,
THE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION MEASURE,
SHOULD BE VOTED DOWN ON NOV. 7
Is Nebraska’s push for a comprehensive early-childhood system based in our public schools a positive step forward, particularly for disadvantaged children?
Or is Big Brother sticking its nose into the sandbox in a counter-productive, expensive, damaging way?
Amendment 5 on the Nov. 7 ballot would be a constitutional change that would divert decision-making power over small children’s day-care and preschool choices to state education officials, and away from parents and private providers such as entrepreneurs, churches and for-profit and nonprofit child-care centers.
Besides expanding the public-school mission down to age 0, it would be a step toward universal preschool, in which “free” preschool would be offered for ages 3 and 4 in every public school. It would set in place a system of intake, assessment and record-keeping over each individual Nebraskan from birth through what’s euphemistically being called “Grade 16,” or the end of post-secondary education or training.
Doesn’t Nebraska state government already spend boatloads of taxpayer money each year on early childhood services for the sandbox set, children not yet of school age? Yes, in everything from Head Start and Early Head Start ($34.6 million), to child-care subsidies for the working poor ($31.7 million), to Medicaid ($7.1 million), according to the State Department of Health and Human Services, www.hhs.state.ne.us/chs/chc/docs/fundingspreadsheet.pdf
Aren’t children who grow up mostly in the care of their own parents or are with an in-home day-care provider who’s usually a friend or relative better off than those who spend a lot of hours each day in structured, out-of-home settings?
On standardized tests, don’t American children beat their age peers in European countries, where government preschool has been enforced for decades, at least until age 10, indicating that our diverse, mostly private-sector early childhood services are superior?
So why do we need to set up state-run day-cares and preschools, with more regulations, standards and assessments, requiring more training and thus higher salaries for staff? Why set ourselves up for enormous, new, ongoing operational expenses, especially when there’s no evidence all this early-childhood infrastructure is going to do anything significant, much less lasting, for our kids?
Well . . . look for the union label. Adding five years to the mission of public schools adds a lot of new jobs and, thus, teachers’ union members.
And look for the influence of rich, left-wing, socialistic, non-government organizations and foundations, for whom the answer to everything is more government control.
And for the support of the Chamber of Commerce, whose leaders only want a better workforce – don’t we all? – but often are blinded by biased, self-serving consultants and “studies” hothoused to twist the facts to make ideas like state-run day-care and preschool look good, instead of what they really are:
Bad. Very bad.
Go Big Ed recommends voting “no” on Amendment 5, and redirecting policymakers and educrats to addressing the obvious needs of K-12 education in this state. Those include the epidemic of reading disability among all demographic groups, the horrendous dropout rates of black and Hispanic boys, the utter lack of state government support for struggling rural schools, the embarrassing absence of school choice, charter schools, tuition tax credits or other innovative policies, the high percentage of college freshmen who require remediation, and many more – instead of getting distracted once again with the “mission creep” that’s destroying academic achievement and opportunity for so many of our children.
Here’s the background that voters need to know:
Amendment 5 would formalize a system of government day-care and preschool run by the state’s public school districts. The goal would be to standardize early-childhood education to help low-income babies, toddlers and preschoolers who are at risk of school underachievement get a better start with early intervention services by trained early childhood educators. Schools have already been in the early childhood education arena for years, with many offering pre-kindergarten programs, but this new shift would increase their mission as defined in the Nebraska constitution to include responsibility for educating children from birth to high-school graduation.
This comprehensive system would be funded with $40 million in state educational funds set aside previously for K-12 learning, plus $20 million in private donations, chiefly from the foundations of the adult children of Warren Buffett of Omaha. The money would be placed in a trust fund expected to produce $3 million a year to run the program, enforce the state’s early childhood standards, and provide continuing education for child-care and preschool workers.
Proponents say the change is necessary because disadvantaged children miss out on a lot of brain development activities that middle- and upper-class children get in their homes, so they need an alternative such as state-run preschool to have the same educational opportunities as their more advantaged peers. Proponents also say the system would produce a “return on investment” of up to $17 per child if a better school start could produce a more productive citizen and save on welfare and criminal justice costs.
