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."
Monday, April 27, 2009
I'm a fan of Steve Varone!
I was glad to read that someone besides my husband and myself believe that schools should reject the stimulus money also known as the thank-you fund for getting us elected money. This "stimulus money" is printed taxpayer money that is putting our country deeper and deeper into debt, out children and grand-children will have to pay this back with higher taxes. If this was honestly explained to our children I am sure they would not want the stimulus money either.
The following LTE appeared in the Eagle Times.
Cathy Peschke
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
To school boards
Friday, April 24, 2009 1:23 PM
To the Editor:
An open letter to area school boards:
On April 21, the federal government released information regarding millions of dollars granted to local school districts which must be spent on supplemental special education programs. Area superintendents and other school administrators have already been quoted making salivating remarks about how they will spend the money and some have even talked about sustaining the spending when the grants end.
So, the big question now is, will the school boards strap on their bibs and belly up to Uncle Sam's pig roast picnic table to get their heaping helping of federal pork (borrowed, of course) or will they demonstrate fiscal responsibility and reject the funds outright? This money is just more hair of the dog that bit us. We're in this mess because for years we have borrowed recklessly, with both political parties to blame. Does anyone really believe that the solution is more borrowing? This country is debt drunk and our leaders just keep uncorking more bottles. It's time to join DA folks -- that's Debt-aholics Anonymous. If we really care about our children, we'll stop spending them into a hole.
As a Fall Mountain resident, I hope that my school board members will demonstrate the real leadership that's needed here and reject these funds. I also hope that if they do so, that they will encourage other school boards to do the same. In a way, I guess this is a test. The next few weeks will determine if they pass or fail.
Steve Varone
Walpole
The following LTE appeared in the Eagle Times.
Cathy Peschke
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
To school boards
Friday, April 24, 2009 1:23 PM
To the Editor:
An open letter to area school boards:
On April 21, the federal government released information regarding millions of dollars granted to local school districts which must be spent on supplemental special education programs. Area superintendents and other school administrators have already been quoted making salivating remarks about how they will spend the money and some have even talked about sustaining the spending when the grants end.
So, the big question now is, will the school boards strap on their bibs and belly up to Uncle Sam's pig roast picnic table to get their heaping helping of federal pork (borrowed, of course) or will they demonstrate fiscal responsibility and reject the funds outright? This money is just more hair of the dog that bit us. We're in this mess because for years we have borrowed recklessly, with both political parties to blame. Does anyone really believe that the solution is more borrowing? This country is debt drunk and our leaders just keep uncorking more bottles. It's time to join DA folks -- that's Debt-aholics Anonymous. If we really care about our children, we'll stop spending them into a hole.
As a Fall Mountain resident, I hope that my school board members will demonstrate the real leadership that's needed here and reject these funds. I also hope that if they do so, that they will encourage other school boards to do the same. In a way, I guess this is a test. The next few weeks will determine if they pass or fail.
Steve Varone
Walpole
Sunday, April 26, 2009
American Stinker
The article below is garbage. There are so many flaws, so much conclusion jumping, I'm not even sure where to begin...
Weissberg's outright rejection of what he calls "Say's Law" is unsubstantiated and flat-out untrue. Few people demanded cell phones before they became available en masse. Same with iPods. In some instances, supply DOES create demand. Henry Ford commented that if they had listened to what the public wanted, they would have built faster horses.
Second, Weissberg mischaracterizes what "demand" actually means. To say "I'd like a cheeseburger" is not demand in the economic sense. To say "I'll pay $5 for a cheeseburger" IS demand. What advocates of free market solutions to education point out is that the unionized government monopoly destroys demand (backed by money, in the economic sense) by confiscating private funds which could otherwise go to the private sector. Absent this abhorrent seizure of national wealth, parents would have insatiable demand backed by real dollars.
Today's "choice" schemes only apply to those privileged few able to support the unionized government monopoly AND their own private needs. Ironic and hypocritical from a political party self identified with working class Americans.
