Showing posts with label Education Financial Transparency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education Financial Transparency. Show all posts

Monday, April 11, 2022

Live Within Your Means



The following letter to the editor appeared in the Union Leader on March 21st. 

‘Live within your means’ is message that Croydon sent

To the Editor: Ransom or budget? This was the question posed at the annual Croydon school board meeting. Would we pay the $1.7-plus million demanded by the school district, or would we give the district a budget and instruct them to work with it?

On March 12th, Croydon voters presented a true “live within your means” budget to the school. The 2022 Croydon School budget allocates $10,000 per student, or $800,000 total. Adjusted for inflation, this number exceeds per-pupil spending across the state for most of our history.

Meeting this budget may be challenging, but it represents an incredible opportunity.

Cutting waste on this scale cannot be accomplished through minor changes. Our district can and must reinvent itself to deliver quality education at a sensible cost. Today, countless private and charter schools are meeting this cost target. Not long ago, public schools did the same.

To longtime Croydon residents, shrieks of “impossible”, “can’t be done” and “people don’t want it” are nothing more than unimaginative déjà vu. We started down the path of school choice back in 2006 to this defeatist chorus, sung by many of the same actors.

Today, Croydon school choice is a reality. It is used by many residents, some of whom actively opposed this same choice program only a few years earlier. Croydon forever changed education for the better. We can do it again today.

JIM PESCHKE

Croydon



Monday, April 27, 2009

Another Education Myth Bites the Dust.

The following is in response to the Editorial in the Union Leader.

Cathy Peschke

So much for the phony, union created "teacher shortage" myth.

In any other field of human endeavor, such a steep labor surplus would drive wages down where they belong. In government monopoly education, we just retain poor teachers making far more than the competent teachers ready and willing to take their place.

Is it any wonder our property taxes are so high (No, its not because we don't have an income tax!)?
Jim Peschke

1,200 applied for 40 high school jobs in Windham
By DERRICK PERKINS
Union Leader Correspondent


WINDHAM – School officials say they have found an upside to the economic turmoil of recent months, tapping into a large pool of experienced and enthusiastic prospective teachers for the new high school.

According to Superintendent Frank Bass, the district received over 1,200 applications for about 40 open professional positions within the new high school, some from neighboring schools and others from as far away as Africa. While Bass said it is not unusual to see a high level of interest in positions within a new school, the nation's economic woes have been to the benefit of the district.



"It's been to our advantage ... there's no doubt in my mind," Bass said. "We had them come in from a lot of places. Usually these people were fearful of how their positions were going to be maintained in their current schools."

As Windham opens up classroom positions to educators across the country, other districts are downsizing. In Salem, school officials declined to renew a total of 13 teacher contracts and Nashua may cut more than 10 teaching positions as officials hammer out the budget. Five teaching positions have also been cut in nearby Merrimack.

Just as the poor economy and municipal budget cuts have increased the pool of potential educators, Bass said the advantages his district's new facility offers teachers also plays a role. Classrooms will be equipped with SMART Boards and each student will be issued a school laptop to use both in class and at home as part of the district's one-to-one computing program. The high school will also have a partnership with Boston College and Plymouth State University, Bass said.

According to Principal Richard Manley, the technologically friendly environment at Windham High School has become one of the larger attractions for prospective staff.

"Almost every teacher has cited the idea of the advantages of technology as a draw to the Windham High School. They relate stories of the difficulties they have in their own schools (where) their equipment is older and not working or they're scheduling the available equipment among other teachers and students," Manley said. "We are attracting a pool of candidates that are more technologically savvy than we would otherwise have."

Manley also believes an interdisciplinary approach to teaching the school intends to adopt for next year's first class of freshmen and sophomore students has attracted educators. Students at the high school will take a humanities class -- a blending of social studies and English courses -- taught by teachers trained in both fields.

While Manley and Bass have finished with the first round of hirings, Manley said he expects to hire more educators as the high school population expands in subsequent years.

For the time being, Bass is pleased with the crop of teachers that will take center stage when the building opens its doors for the first time at the start of the new school year.

"We're really thrilled," he said. "We've got a wonderful cross-section; we've hired some kids and some seasoned veterans."



Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Rejection of More Education Tax Dollars is not a Rejection of Education.

The following LTE appeared in the Eagle Times. Another thoughtful taxpayer points out that a rejection in the increase of education spending does not mean that the taxpayer does not cherish education. The writer appears to be familiar with the educrat game "we will cut so it hurts the students, we will not cut the waste." This is a spiteful game that is played by educrats when taxpayers reject a tax increase.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

Monday, April 06, 2009 10:56 AM

To the Editor:
It is amazing what comes out of our educational system when the system is faced with a reduced budget. Political blackmail. The recent article in the Eagle Times on the Springfield school board and administration cutting 60 teacher and staff positions is just such an example of, "If you don't give us what we want, we'll show you."
School improvements were sold to us as a means for enhancing the Springfield students' education.



The education still seems to be lacking, according to test score results from state standards. How is it that money spending is being equated to good education rather [than] quality teaching and educating? Maybe it is the items we have been reading in the paper? It is only costing the taxpayers of Springfield "X dollars" Someone, somewhere still has to pay the bill.
How many programs in our educational system could be cut, consolidated, taught every other year, or need to really be looked at as a benefit to our town, state and national needs?
It comes down to a simple question: Do I want or do I need? Do we need to pay $5,000 for someone to come up with a mission statement for our school? Do we need to spend $50,000 on 50 laptop computers, when laptops can be bought for under $500 and taking the funds from capital improvements? What is justifiable expense?

If I, as many other Springfield property taxpayers, sound like we are not supporting our students' education, it is far from it. We want good, sound and responsible spending of our tax dollars for the education our students should be receiving.
When your money is limited you don't eat caviar or pad your grocery bill with cheese doodles. We have been eating crow far too long from an overstuffed administration of education. With many of the latest statements in the papers it is a self-serving attempt to hold the taxpayer hostage if we do not succumb to their demands. The figures we have received just do not add up. We do not have an itemized budget of school expenditures to make sound choices. Can I support the current proposed school budget, no, and neither should you.
C. William Mattoon
Springfield



Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Note about Cathy's Commentary





My husband Jim is now on the Croydon School Board that does not mean I will now remain quiet about the failures of our public education system and the spending problem within our public school systems including Croydon.
As Jim often states a great man once said, "Trust but verify."

Although married we each are responsible for our own words and statements, at times we may disagree with each other. Our actions are independent of each other and should not be used to assess the character of the other.

Cathy Peschke
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.

I spotted the above picture on the Northern Sun website.


Tuesday, March 24, 2009

School Board Meeting Tonight


There is a school board meeting tonight at the Croydon School House. The board meeting will be at 6:00 p.m. Tonight the board will cut $67,500 from the budget. This amount was agreed upon by the majority of voters at the March 14th town hall meeting.

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.



Saturday, March 14, 2009

Cathy's Town Hall Meeting Speech

Below is the speech I intended to give at today's town meeting. I gave parts of the speech throughout the meeting.


Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Cathy Peschke I live at 239 Barton Road. I am the mother of two young children. I am asking that we reject the proposed school board budget and accept Jim Peschke's reduced budget proposal.

I want to remind the people of Croydon that our schools exist to serve the people of Croydon. The taxpayers of Croydon are not here to serve the Croydon or Newport School employees. The purpose of schools is not to ensure employment of our residents but to educate our children. Our schools are not an entitlement program for the school employees. Too many of the school employees have taken advantage of the taxpayers for far too long and have failed to adequately educate too many of our children for too long. The education system here in Croydon has become a far cry from what happened in our school house 100 years ago. It is time we return to those principles once again.