However, those claims of the benefits of “free,” government-provided early childhood education are highly controversial, and have been refuted from a number of corners. Opponents of Amendment 5 say the far better public policy would be to insist that schools refocus attention on our existing K-12 system, targeting obvious problems in low-income areas such as rampant reading disability, high absenteeism and minority underrepresentation in upper-level math and science courses. They cite this evidence:
-- Despite billions of dollars, the tiny benefits of the federal preschool program Head Start, the model for a comprehensive, state-run early childhood program, tend to wash out by about third grade. See: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/first_yr_finds/firstyr_finds_exec_summ.html
-- Government day-care and preschool programs are notoriously ineffective, create a de facto monopoly for state-run child-care operations by driving private providers out of business, subject young children to inappropriate learning tasks that could result in learning disabilities, promulgate government-sponsored “outcomes” such as accepting homosexuality that are highly objectionable to many parents of young children, are linked to increasing misdiagnosis of “mental illness” in young children and subsequent unnecessary medicating, and produce many other problems: www.reason.org/ps344_universalpreschool.pdf
-- Nebraska is already spending tens of millions of dollars in state and federal taxes on early childhood programs in everything from Head Start to Medicaid to preschool special education, and opponents of Amendment 5 say a new layer of bureaucracy is not needed. For a look at the programs and dollar amounts, see:
www.hhs.state.ne.us/chs/chc/docs/fundingspreadsheet.pdf
-- Other states are disappointed in their stagnant or dropping test scores despite the infusion of huge amounts of cash into their early childhood systems: http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=265
-- Despite escalating spending in recent years on government day care and preschool, according to the National Center on Education Statistics, the racial gap in math and reading test scores is actually wider today than in the late 1980s.
-- Brain research has been misquoted and twisted to make it sound as though early intervention before kindergarten is imperative to help an at-risk child able to learn. But neuroscience shows us that the brain doesn’t just “lock down” after age 5, as proponents of government preschool suggest. See the “Brain Research” section in http://www.edwatch.org/Quotes_and_References_2006.htm
-- Claims that early childhood education produces a sizeable “return on investment” for every dollar spent have been shown to be hogwash. The cost-benefit analysis behind those claims is self-serving, biased and flawed. It has been traced to one study of 123 retarded youngsters, and has never been replicated on a wide scale. In fact, a California study showed that, far from “saving” taxpayers as many as $12 for every $1 put into government preschool, the proposed program would have cost them 29 cents on the dollar:
http://www.educationnews.org/Commentaries/Preschool_Benefits_Grossly_Exaggerated.htm
-- Finally, contrary to claims that there are massive numbers of disadvantaged children coming to kindergarten not ready to learn, the federal government itself reports that the vast majority of American schoolchildren do exhibit kindergarten readiness, upwards of 90% in most measurements: www.nces.ed.gov/ecls
Posted
9:25 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
NEBRASKA DISTRICTS SPENDING MILLIONS
ON CONVENTIONS, JUNKETS
A Sept. 20 report by www.northplattebulletin.com showed that Nebraska's K-12 school districts are spending millions of dollars each year to pay dues to educator groups, pay a school-board secretary, hire lobbyists, and send school administrators and school-board members to conventions and conferences often on the East or West Coasts.
The North Platte district, for example, spent $60,000; the state's largest district, the Omaha Public Schools, spent $3.7 million.
The figures are from a review of 2004-05 school district audited financial reports on file with the Nebraska Department of Education, produced by Class Ones United, a citizens' group working to preserve Nebraska's elementary-only rural schools with Initiative 422 on the Nov. 7 ballot. The group contends that the small Class I schools are more fiscally responsible than larger districts, and forego lavish expenditures for educators to attend such meetings.
A sampling of other findings:
Lincoln and Millard, nearly $2 million
Scottsbluff, $115,000
Plattsmouth, $98,000
Holdrege, $44,000
Nebraskans can see how much their district spends for various categories, including school board expenditures, by visiting the State Education Department's finance website and typing in your district's name:
http://ess.nde.state.ne.us/ASPX/Search.aspx?id=1
Class Ones United president Mike Nolles of Bassett criticized the spending, saying the larger the district, the more spending there tends to be for optional items such as consultants and conferences.
Nolles said, “Class Ones spend money for teachers and modest buildings, not traveling around the country for free weekend getaways or hiring someone to tell us how to operate. We’re seeing some real excessive spending at larger schools.”
(0) comments
Monday, October 02, 2006
Posted
8:57 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
UNION'S GRIESS ON THE 'STOP OVERSPENDING' INITIATIVE
Footnote to the last item: I had to go to the Nebraska State Education Association's website to read the executive director's column for myself. Sad to say, it's even worse. It badly mischaracterizes Initiative 423, leaving out key differences between Colorado's TABOR spending cap, and the fine-tuned one presented for Nebraska on the Nov. 7 ballot. Example: the sensible "stabilization fund" that will pool surplus revenue to save it for a rainy day, and avoid the monstrous budget cuts that the tax-suckers like the NSEA are erroneously predicting.
Near the end of Griess' rant, after the embarrassing Civil War hyperbole, he gushes about the spending-lid proponents and the result if Initiative 423 passes:
"The goal of these locusts is to impose their will on state after state until they have completely demolished government as we know it.