The idea that parents must be satisfied with the monstrosity that is public education because they're not all flocking to Sylvan is preposterous. It would be like saying people prefer Ford to Porsche because more people own Fords. (Apologies to Ford, as they do in fact deliver a decent product unlike our public schools).
Weissberg goes on to state that "Ironically, free-market reformers mistakenly believe that only the state can permit free-market solutions". Untrue and idiotic. Free market reformers aren't asking government to somehow "permit" free-market solutions. They're asking government to stop obstructing the free market. Creating a third rate school system propped up by seizing private property is the most egregious form of market interference one can imagine. The unions and their puppets don't oppose school choice because they fear it will fail. They oppose it because they fear it will succeed and thereby expose the system for what it is: a multibillion dollar entitlement parasite.
Weissberg's article is so dumb, so ill-conceived and so contrary to what is obvious that it almost seems like a shill article. I certainly hope not, but I have seen first hand how desperate educrats have become in discrediting an end to their gravy train.
Jim Peschke
The above was in response to the American Thinker article titled Demand, Not Supply Drives Educational Achievement by Robert Weissberg.
Free market conservatives passionately insist that school choice will solve America's education woes. So as schools proliferate and competition heats up, academic achievement will soar just as fierce market competition has delivered better and cheaper computers and TVs. This seductive analogy is, unfortunately, hardening into unchallenged dogma. Worse, it misdiagnoses the problem. It is demand, not supply that drives academic attainment. In economic terms, Say's Law -- supply creates demand -- is wrong and Keynes -- demand creates supply -- is correct. If youngsters and parents truly desired academic excellence, the market would happily supply it. Absent demand, no amount of supply, regardless of price, can whet appetites for learning.
To read the rest of the article go to American Thinker.
Cathy Peschke
Weissberg's outright rejection of what he calls "Say's Law" is unsubstantiated and flat-out untrue. Few people demanded cell phones before they became available en masse. Same with iPods. In some instances, supply DOES create demand. Henry Ford commented that if they had listened to what the public wanted, they would have built faster horses.
Second, Weissberg mischaracterizes what "demand" actually means. To say "I'd like a cheeseburger" is not demand in the economic sense. To say "I'll pay $5 for a cheeseburger" IS demand. What advocates of free market solutions to education point out is that the unionized government monopoly destroys demand (backed by money, in the economic sense) by confiscating private funds which could otherwise go to the private sector. Absent this abhorrent seizure of national wealth, parents would have insatiable demand backed by real dollars.
Today's "choice" schemes only apply to those privileged few able to support the unionized government monopoly AND their own private needs. Ironic and hypocritical from a political party self identified with working class Americans.
The idea that parents must be satisfied with the monstrosity that is public education because they're not all flocking to Sylvan is preposterous. It would be like saying people prefer Ford to Porsche because more people own Fords. (Apologies to Ford, as they do in fact deliver a decent product unlike our public schools).
Weissberg goes on to state that "Ironically, free-market reformers mistakenly believe that only the state can permit free-market solutions". Untrue and idiotic. Free market reformers aren't asking government to somehow "permit" free-market solutions. They're asking government to stop obstructing the free market. Creating a third rate school system propped up by seizing private property is the most egregious form of market interference one can imagine. The unions and their puppets don't oppose school choice because they fear it will fail. They oppose it because they fear it will succeed and thereby expose the system for what it is: a multibillion dollar entitlement parasite.
Weissberg's article is so dumb, so ill-conceived and so contrary to what is obvious that it almost seems like a shill article. I certainly hope not, but I have seen first hand how desperate educrats have become in discrediting an end to their gravy train.
Jim Peschke
The above was in response to the American Thinker article titled Demand, Not Supply Drives Educational Achievement by Robert Weissberg.