Every taxpayer dollar you spend I want to remind you that it is food off of someone's plate, it is someone's fuel, health care or retirement funds. Every tax dollar from our home is a dollar that is removed from my children's college accounts.

I am asking the school board to ask themselves with every dollar they spend "Am I wasting someone's hard earned money, will this money truly benefit the children of Croydon or is it just fulfilling a plea of a special interest group?

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds” Sam Adams

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for our readers.



Monday, February 23, 2009

Flunked the Movie



I have added two new links to our Links of Interest section of our BLOG. The first link is to a movie called "flunked" the second link is to the "flunked" BLOG.

Hat Tip School Choice Illinois.org

Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for our readers.


Friday, January 23, 2009

CNHT Report - Superintendent apologizes for e-mail sent to parents

When I saw this story on CNHT I had to nab it. Unfortunately this is not an uncommon occurrence; with so much access to parents(voters)via backpacks and the schools computer database teachers and educrats often use this to get communities to pass warrants and tax warrants from which they directly benefit. Parents should be calling educrats out on this unethical behavior.

Cathy

Superintendent apologizes for e-mail sent to parents

By CNHT | January 21, 2009

January 21, 2009
Goffstown News

A Goffstown School District e-mail notice about a meeting backfired when some residents accused the administration of political campaigning on behalf of the School Board.



Superintendent of Schools Stacy Buckley recently apologized for the e-mail, which she sent to parents asking them to show up to a Budget Committee hearing and support the proposed school budget.

The e-mail was sent out Jan. 9, in advance of a hearing on Jan. 13. In the e-mail, Buckley notified parents of the date and location, then asked them to back the School Board’s budget.

“I would encourage all Goffstown residents to attend this hearing to provide support for the School Board’s recommended budget,” Buckley wrote.

At the time, the Budget Committee was recommending a $561,379 cut to the school budget. The e-mail was sent out to a list used to notify parents of school closings, their children’s grades and to make other routine announcements.

More than 80 percent of parents in Goffstown are on the e-mail list, according to School Board Chairman Keith Allard.

At least one parent and one Budget Committee member, Bill Gordon, have protested the email as a misuse of school district resources for political purposes.

“It wouldn’t be so bad if they said just this, ‘There’s a meeting. You may want to attend. This is what it’s about,’” said Bill Wynne, the parent. “Once they said support the budget, the proposed budget of the School Board, that steps over the line.”

Wynne called Buckley and asked her to resign over the matter. She refused. But, at the Jan. 19 meeting of the School Board, she did apologize.

“I sincerely apologize to the public for this e-mail,” Buckley said. “I in no way intended to create mistrust with the public. Please know that I understand the difficulties this has created for some people and I apologize for that. I appreciate the public’s understanding and concerns for the appropriate use of all district resources and information. Please know that in the future you can be certain that this will not happen again.”

Allard also apologized to the public. He said he and Buckley had spoken about issuing a message to parents about the budget hearing, but they did not discuss the wording or how the e-mail would be sent.

Allard was concerned about one sentence in the e-mail, where Buckley asks for the public to support the budget.

“Usually we try to be more generic and encourage parents to come out and be part of the process,” he said in an interview. “That’s been our common past practice in the district.”

Allard said the e-mail did not violate any school district policies or laws of which he was aware. Also, he said Buckley has the authority to send the e-mail without having it proofread or approved by the School Board beforehand. But he is asking School Board to draft a policy establishing guidelines for future communication with parents.

“In order to prevent any future misunderstandings or concerns among the residents of Goffstown, I will request that the HR Committee of the Goffstown School Board investigate either the formation of a new policy or a modification of an existing policy and provide a recommendation back to the board that will establish parameters for future communications,” Allard said.

Before the meeting, Wynne had appealed the issue to state education Commissioner Lyonel Tracy, asking his department to put Buckley on administrative leave while it investigated the matter. Tracy replied that Wynne should take it up with the School Board, which had the purview to determine whether the e-mail was appropriate or not.

###
Tracy is wrong. This is a state issue and here is the law:

659:44-a Electioneering by Public Employees.

_ No public employee, as defined in RSA 273-A:1, IX, shall electioneer while
in the performance of his or her official duties or use government
property, including, but not limited to, telephones, facsimile machines,
vehicles, and computers, for electioneering. For the purposes of this
section, “electioneer” means to act in any way specifically designed to
influence the vote of a voter on any question or office. Any person who
violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

RSA 273-A:1, IX and X read as follows:

IX. “Public employee” means any person employed by a public employer
except:

_ (a) Persons elected by popular vote;
_ (b) Persons appointed to office by the chief executive or legislative body
of the public employer;
_ (c) Persons whose duties imply a confidential relationship to the public
employer; or
_ (d) Persons in a probationary or temporary status, or employed
seasonally, irregularly or on call. For the purposes of this chapter,
however, no employee shall be determined to be in a probationary status
who shall have been employed for more than 12 months or who has an
individual contract with his employer, nor shall any employee be
determined to be in a temporary status solely by reason of the source of
funding of the position in which he is employed.

_ X. “Public employer” means the state and any political subdivision
thereof, the judicial branch of the state, any quasi-public corporation,
council, commission, agency or authority, and the state university
system.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Peyton Wolcott

I received an email update from Peyton Wolcott on November 24th. I do not update or tend to this BLOG as much as I would like as my priorities are with my one year old and four year old.



Peyton has an excellent site on school accountability. In her email she reported that nationwide a number of schools are posting their check registers online.

She has a piece on her site that I am copying below because it is so great.

"A BRIEF HISTORY: WHERE PUBLIC SCHOOLS WENT WRONG,
OR, HOW THE FROG GOT FRIED*

Over a century ago our industrialist robber barons began pushing for an education system which would produce a compliant working class unable to think for themselves along the lines later adopted by Nazi Germany and the Soviets; prior to that, public schools drilled and pounded facts into students' heads with the result that students were able to draw upon those facts later in life and make their own decisions and start their own businesses. They could and did read the classics and could tell you what 8 times 9 was, from memory.

Business began "partnering" with schools in order to feather their own nests. In addition to the contractors who have inflicted worthless Taj Mahal high schools on our landscape, others were curriculum shills pushing crappy products, unproven programs such as fuzzy math and whole-word reading instruction.

The federal government began dumping huge unsupervised revenue streams on local public schools as a means of pushing social reform (eRate, NCLB, Reading First). The lack of supervision of these monies guaranteed a steep upward spike in corruption.

With God and the classics removed from American classrooms, the stage was set for a consumer-driven culture of senseless greed. We now have college graduates who were stupid enough to fall for adjustable rate mortgages and who worse can't tell you why they voted as they did in the presidential election earlier this month.

If you haven't read it, here's Marc Tucker's "Dear Hillary" letter dated November 11, 1992. Look for: Marc's suggestions for enforcing a new "training levy" for businesses, national exams and national standards.

*How you fry a frog: Lure him into a pan with bait, add lard, then turn up the heat so gradually he doesn't realize what's happening to him until it's too late."


Please be sure to view all the other great information on Peyton Wolcott's site. Peyton said that she has been working on the site for two years I could have sworn I have known her longer than that, but I digress.

Cathy






Sunday, September 28, 2008

Teacher’s union revives tired ideas for fixing public education

The following piece appeared on Townhall.com. No further comment is needed.

Cathy

Teacher’s union revives tired ideas for fixing public education
by Dr. Matthew Ladner

P.J. O’Rourke once described the early Clinton administration as “running the country by dorm-room bull session.” Some recent discussion among education progressives makes me wonder if they too have fallen back into some old college habits.