"There is a time for every generation to rise to the call -- when the very existence of our nation, our state, our values, our culture and our public schools are threatened with extinction."
Geez. Get him a swatter. These "locusts" really bug him. But isn't it revealing to see that a modest cap on school spending threatens the educrats so much that they act like they're going to go extinct, like the, excuse the expression, dodo bird?
It starts on p. 20. Bring a hankie:
www.nsea.org/voice/VoiceOct.06.pdf
Posted
7:59 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
MAKES NATIONAL ED PUB:
BET HE'S . . .GO BIG RED-FACED
Winding up this week's Communique from the distinguished Web publication, the Education Intelligence Agency, www.eiaonline.com:
6) Quote of the Week. "The struggle in which we are engaged is as vital to our future today as was the outcome of the Civil War to our nation in 1860. The goal of these locusts is to impose their will on state after state until they have completely demolished government as we know it. There is a time for every generation to rise to the call – when the very existence of our nation, our state, our values, our culture and our public schools are threatened with extinction." – Nebraska State Education Association Executive Director Jim Griess on Initiative 423. (October 2006 The NSEA Voice)
Editor's Note: The Civil War was a violent armed struggle in which more than 600,000 Americans died, and was fought over questions like slavery vs. freedom.
Initiative 423 is a Nebraska ballot measure that would limit state government spending to previous years' amounts, with allowed increases for inflation and population growth.
Posted
12:11 PM
by Susan Darst Williams
HOMESCHOOLING IS LOOKING BETTER AND BETTER
I used to tell myself that having our children in big public schools was safe because of all the adults around, with lots of security features. Then Columbine and copycat school violence took place, and homeschooling started to look a lot less weird. We compromised and put our youngest in a Christian school, which we're sure is safer as well as better academically and character-wise.
Last week's school shootings in rural Colorado and Wisconsin reminded me of my fears.
Now a gunman has reportedly taken hostages and killed children in an AMISH one-room school in Lancaster, Pa. I'd call that the epitome of a safe, Christian, loving, nurturing environment, where parents are probably much more involved than in these mega-schools. Yet the kiddies aren't even safe THERE.
Yep. Homeschooling really is beginning to look better and better. It's a lot more work . . . but it has obvious rewards.
Posted
11:55 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
OR FACE THE 'WE'RE OUTA HERE' FACTOR
Footnote to the fight over the "Stop Overspending" measure on the Nov. 7 ballot, Initiative 423, that would put a light brake on the spending patterns of the biggest beneficiary of state tax dollars, the public schools:
A study of state tax policies and outmigration shows clearly and convincingly that states with low, simple tax structures are growing in leaps and bounds, and states with high, complicated tax systems are stagnant or shrinking.
Nebraska's population fell by 9.7% between 1995 and 2000, according to the study, ranking it 37th among the states, and in stark contrast to population growth in tax-averse states such as Nevada, Arizona and Georgia.
The "Stop Overspending" measure would at least be a thumb in that dam. Otherwise, we may see more and more of the wealthy and productive Nebraskans high-tailing it out of here, while our happy-tax environment, unchecked, continues to woo the low-income, low-educated, high-needs citizens who may be very nice, but are quite the load.
It would be a major boo-boo to turn our backs on this opportunity to at least get some semblance of self-control onto our educrats with this common-sense initiative, especially when we know, by data such as this, that we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot and stomping on ourselves to keep goin' the way we're goin':
www.goldwaterinstitute.org/pdf/materials/444.pdf
Posted
9:10 AM
by Susan Darst Williams
AT A RATE FIVE TIMES AS FAST AS OUR STATE'S ECONOMY?
It's perplexing to see people who should know better trashing Initiative 423, the "Stop Overspending" measure, which will be on the Nov. 7 ballot. It wouldn't require cuts in education spending, and might not even require cuts in INCREASES in education spending. Everything would be more grounded in reality, because education spending would at last be tied to the real world as measured by inflation and the actual cost of living. It would end the "carte blanche" that has resulted in so many useless and counter-productive spending programs in our schools.
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis recently showed that Nebraska’s gross state product – a measure of the value of goods and services produced – grew by only 0.9% in 2004. That was the lowest among all 50 states and well below the national average of 4.2 percent growth.
A lot of that is because of the ongoing drought. But I can't think of a single school system that increased its budget by less than 1%. Can you? Most of them are increasing in the range of 5% to 7% per year, no matter what. That isn't exactly a drought. That's a waterfall!
We need to think about data like that federal stat and vote for that Initiative, and not get swept up by irrational, emotional pleadings by the tax-happy big-government types and their cheerleaders to keep the tax spigot wide open.
(0) comments