Free market conservatives passionately insist that school choice will solve America's education woes. So as schools proliferate and competition heats up, academic achievement will soar just as fierce market competition has delivered better and cheaper computers and TVs. This seductive analogy is, unfortunately, hardening into unchallenged dogma. Worse, it misdiagnoses the problem. It is demand, not supply that drives academic attainment. In economic terms, Say's Law -- supply creates demand -- is wrong and Keynes -- demand creates supply -- is correct. If youngsters and parents truly desired academic excellence, the market would happily supply it. Absent demand, no amount of supply, regardless of price, can whet appetites for learning.
To read the rest of the article go to American Thinker.
Cathy Peschke
Friday, April 24, 2009
What have you found in your child's backpack? Did you ever find poop?
During election season we usually hear from a number of parents who are angry because the school has put literature in their child's backpack asking in so many words for the parents to support a tax warrant or a tax referendum. We have not heard a parent complain about getting poop in a backpack, yet!
I find it funny because after so many years of studying the public education system nothing surprises me. Others may find the following story disturbing.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
The following story appears at WINK News.com.
Teacher puts poop in kid's backpack
Story Created: Apr 22, 2009 at 4:28 PM EDT
Story Updated: Apr 22, 2009 at 4:30 PM EDT
YAKIMA, WA (KIMA) - An unexpected surprise in their son's backpack caught some Yakima Washington parents off guard. It was human waste, with a note attached from the boy's teacher. And the school isn't denying that's what happened.
"I'm still kinda in shock over this, because why would somebody do this? It's disgusting," said Jason, the father of the little boy.
It all started on Friday at Apple Valley Elementary, when kindergarten teacher, Mrs. Graham called Jason and told him her classroom was "stinky" and asked if it could possibly be his son.
Jason's son had a couple of accidents in the past. So when the teacher called, he says he told her right away, there was an extra set of clothes in his son's bag. But when the 5-year-old came home, the boy was still wearing his original outfit, and Jason says his son was completely clean.
It wasn't until Jason's wife emptied her son's backpack that they got a big surprise.
"She found a clear plastic baggie with a piece of fecal matter wrapped up in some a brown paper towel with the note on it. ‘This little turd was on the floor in my room’ And that's all it says. Q: Nothing else? A: Nothing else. If it was his did she see him do this? Or did she follow him around to make sure this was his, did she see it drop out? Or just assume it was his because he had an accident a few months ago?"
These are all answers the family doesn't have.
Jason did not receive a call from the school or the teacher.
The superintendent sent an email to say they were looking into it.
But with just a couple months left in this school year, Jason isn't sure he wants his son to stay in her class.
"Not only did she put our kid at risk, it's a health risk, other kids too, you know, on the bus," said Jason.
The West Valley Superintendent says the district's Human Resources Department was speaking with the teacher, Mrs. Graham, and the Apple Valley principal.
That meeting happened Tuesday afternoon, but at this time the principal says they are still looking into the details of what happened, and will talk with the parents further.
---
Information from Melissa Wagner, KIMA
The above picture appears at Ithacan Online.
What happens when Teachers Unions gives Tens of Millions of Dollars to the Democrats?
The teachers' unions wielding their uncanny power and wealth garnered through reaping taxpayers' dollars have successfully got Obama and the democrats to axe a program that helps poor and underprivileged children. I just wonder how many of these parents voted for the very people who took away their children's voucher program? Now that is change I knew would occur.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
The following portion of a piece appears in the Houston Chronicle.
Obama vows to ax program hated by teachers
By GEORGE F. WILL Washington Post
"The president has set an example for his Cabinet. He has ladled a trillion or so dollars (“or so” is today’s shorthand for “give or take a few hundreds of billions”) hither and yon, but while ladling he has, or thinks he has, saved about $15 million by killing, or trying to kill, a tiny program that this year is enabling about 1,715 District of Columbia children (90 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic) to escape from the district’s failing public schools and enroll in private schools.
The district’s mayor and school superintendent support the program. But the president has vowed to kill programs that “don’t work.” He has looked high and low and — lo and behold — has found one. By uncanny coincidence, it is detested by the teachers unions that gave approximately four times $15 million to Democratic candidates and liberal causes last year.