Catherine Johnson at the blog Kitchen Table Math, for instance, wrote on Randi Weingarten’s first speech as President of the American Federation of Teachers, the nation's second largest teacher union. Weingarten bashes NCLB, then lays out a vision for the future of public education:

“Imagine schools that are open all day and offer after-school and evening recreational activities and homework assistance … and suppose the schools included child care and dental, medical and counseling clinics, or other services the community needs. For example, they might offer neighborhood residents English language instruction, GED programs, or legal assistance.”
Far out, man!

Personally, however, I’m trying to imagine a system of public schools that could teach 4th grade kids how to read after spending $40,000 or more on their education. In 2007, 34 percent of American public school 4th graders scored “below basic” in reading on the NAEP. If we can’t trust schools to teach kids how to read, why would we want them trying to fix our teeth or resolving our legal issues?

Weingarten has succeeded in getting a number of grandees, some of whom threw away their right-of-center credentials in the process, to sign a petition calling for such a program. These signatories seem to believe that schools can become more effective by becoming less focused on academics.

This is precisely the wrong direction to take. Professor Paul Hill recently conducted a series of studies for the Gates Foundation concerning the stubborn lack of academic progress despite increased spending. After a series of studies, Hill concluded:

“…money is used so loosely in public education--in ways that few understand and that lack plausible connections to student learning--that no one can say how much money, if used optimally, would be enough. Accounting systems make it impossible to track how much is spent on a particular child or school, and hide the costs of programs and teacher contracts. Districts can’t choose the most cost-effective programs because they lack evidence on costs and results.”
Public schools have yet to do a cost-benefit analysis on the nearly $10,000 per year per child they already spend. They, therefore, have a very poor idea about which of their activities help achieve the goal of producing a well educated child, and which do not. Basically, they just do what they do; which certainly helps explain how a school system could burn through tens of thousands of dollars without teaching a child to read.

In Arizona, a stunning 44 percent of 4th graders score below basic in reading. Despite that fact, we have elementary school days that include a regular coursework in art, music, and physical education. These offerings are enriching and wonderful for many children. Why, however, would a 3rd grader who can’t read take courses in art or music?

Given that people are neurologically wired to learn to read in the early years, might it make more sense for schools to reallocate their resources (both money and time) on reading in the early grades?

One’s lifelong ability to appreciate music and art, after all, would be greatly enhanced by learning how to read.

We know that children who do not gain basic literacy skills in the early grades are all but doomed to academic failure. Children who don't learn how to read in early grades fall farther and farther behind grade level with each passing year. By early middle school they can't make heads or tails of the textbooks in front of them, and often become disruptive. Never envisioning themselves going on to college, they begin dropping out after 8th grade.

Public schools often make poor use of the money the already have, which is a massive amount by historical standards. Inflation-adjusted spending per pupil in Arizona has more than tripled since 1960. It isn’t hard to imagine spending even more while still failing to teach basic academic skills to large numbers of kids; schools have been doing it for more than 40 years.

If lawmakers are serious about helping children, they should focus on policies such as increasing parental choice and implementing merit pay. The focus should be on getting more bang for the bucks already committed to education, rather than throwing more money at the problem.

Quote of the Day "The focus should be on getting more bang for the bucks already committed to education, rather than throwing more money at the problem." - Matthew Lander


Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Grading Teachers’ Unions

Grading Teachers’ Unions

Grading Teachers’ Unions
by: Peter Seabrook, August 02, 2004

Helping or hindering the education of America’s youth? Linda Chavez (pictured) gives a damning indictment of teachers’ unions in her new book, Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics.

“In the past four decades the teachers’ unions have been very successful in persuading Americans that schools need more money,” she notes, mainly to pay teachers “higher salaries,” “give teachers more say in [curriculum] development,” and to decrease class size. Despite this, “reading scores have barely increased in the past three decades . . . and math hasn’t gone up much faster.”

Chavez cites an “excellent book on teachers’ unions” by Peter Brimelow “showing that ‘in any given year, unionization raised inflation-adjusted per-pupil spending by 12.3 percent compared with nonunion districts’ . . . the only thing taxpayers have gotten for the extra billions we’ve poured into education is more unionized employees.” This is hardly surprising, she later adds, considering that “the unions’ dues or agency fees, by the way, are taken directly out of teachers’ paychecks by most school districts.”

Chavez notes that both the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) made hundreds of millions of dollars in the 2001-2 fiscal year. “So where does this money go? A good chunk of it goes to pay union officials’ fat salaries”—in one case, “more than $1.1 million for just three employees,” Chavez writes. “Hundreds of other employees [earn] six-figure incomes in addition to their extremely generous benefits.”

Besides giving themselves opulent salaries, union officials spend much of their members’ money on politics, Chavez maintains. “As far back as the 1970s, a top NEA official, then-executive director Terry Herndon, bluntly stated the teachers’ unions’ true priority: ‘The ultimate goal of the NEA is to tap the legal, political, and economic powers of the U.S. Congress . . . [to] collect votes to re-order the priorities of the United States of America.’”

And what might these “priorities” be? Chavez quotes from the NEA’s current policies, which include supporting: “bilingual education programs,” “a single-payer health care plan for all residents of the United States,” and “family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom;” and opposing: “efforts to legislate English as the official language” and “governmental intrusion or monitoring of library materials and bookstore records,” to name a few of the issues on which the NEA has taken sides. Its “resolutions cover everything from abortion to world hunger,” Chavez writes, “though the ideological range is decidedly more narrow: from left to farther left.”

Chavez points out, however, that while “98 percent of [the AFT’s and NEA’s total $40 million in] contributions have gone to Democratic candidates,” the average teaching members of these unions form a political cross section far closer to that of the general voting public. “Only 40 percent of NEA members characterize themselves as Democrats, according to the union’s own polling.”

She describes one failed amendment sponsored by infuriated educators within the union “that would have allowed NEA members to designate how the political portion of their dues was spent,” which, “with NEA leaders opposing. . . was defeated in the Representative Assembly by a vote of 6,369 to 2,113,” with voters “who function more or less as employees of the union” in a body which “decides 90 percent of motions by simple voice vote.”

Chavez also mentions Proposition 226, a California ballot initiative “which would have required unions to get annual written approval from their members before using union dues for political purposes.” This proposal was also defeated after the California Teachers Association (CTA), whose “660-member state council voted unanimously to oppose [it],” “funded a major initiative to gain support for its position.”

The issue of school vouchers is another area where the opinions of union leadership and members diverge, Chavez contends. “According to the NEA’s own budget, in 2000 the organization spent a remarkable $218 million to defeat school voucher initiatives in Michigan, Arizona, and California. At the very same time, however, an NEA internal poll showed that 61 percent of NEA members believed that it was ‘not very important’ or ‘not at all important’ for the union to take a stand on the school choice issue.”

Even so, Chavez observes, 13.1 percent of all American parents (and 12.1 percent of those who teach) “choose private schools for their children. . . But in urban areas, where poor children would most benefit from voucher programs, a substantial percentage of public school teachers choose to send their children to private schools—for example, Boston, 44.6 percent; Cleveland, 39.7 percent; San Francisco, 36.7 percent; Chicago, 36.3 percent.”

This is where the unions’ political contributions pay off. Chavez recounts the fate of a voucher initiative originally proposed for Washington, D.C. in 1995—a city whose per-student spending is “70 percent higher than the national average—[while] their dropout rate is a whopping 42 percent and their average SAT score is more than 220 points below the national average.”