Not content with seeing the program set to die after the 2009-10 school year, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (former head of Chicago’s school system, which never enrolled an Obama child) gratuitously dashed even the limited hopes of another 200 children and their parents. Duncan, who has sensibly chosen to live with his wife and two children in Virginia rather than the district, rescinded the scholarships already awarded to those children for the final year of the program, beginning in September. He was, you understand, thinking only of the children and their parents: He would spare them the turmoil of being forced by, well, Duncan and other Democrats to return to terrible public schools after a tantalizing one-year taste of something better. Call that compassionate liberalism.
After Congress debated the program, the Department of Education released — on a Friday afternoon, a news cemetery — a congressionally mandated study showing that, measured by student improvement and parental satisfaction, the district’s program works. The department could not suppress the Heritage Foundation’s report that 38 percent of members of Congress sent or are sending their children to private schools.
The Senate voted 58-39 to kill the program. Heritage reports that if the senators who have exercised their ability to choose private schools had voted to continue the program that allows less-privileged parents to make that choice for their children, the program would have been preserved."
To view the rest of the story go to the Houston Chronicle.
Cathy
Spelling and grammar errors as well as typos are left as an exercise for my readers.
The following portion of a piece appears in the Houston Chronicle.
Obama vows to ax program hated by teachers
By GEORGE F. WILL Washington Post
"The president has set an example for his Cabinet. He has ladled a trillion or so dollars (“or so” is today’s shorthand for “give or take a few hundreds of billions”) hither and yon, but while ladling he has, or thinks he has, saved about $15 million by killing, or trying to kill, a tiny program that this year is enabling about 1,715 District of Columbia children (90 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic) to escape from the district’s failing public schools and enroll in private schools.
The district’s mayor and school superintendent support the program. But the president has vowed to kill programs that “don’t work.” He has looked high and low and — lo and behold — has found one. By uncanny coincidence, it is detested by the teachers unions that gave approximately four times $15 million to Democratic candidates and liberal causes last year.
Not content with seeing the program set to die after the 2009-10 school year, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (former head of Chicago’s school system, which never enrolled an Obama child) gratuitously dashed even the limited hopes of another 200 children and their parents. Duncan, who has sensibly chosen to live with his wife and two children in Virginia rather than the district, rescinded the scholarships already awarded to those children for the final year of the program, beginning in September. He was, you understand, thinking only of the children and their parents: He would spare them the turmoil of being forced by, well, Duncan and other Democrats to return to terrible public schools after a tantalizing one-year taste of something better. Call that compassionate liberalism.
After Congress debated the program, the Department of Education released — on a Friday afternoon, a news cemetery — a congressionally mandated study showing that, measured by student improvement and parental satisfaction, the district’s program works. The department could not suppress the Heritage Foundation’s report that 38 percent of members of Congress sent or are sending their children to private schools.
The Senate voted 58-39 to kill the program. Heritage reports that if the senators who have exercised their ability to choose private schools had voted to continue the program that allows less-privileged parents to make that choice for their children, the program would have been preserved."
To view the rest of the story go to the Houston Chronicle.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Aaron Aldridge Ariticle in Valley News
The Valley News had an article that touched more into what Aaron Aldridge did and when. Those interested should pick up a copy at the news stand. My readership is way up and it is because of my posts about Aaron Aldridge. If you read the paper you will find the victims were between the age of 2 and 15. His family will need a lot of support as more information comes out about these alleged crimes, I would hope that if any of my readers are friends of the Aldridge children you support them and not judge them on their father's actions. Don't ask questions about the situation but let them know that you are their friends and you will be their for support.
Cathy
Cathy
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
George II
When I went to go register Fletcher at Town Hall Charlene told me someone was giving away a Dachshund. I just had to get a brother for Fletcher. I could not resist naming him George after my beloved George who we lost about two weeks ago.
Cathy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)