“Union leaders fought it from the beginning,” as did “a reliable ally, Senator Ted Kennedy” and although “the unions’ lobbying worked [in the Senate]. . . the D.C. voucher proposals would not go away.” The next attempt, in 1997, passed Congress only to fall under a veto. Chavez adds that a Washington Post “poll of D.C. residents show[ed] that 56 percent of District residents wanted school choice. Those who stood to benefit most from vouchers—that is, poor parents who could not afford to get their children out of the failing public schools—supported school choice even more strongly. . . 65 percent of African-Americans with incomes under $50,000 favored the plan.”

Eventually vouchers finally won out, “nearly a decade after the first D.C. voucher program was introduced. . . But the teachers’ unions and their Democratic partners did not give up. . . ‘Even after this vote, don’t bank on vouchers coming to D.C.,’ [Senator Kennedy] said.”

“Though the teachers’ unions make no secret” of the immense power they wield, Chavez maintains, “‘they also have a positive public image from representing teachers that much of labor lacks,’” quoting Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Governmental Studies at the University of Virginia. Chavez adds that teachers’ unions “capitalize on the image of their members: the humble, hardworking American teacher.”

At one time, the National Education Association, the major American teachers’ union, was indeed “not a union but rather an innocuous professional association, controlled by and made up mostly of school administrators.” That all changed in the tumultuous 1960s, Chavez writes: “by the 1970s, the NEA had kicked out its administrator-members and adopted policies sanctioning strikes, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had officially designated it as a union.”

She quotes U.S. News & World Report’s observation that “the AFT and the NEA have given teaching the feel of classic blue-collar work, where winning workers big checks for the shortest possible hours has been the aim and the quality of the product is considered to be management’s worry.”

A rising sophomore at Kenyon College, Peter Seabrook is an intern at Accuracy in Academia.


Quote of the Day ". . . the only thing taxpayers have gotten for the extra billions we’ve poured into education is more unionized employees.” Peter Brimelow


Saturday, August 9, 2008

Jay P Greene


Jay P. Greene the author of Education Myths What Special Interest Groups Want You to Believe about our Schools And Why It Isn't So has a BLOG.

On said BLOG is a great post titled AFT Goes Up In Smoke by Matthew Ladner guest poster.

Here is a portion of the post.

P.J. O’Rourke once described the early Clinton administration as “running the country by dorm-room bull session.” Some recent ferment among education progressives makes me wonder if they too have fallen back onto some old college habits. Catherine Johnson over at Kitchen Table Math for instance wrote on Randi Weingarten’s first speech as AFT President. Weingarten engages in NCLB bashing, and then lays out a vision for the future of public education:

“Imagine schools that are open all day and offer after-school and evening recreational activities and homework assistance … and suppose the schools included child care and dental, medical and counseling clinics, or other services the community needs,” Ms. Weingarten said. “For example, they might offer neighborhood residents English language instruction, GED programs, or legal assistance.”



Personally, I’m trying to imagine a system of public schools that could teach 4th grade kids how to read after spending $40,000 or more on their education. In 2007, 34% of American public school 4th graders scored below basic in reading on the NAEP. If we can’t trust schools to teach kids how to read, just why would we want them trying to fix our teeth or attempting to resolve our legal issues?

To read the rest of the post go to AFT Goes Up In Smoke.

Quote of the Day" If we can’t trust schools to teach kids how to read, just why would we want them trying to fix our teeth or attempting to resolve our legal issues?" Matthew Ladner



Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Croydon Tuition Issues.

The following letter to the editor appeared in the Argus Champion.

Dear Editor,

Matt Reid did an excellent piece on the school board meeting held in Croydon on June 11, 2008. However as a tax payer, I came away from the meeting with a lot of questions that went un-answered.

Who is paying the one family to attend Newport Schools for the last month of school. This was not answered by the SAU at the meeting. We received an "I don't know," from the SAU. This also includes Special Ed Funding. Is Newport absorbing the costs? That wouldn't be fair to them.

I am not convinced that the issue with the one family is settled with $14,000.00 received from Kearsage School District. It was not explained in the public meeting how the SAU arrived at that figure. There are 2 students involved, and their father is a employee at Newport High School. It is my understanding that the SAU is paid 4 times a year, our refund should have been $14,874.00. According to the set tuition rates. We were also not presented any proof that the family were legal Croydon Residents from 2004 - 2007 school years. Our Chief of Police, has no record of the family living in town, and taxes on vehicles need to be paid in the town you reside. This show on your car registration.

Carol Marsh explained that the house I was referring to was not in Springfield. However if the house is not in Springfield, why did Kearsage pay Croydon $14,000.00? I also went to the Springfield Town Office and received a copy of the tax information on the Springfield property.

I also requested a list of students that Croydon paid tuition for, from the years 2004-2007 from the SAU office on Thursday, June 12. I was told it would take awhile. I understood that copying the records would take awhile, so I gave the SAU my phone number. They never called. I called them today (June 19) and was informed they mailed me a letter on June 18th. I asked them what was in the letter, and they said that I would not be able to get the records until August because it was a busy time of year. When I complained, I was asked if I wanted to speak with Business Administrator, Jim Vezina. I left a message on his voice mail. He has not called me back.

I am also confused about the amount of up to $40,000.00 that Croydon maybe reimbursed from Grantham. The unknown factor here is the special education funding. We can not get any information from the SAU regarding this, however a trip to the Special Education School's web site says it's tuition is $35,000.00 a year. That is the lowest amount possible, plus the tuition for the other two students attending Newport Schools.

We have under 100 students in Croydon, I can understand why I could not have the records the day I requested them, but to wait three months is absurd and unprofessional. SAU 43 has lost their credibility, first by the shoddy investigation on the two families, when our school board mentioned it months ago and now delaying records that we are legally entitled to examine.

Again I thank Matt Reid his article was accurate and in depth. The questions I have do not stem from his article but from the meeting, and the events following it.

Sincerely

Gayle Hedrington


Thursday, June 19, 2008

Teacher allegedly stole school funds.

Yesterday I reported on the need for education financial transparency. The article below appeared in the Union Leader and further highlights the need for education financial transparency in all school districts. If check registers were posted online it may deter incidents like this from occurring in the future.

Cathy


Pelham teacher surrenders on theft charge
By DERRICK PERKINS
New Hampshire Union Leader Correspondent



PELHAM – An elementary school teacher placed herself into police custody yesterday morning after authorities issued a warrant for her arrest for allegedly stealing money from a school fund.

Police charged Lisa K. Harris, 50, of Pelham, with a felony - theft by unauthorized taking - after an investigation indicated that Harris had allegedly transferred $4,600.00 from the Pelham Elementary Sunshine Fund into her personal Sovereign Bank account.


According to school principal Alicia LaFrance, the theft came to her attention in late April when members of the Sunshine Committee -- a group of faculty and staff who meet regularly and voluntarily collect contributions to fund staff events as well as purchase flowers for those who have had a family member pass away during the school year -- alerted her to money missing from their account.

LaFrance contacted the Superintendent of schools, as well as the school business manager, before confronting Harris. An instruction assistant who worked with special needs children, Harris resigned in early May. LaFrance forwarded all information to the police soon after.

Police began investigating the missing funds in late May and used a search warrant to determine the ownership of the bank account the money had been electronically transferred into between May 16 and May 28. A warrant was issued and Harris turned herself in at 11:00 a.m. Wednesday.

Harris had served as the president and treasurer of the Sunshine Committee. It was her first year as a member of the organization.

LaFrance, who had worked with Harris for four years, described her as "well-liked by the staff" and "very friendly."

"I think [the staff] felt very angry and violated, that someone amongst themselves would take from them or steal from them," she said. "There are certain members of the school who lost family members during the school year who were very saddened by what happened, that money had been taken away from their grieving families."

The shortage of funds would make it more difficult for the school to hold annual end-of-the-year events for leaving staff, but according to LaFrance they were doing their best to make ends meet. The ordeal has tightened the coordination and management of the fund in the future, she said.

"We're making sure that more than one member of the committee is signing checks and balancing the account and the committee is meeting more often with monthly financial reports," she said.

According to Lt. Gary Fisher, this is not the first time a town employee has stolen from town funds.

"We had a rec center director several years ago who was embezzaling funds," he said. "It doesn't happen often, but it's not uncommon."

Harris was booked without incident and was released on a $5,000.00 recognizance bail. She will appear before the New Hampshire District Court in Salem on Jul. 14.


Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Board Explains Tuition Issues

This week's Argus Champion reported on the tuition issues within Croydon school district. The article is not online so you will need to pick up a copy of the Argus Champion to read the full story.

This incident has proven that we need full education financial transparency within the Croydon School District. This can be done by posting Croydon's check register online. Peyton Wolcott's website is reporting that 190 districts within 14 states are posting their check registers online revealing at least 46 billion dollars in educational financial transparency.

In the Argus Champion article school board Chairman George Caccavaro said ".....Everyone has a right to know what is going on...." when referring to the recent tuition issue. He also stated "We've not covering anything up."

Linda Schultz, George Caccavaro and Carol Marsh need to show they want true education financial transparency for the Croydon School district and for the taxpayers of Croydon, all contracts and check registers should be posted online for taxpayer review. If this school board will not do it hopefully fiscally responsible individuals will be elected who will do this in the future.







Tuesday, June 3, 2008

School District Given Award by Company it Hired.

One of the very few things I miss about Illinois is the excellent investigative reporting by some newspapers into education issues. One of my favorites was the Daily Herald. Hat tip goes to a fiscally responsible school board member friend of ours Julie back in Illinois.

Read the story and judge for yourself. I believe schools are buying awards.


Cathy


Grayslake school district given awards by company it hired
By Bob Susnjara | Daily Herald Staff Contact writer
6/2/2008 12:01 AM


For six months, Grayslake Elementary District 46 has boasted having three award-winning schools.

Prairieview School in Hainesville and Meadowview School in Grayslake have received what's referred to as the "prestigious" Blue Ribbon Lighthouse award. Woodview School in Grayslake snagged the Points of Light award, which is below the top Blue Ribbon Lighthouse status.


What's not mentioned is South Carolina-based Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence Inc. named the award winners after being paid $22,192 to assess seven District 46 schools. Documents obtained by the Daily Herald through the Freedom of Information Act show the district spent an extra $15,732 for 20 administrators and teachers to attend a five-day Blue Ribbon Schools conference and awards banquet in North Charleston, S.C., in December.

At issue, some critics say, is whether public schools should find other uses for money than so-called recognition programs run by companies marketing to educators. Proponents say the awards are a side benefit to a more important professional assessment that leads to essential improvements and shows whether schools are meeting standards established by private education consultants.

Grayslake District 46 Superintendent Ellen Correll said she didn't know the awards were available from Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence before hiring the company. It's believed District 46 was the company's first Illinois client.

She said the business was hired in September 2007 to provide an outside assessment of her schools in nine major categories, such as technology integration and leadership and education vitality. Blue Ribbon Schools also collected data and provided feedback that's being used for comprehensive improvement plans.

"You know what? I really don't care about the awards," Correll said. "That's not the purpose behind it. The purpose for me was to have an outside group come in and look at our district to see where the strengths and weaknesses are. And I really wanted to find the weaknesses.

"If we're going to move forward in this district, we've got to be able to identify where our gaps are, where our weaknesses are. And it's very difficult to look at yourself and say, 'I need to grow here.' "

District 46 announced the awards Nov. 16, 2007, in news releases just days after Blue Ribbon Schools President/CEO Bart Teal made a public presentation to elected board members. The releases led to a story in a weekly newspaper about the three Grayslake buildings receiving the honors -- without mention of the financial relationship with Blue Ribbon Schools.

Web pages for the three winning individual schools have touted the awards with the company's logo, which includes an eagle and stars.

Specifics on how Grayslake Elementary academics would benefit from Blue Ribbon Schools were not cited in the initial award announcement, but Correll in February sent a letter to all district residents outlining numerous recommendations.

Total expenses related to Blue Ribbon Schools were $40,468, according to district documents. Correll said the costs were covered by properly tapping into a combination of nearly $89,500 available in federal grants and $200,000 from the superintendent's professional development account.

No real standing

Edward M. Mazze, distinguished professor of business administration at the University of Rhode Island, questions the use of public money to hire companies such as Blue Ribbon Schools. He said cash is tight at public schools across the country.

Mazze, who's examined award programs in business and academia, was among the critics when University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth issued a news release announcing the school's receipt of a Pat Summerall Productions Champions of Industry Award in 2004 without noting a financial arrangement was attached.

In the case of Grayslake District 46, Mazze said the public should understand the district struck a business deal with Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence, and the company's awards are of no significance. District 46 board members authorized the hiring of Blue Ribbon Schools under an agenda action item labeled "annual application for recognition."

"There are enough schools looking for recognition to allow this company to have many profitable years, as one school recommends to another school to apply for this 'honor' as long as they have the fee to pay for it," said Mazze, who reviewed Blue Ribbon Schools promotional materials for the Daily Herald.

Mazze said while District 46 is unnecessarily "patting itself on the back" with the awards, it's not unethical to do so.

Parents should realize it's "buyer beware" when it comes to education kudos publicized from private organizations, said Susan Shafer, spokeswoman for Standard & Poor's School Evaluation Services.

Shafer said no financial relationship existed when her company late last year named 1,600 high schools across the country as tops in the United States in categories tagged gold, silver and bronze. The schools were judged on various criteria, such as whether performance levels go beyond statistical expectations.

"Go do a little homework. See what's behind it," Shafer said.

Teal said his company -- billed as a "national recognition program" -- doesn't always give a Blue Ribbon Lighthouse or Points of Light designation after it's hired. He said the awards provide schools with an incentive to improve or maintain high standards.

"The most important thing is integrity," Teal said. "You can't just say you won an award. It doesn't work like that."

However, Better Government Association executive director Jay Stewart said he found it "sort of odd" for Grayslake District 46 to accept and promote awards from a company that was paid for its services.

Traveling for award

Grayslake District 46 spent $15,732 on airfare, hotel rooms, rental cars, conference registration fees and meals for the 20 administrators and teachers to attend the Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence conference and awards ceremony in North Charleston.

Another $2,350 was spent on substitute teachers from Dec. 4-7 while the regular instructors were in South Carolina, bringing total travel-related expenses to $18,082, according to District 46 documents.

Correll said the number of employees who traveled was justified. Six Grayslake teachers led workshops at the convention, while others were able to participate in talks with educators and experts from across the United States on topics ranging from classroom management to iPods as a learning tool.

"This whole thing is to help improve the performance of our students," Correll said. "That is the sole purpose behind it."

District 46 board President Michael Linder said the traveling party was more than usual for an education convention, but it was a one-shot deal. He said the district will benefit from its association with Blue Ribbon Schools.

It's about children

Teal, a South Carolina resident, said Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence is a nonprofit organization and his passion is to improve children's education. He at one time was involved with the federal government's blue ribbon school program and has more than 40 years experience as a principal, teacher, assistant superintendent and education consultant.

His private business is not to be confused with the U.S. Department of Education's No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Schools award initiative, considered one of the most prestigious in the country. Winning schools don't pay anything to be considered for awards from the federal government program.

In the federal program, schools must be nominated by a state board of education and are honored for helping students achieve at very high levels and for making significant progress in closing the achievement gap. Some schools have students with state test scores in the top 10 percent.

Teal said his Blue Ribbon Schools charged a discounted $22,192 fee to Grayslake District 46 so his team could perform an assessment that included on-site building visits and online surveys with 189 questions completed by parents, staff and students. He said he provides free services to financially struggling schools.

Prairieview School in Hainesville and Meadowview School in Grayslake are two of 79 Blue Ribbon Lighthouse champions named since 2004, with 22 coming from South Carolina. Blue Ribbon Schools did not respond to a request for information on the number of districts it evaluates annually.

Winners of the top award can purchase caps, T-shirts and static-cling window decals -- complete with school name -- through another South Carolina company.

"I guess it's hard to convince people, but I'm not out to make money," Teal said.

Teal's company gets high marks from Peter Guerrera, superintendent of Cuyahoga Heights School District in suburban Cleveland. He said outside evaluators provide "good indicators about your school and, in some cases, validations for a variety of reasons."

Guerrera said the education recommendations for his district's three buildings are why Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence was hired. He said the current promotion of the three awards his buildings received from the company are extraneous to him.

M. Lynn Barkley, assistant superintendent of teaching, learning and assessment at Grayslake District 46, said she'd give a positive recommendation for Blue Ribbon Schools. She said the examination of her district's buildings by Teal's business will be invaluable.

"Nothing is for free anymore, unfortunately. But to be able to take our teachers and our administrators to those next levels and give them the opportunities to move us all forward together, it's a great thing," Barkley said.

Awards to brag about?
• University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, Texas A&M University-Commerce and University of Southern Mississippi were among the schools lauded by Pat Summerall Productions as "Champions of Industry: Spotlight on Education." The schools issued news releases on the awards in 2003 and 2004, but didn't note fees charged by the now-defunct company. Naperville police and Lombard village government also announced Summerall awards without disclosing the financial relationship in 2004.

• Plano, Texas, was declared on a CNN program as one of the "Best Places to Live" in the United States in 2004. A financial relationship with the company that provided the honor, Deerfield Beach, Fla.-based Platinum Television Group, wasn't mentioned. The same year, the village of Libertyville rejected a similar award from Platinum Television because it carried a $19,700 price tag for the company's services.

• Cuyahoga Heights School District in suburban Cleveland has a newsletter story this month on how it achieved "a first of its kind in the nation" by having all three of its buildings named Blue Ribbon Lighthouse award winners. The article didn't mention specifics of the district's deal with South Carolina-based Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence Inc., which studied the buildings and named the winners. The article has the byline of Blue Ribbon Schools President/CEO Bart Teal.

Source: Daily Herald research

Quote of the Day "The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy." ~Woodrow Wilson


Saturday, May 10, 2008

What you do not know can hurt your families finances.

The following piece appeared in the Hoover Institution's Journal Education Next. Is the Price Right?
Please visit the Hoover Institution website to read the whole article and the links for more information. This piece is a must read for all voters before approving more dollars for education.

By William G. Howell and Martin R. West

Probing American's knowledge of school spending

Article opening image: Contestants on 'The Price is Right' try to guess average teacher salary and per-pupil expenditure.

In the contentious world of education politics, the need to spend more on public schools stands out as a rare point of agreement. Our recent national survey of American adults (“What Americans Think about Their Schools,” features, Fall 2007) found that those who support increased spending on public schools in their district outnumber those who want spending to decrease by a five-to-one margin. What’s more, a solid majority (59 percent) of Americans express confidence that spending more on the public schools in their district will increase student learning.

Our findings paralleled those of other surveys, which routinely show that Americans rank inadequate funding among the most important problems facing the nation’s schools. According to the 2007 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll, for example, 22 percent of U.S. adults identified a lack of financial support as the biggest problem facing the schools in their community. The second-ranked problem, a lack of discipline, was mentioned by only one in ten respondents. It is no surprise, then, that every Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2008 has called for increased federal spending on education, and that no Republican candidate (with the exception of libertarian Ron Paul) has proposed a spending cut.

Yet while the public’s views about spending on education are well known, the same cannot be said about the information on which those views are based. Do Americans have an accurate grasp of how much is currently being spent on public education?

The 2007 Education Next–PEPG Survey directly addressed this question. In addition to asking Americans whether school spending should be increased, we asked them to estimate both per-pupil expenditures in their districts and teacher salaries in their states. We then used data on actual spending and salaries, matched geographically to each respondent’s school district or state, to compare the public’s perceptions with reality.

The results are striking: Americans dramatically underestimate the amount spent on the public schools in their district, even when prompted to consider the full range of uses to which school spending is devoted. They also think that teachers earn, on average, far less than is actually the case. The public’s strong preference that more be spent on public schools is based, at least in part, on faulty information.

Measuring Knowledge about Spending

In February and March of 2007, we surveyed a nationally representative sample of 2,000 American adults about a wide range of education issues. (For overall results, see “What Americans Think about Their Schools”) Within an extensive battery of questions, we included the following: “Based on your best guess, what is the average amount of money spent each year for a child in public schools in your school district?”

Half of the sample, randomly chosen, was also offered a prompt to encourage them to consider the full range of costs associated with educating a child. These respondents were told that “Individual student costs go toward teacher and administrator salaries, building construction and maintenance, extracurricular activities, transportation, etc.” With this prompt, we anticipated, respondents would have an easier time answering the question.

We also asked people to estimate the average annual salary of a public school teacher in their state. We asked about teacher salaries at the level of the state, rather than the specific district, because that is the lowest level of aggregation for which information on actual salaries is readily available nationwide. With information about where survey respondents lived, we then compared their answers to actual per-pupil expenditures in their districts and to teacher salaries in their states in 2004–05, the most recent year for which this information is available (see methodology sidebar, below).

Methodology

For the analyses of per-pupil expenditures, we matched survey respondents to school districts using either census blocks or zip codes. When we relied on zip codes, we could not match some respondents to a unique school district. For such respondents we calculated the average per-pupil spending levels for each district that served the relevant zip code, weighted by districts’ population sizes. Teacher salary data, by contrast, are available only at the state level. We were able to match all survey respondents to the states in which they resided.

Data on per-pupil spending come from the National Center for Educational Statistics Common Core of Data, “Local Education Agency Finance Survey.” Data on teacher salaries come from the American Federation of Teachers publication, “Survey and Analysis of Teacher Salary Trends 2005.” Both sources cover the 2004–05 academic year, the latest for which this information is available. The two-year lag between 2004–05 and the time we conducted our survey should lead respondents to overestimate actual expenditures, as spending on public schools tends to increase over time.

On any survey item, there are likely to be some respondents who either misunderstand the question or, for one reason or another, choose not to take it seriously. To ensure that such responses would not cloud our analysis, we eliminated 21 answers of zero to the spending question and another 25 of zero to the salary question. We also eliminated 18 answers of more than $50,000 for per-pupil spending and 17 answers of more than $100,000 for average teacher salaries. In the end, we were left with 1,926 valid responses for per-pupil spending, of which we were able to match 1,656 to districts with available spending information, and 1,932 valid responses on teacher salaries, of which we were able to match 1,911 to states with available salary information.

Not Even Close

The amount of money actually spent annually on children in school districts across the United States varies widely. For the districts in which our sample members live, per-pupil spending in 2004–05 ranged from $5,644 to $24,939,with an average of $10,377. This last figure is slightly higher than the true national average of $9,435.

How well informed is the public about these financial commitments? Not very. Among those asked without the prompt listing possible expenses, the median response was $2,000, or less than 20 percent of the true amount being spent in their districts. Over 90 percent of the public offered an amount less than the amount actually spent in their district, and more than 40 percent of the sample claimed that annual spending was $1,000 per pupil or less. The average estimate of $4,231 reflects the influence of a small percentage of individuals who offered extremely high figures. Even so, the average respondent’s estimate was just 42 percent of actual spending levels in their district (see Figure 1).



As expected, reminding people of the range of expenses school districts face improved their assessments—but not by much. The half of the sample who saw the prompt claimed, on average, that their districts spent $5,262, about $1,000 more than the others, but still only 54 percent of the actual per-pupil spending levels in their districts. The median answer remained $2,000, and more than one-third of the sample still thought that their districts spend no more than $1,000 per student each year.

Teacher salaries also vary considerably across states, ranging from a low of $34,039 in South Dakota to a high of $57,760 in Alaska, with a national average of $47,602. When asked about the average teacher salary in their state, members of the public again offered significantly smaller figures. The median response was just $35,000 and the average was $33,054. On average, Americans understate average teacher salaries in their own state by $14,370.

In percentage terms, estimates of teacher salaries better approximated reality than did estimates of per-pupil expenditures. On average, Americans underestimated teacher salaries in their states by 30 percent. It is possible that people formulated better answers to this question because they used their own pay (or that of a family member) as benchmarks, while they lacked as much context on the per-pupil spending item.
Closer to the Truth?

Are some citizens better informed about education spending than others? To explore this question, we looked at whether the accuracy of Americans’ beliefs about spending and salaries varied among different groups within the overall sample.

Some interesting differences emerged. For instance, the responses of men to both items were significantly higher—and therefore closer to the truth—than were those of women. On average, men thought that per-pupil spending was $1,483 higher and teacher salaries were $2,065 higher than did women. The magnitude of these differences, as well as those reported below, attenuate somewhat when accounting for respondents’ demographic backgrounds. It bears mentioning, though, that the more accurate responses offered by men do not appear to stem from the fact that they are more likely to be in the workplace; the same pattern emerged when we restricted the comparison to men and women working full time.

All else equal, parents of school-age children also gave more accurate responses about teacher salaries, perhaps because they are in regular contact with working teachers. But they were no better informed than nonparents about per-pupil spending levels.

Homeowners, who pay the property taxes that typically account for local spending on education, have a clear incentive to stay informed about spending levels. On average, the estimates of per-pupil spending offered by homeowners were $427 higher than those of non-homeowners, a difference that is not statistically significant. But homeowners do appear to be much more responsive than other Americans to higher spending levels in their districts. In districts spending more than $10,000 per pupil, for example, the responses of homeowners were more than $1,100 higher—and therefore closer to actual spending levels—than those of individuals who rented or lived with other families.

Homeowners were also much better informed about teacher salaries, offering responses that were $7,502 higher than non-homeowners’ responses.

Again, these differences were even more pronounced in states that had especially high teacher salaries, indicating that homeowners’ information may be more responsive to marginal changes in spending than the rest of the general public.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that the differences observed between all of these groups are dwarfed by the overall gap between the public’s understanding of school expenditures and teacher salaries, and the truth. Even homeowners, for example, were off by more than $5,000 on average for per-pupil spending and by more than $11,000 for teacher salaries.

Knowledge and Views on School Spending

Does ignorance about these factual matters bear on public attitudes toward school spending? As noted above, the public as a whole expresses strong support for increasing or at least maintaining current spending levels on public education. More than half of Americans say that spending on the public schools in their community should increase, compared with 38 percent who say it should stay the same and only 10 percent who say it should decrease.

It is quite possible that information plays an important role in explaining overall levels of support for school spending. On average, those who support increasing spending on their local schools underestimated per-pupil spending by nearly $6,000 (see Figure 2). In contrast, those who said that spending should decrease underestimated spending by only $4,267.The estimates of those who felt that spending should remain the same fell in between these two extremes, at $5,602. In short, while even supporters of decreased spending substantially underestimated true spending levels, their estimates were considerably closer to reality than those of supporters of increased spending.Figure 2

Similar patterns emerge when looking at the difference between estimated and actual teacher salaries, though the differences are slightly less pronounced. Respondents who support increased school spending underestimated teacher salaries in their state by almost $15,000, while those who wanted to see school spending remain the same offered estimates that were $14,230 below the truth. Those who support decreased spending offered modestly higher figures, underestimating teacher salaries by only $11,896, on average.

Americans with more accurate knowledge of school spending also tend to be less confident that increased spending will improve student learning. Among those who offered a figure for per-pupil expenditures within $5,000 of the truth, 20 percent were “not confident at all” that more spending would lead to higher achievement. People who either grossly underestimated or overestimated actual spending, by contrast, report lower levels of skepticism about the rewards of higher spending.

Note, however, that these findings do not necessarily support the contention that misunderstandings about school finance cause people to support spending increases. It is quite possible, after all, that the public’s assessment of how much is being spent may derive from, rather than contribute to, their policy views. Based on direct observations of conditions in local schools, for instance, some portions of the public may decide that whatever is being spent is not enough. When they are asked to hazard a guess, these concerns may lead them to underestimate actual spending.

In point of fact, we do find that Democrats offer significantly lower estimates of teacher salaries than do Republicans. (Differences between Democrats and Republicans on per-pupil expenditures disappear when accounting for respondents’ demographic backgrounds.) It is difficult to explain such a finding by reference to the two groups’ prior knowledge about school finance. Rather, we suspect that Democrats are especially likely to believe that the government does not give teachers either the professional respect or support that they deserve, and that such underlying convictions lead Democrats to offer lower estimates of teacher salaries. Indeed, the Democrats in our sample are 25 percentage points more likely than Republicans to say that they are either “very confident” or “somewhat confident” that additional spending on schools would improve student learning.

Conclusion

In sum, Americans think that far less is being spent on the nation’s public schools than is actually the case. The vast majority of the public thinks we spend amounts that can only be described as minuscule, and almost 96 percent of the public underestimate either per-pupil spending in their districts or teacher salaries in their states.

Important questions about the public’s understanding of school spending remain. Why are their estimates so low? Is this phenomenon unique to education, or would we find the same thing if people were asked about the salaries of other public servants, say, postal workers or police officers? And crucially, does the public’s understanding of school finance shape their policy preferences, or do the public’s policy preferences shape their understanding of school finance?

At this point, though, one matter seems certain: whatever motivates people’s concerns about school finance, it is not sound information about what is actually being spent.

William G. Howell is associate professor in the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago. Martin R.West is assistant professor of education at Brown University and an executive editor of Education Next.


Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Public School Workforce Swells While Enrollment Growth Flattens.





The following piece comes from the Education Intelligence Agency.

Public School Workforce Swells While Enrollment Growth Flattens.


America loves its public school teachers. So much so that it continues to hire legions of them while growth in the number of students continues to peter out. An Education Intelligence Agency analysis of the latest U.S. Census Bureau figures shows that while K-12 enrollment grew only 2.45% between 2001 and 2006, the K-12 teacher force grew by 5.71% over the same period.

Stathttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gife level figures further illustrate the phenomenon. Twenty-five states had fewer K-12 students in 2006 than in 2001. Of these, 14 (Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont), had more K-12 teachers in 2006 than in 2001.
http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
Even in states with significant spikes in enrollment, teacher hiring is keeping pace – and often greatly exceeding – that growth. Nine states (Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Texas) experienced double-digit growth in the K-12 teacher workforce from 2001 to 2006.

Per-pupil spending continues its steady upward spiral, with an increase of more than 25% (unadjusted) in the same five-year period. Spending on compensation tracked closely with a 24.51% increase. Oregon is the only state that did not experience double-digit growth in spending over that time.

The full state-level table is available at District-level tables will be updated with the latest figures over the next few weeks.


Thursday, March 27, 2008

Financial Transparency Needed in Our SAU and Schools

The following piece appeared in the Union Leader.


Charlie Arlinghaus: State spending could be more transparent right now
By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS

14 hours, 23 minutes ago

NEW HAMPSHIRE should become more like Alaska. Alaska's governor has created a simple and transparent online database to view the details of any government expenditure of more than $1,000. The complete transparency of every detail of government makes government accountable and responsible, is supported by politicians of every ideology, and would eliminate corruption issues that are an increasing feature of our daily news coverage.

New Hampshire's tiniest town has little in common with Alaska. The financial books of the town of Windsor were closed to the public until the Windsor Coalition of Taxpayers sued to open them to the public. The next steps were all too familiar to residents of other towns. Investigators then found financial irregularities and money that has yet to be accounted for. An investigative audit led to the town's records being turned over to the Attorney General.

But with modern technology, none of this should ever happen. A transparency movement is spreading across the country to open the doors of government. Many transparency initiatives were started by executive order, as in Alaska. But increasingly, lawmakers and local officials are passing laws and ordinances to make transparency Web sites permanent.

In towns and state agencies in New Hampshire, taxpayers are often forced to wait for an audit to know how much money was spent and whether it's all accounted for. The first step to transparency is simply posting the town or agency's check register online.

Right away, any taxpayer can look and see every dollar spent and to whom it was paid. The new Alaska database isn't much more complicated than that. It's an Excel spreadsheet organized by payee, department and type of expense.

In transparency, getting started is just as important as designing the perfect system. Alaska's administrative commissioner admitted that the system isn't perfect,"but we wanted to get something out there to get started."

This is a stark contrast to New Hampshire's perfect-or-nothing approach. We've waited more than 14 months for something as simple as monthly updates of total state spending. We could have updates today, but officials have decided to wait until the state has one glorious new computer system for everyone's report to look identical.

Today in New Hampshire, citizens have access to spending data when a newspaper files a right-to-know request for specific information and decides to publish its findings. This information should be readily available to anyone who wants to know what government is doing.

In the town of Windsor, we are told that "at least $43,000 in collected tax money could not be accounted for." If a simple spreadsheet of the town's check register were posted online, we would have known earlier. The register would have shown every taxpayer who cared to look the amount of each deposit and every check written or cash withdrawal.

Obviously very few taxpayers would take the time to scrutinize every jot and title of the town's spending. But a few watchdogs would and we would all benefit from their scrutiny. Anyone who wished could balance the town's checkbooks and complain if $4 of interest or $400 of miscellaneous expenses were left out.

The comptroller of Texas operates one of the best online portals to examine state spending in the country. She describes citizens as partners in their own government: "We're giving Texans easy access to information useful in deciding whether tax dollars are being spent in a responsible manner."

A fully transparent government will include a complete searchable database of every single expenditure and every state contract. It is a significant undertaking, but, like Alaska, we can start with something less than an ideal system.

Individual departments can behave like an individual town. A state agency can easily start by placing online a spreadsheet of each check, along with monthly totals of expenses compared to the budget.

The first steps will require no new computer equipment, no new software, and do not require an agency to do anything it isn't already doing. It merely requires the agency to show us.

Transparent, accountable government is spreading across the country. New Hampshire has always been proud of an open government close to the people. There's no reason that the state of Alaska should be more open than the town of Windsor or the state of New Hampshire. Like Alaska, we should do something to get started.

Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Concord.


Saturday, February 23, 2008

Nashua students rally to support teachers

I am appalled that parents are not distressed over this matter, it only goes to show the many decades of indoctrination into socialism that has gone on in our public schools. My guess is that these children have no idea as to how much these teachers actually make, the benefits they receive, how many hours they actually work and the how much their constitutionally protected pensions will be in the future. These children may also have no idea as to how much their parents pay in taxes and how that is taking away from their very own college funds. My guess is that these children have no concept of free markets or economics.

According to the NECAP scores 45% of eleventh graders tested "substantially below proficient" in math. Do you think these children can really understand the consequences of a teachers contract and the impact it has on the community and the pension system.

The following article appeared in the Union Leader.


Nashua students rally to support teachers
By SUZANNE BATES
Union Leader Correspondent



NASHUA – A group of fired-up students stood in the early morning cold outside their school yesterday to show support for their teachers, who have been working without a contract since September 2006.

About 60 Nashua High School North students held signs with slogans, including "Our Teachers are Priceless" and "Time for a Contract," as they urged passing cars to honk to show their support.

Students Megan Caron, Billy Flynn and Sonia Baker said they organized the rally to show the teachers they're behind them.

"No matter what our differences are on the contract, we all support our teachers," Caron said.

Teachers are on a work-to-rule schedule, so there are fewer clubs or other extracurricular activities, said Caron.

"I support the work to rule," she said. "The teachers are having a hard time with it."


Nashua High School North students Katie Delaney, Kaitlin Scheerhoorn and Elizabeth Amaral demonstrate outside their school yesterday to show support for their teachers, who have been working without a contract for 18 months. (SUZANNE BATES)

Nashua North Principal David Ryan said he was aware of the demonstration and that he admired the students for supporting their teachers.

He said his only request was that participating students make it to class on time. The 22 students who stayed out past the morning bell will probably receive detention, he said.

Negotiations between teachers and district officials have been going on for 18 months. Several contracts have been sent to the board of aldermen for a vote, but none have made it through untouched.

The rhetoric on both sides heated up this week when teachers responded to the city's actions on the newest version of the long-contested contract.

City aldermen approved the tentative agreement, but the number of supporters wasn't enough to add the money it would have taken to fully fund the contract.

After Nashua Mayor Donnalee Lozeau used a line-item veto to strike retroactive raises from the contract -- raises teachers would have received for the 2006-07 school year -- teachers voted Tuesday to give union officials the authority to call any type of job action, including a strike.

Under New Hampshire law, it is illegal for teachers to strike.

"Teachers and school nurses have reached the end of their rope.

They have compromised and conceded enough. It is time for the city leaders to get serious and agree to a package that shows respect and fairness for these professionals," said Robert Sherman, teacher union president, in a press release.

Yesterday, union and district negotiators released a press release saying they were at an impasse over the mayor's actions and would move to mediation.

A meeting, to be moderated by the mediator, will be held in two weeks, according to the release. Lozeau, Nashua Superintendent Christopher Hottell, representatives from the Board of Alderman, the Board of Education and union officials are expected to attend.

Relevant Quotes to the article above.

The millions of dollars which we devote every year to high-school education are, for the most part, money spent for the retarding of intelligence, the discouragement of efficiency, the stunting of character.
– Bernard Iddings Bell (1949)

Academies that are founded at public expense are instituted not so much to cultivate men's natural abilities as to restrain them.

– Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)

[T]he child should be taught to consider his instructor...superior to the parent in point of authority.... The vulgar impression that parents have a legal right to dictate to teachers is entirely erroneous.... Parents have no remedy as against the teacher.
– John Swett, Superintendent of California Public School System (1860s)