Scott Reeder a brilliant investigative reporter and Small Newspaper Group Springfield bureau chief. Sent us the following note. Although the information below pertains to Illinois I will follow-up to see if he has information pertaining to New Hampshire.
Jim and Cathy,
I remember a 1 ½ years ago you were interested in an investigation I conducted of teacher tenure in Illinois. I thought you might be interested in a sequel to the series that began running today.
I’ve been working on this national investigation for the last seven months. I filed open records requests with all 50 state departments of education and obtained lists of all teachers who have had their licenses suspended or revoked in the last decade. I inputted the data into spreadsheets and conducted an analysis to see how Illinois compares to other states.
Here are some key findings:
* Only Virginia revokes or suspends fewer teaching certificates than Illinois.
* No investigators are employed by the Illinois State Board of Education so reports of teacher misconduct are often not investigated or acted upon.
* Illinois teachers hired before 2004 have not had to undergo a state-mandated national criminal background check.
* Illinois physicians are 43 times more likely than the state’s teachers to have their license suspended or revoked.
* Illinois lawyers are 25 times more like than teacher to have their license suspended or revoked.
* None of the tenured Illinois teachers fired in the last decade have also lost their teaching certificate and certification officials are not notified when a school district disciplines an educator
The series can be viewed at: HiddenViolations.com. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at: (217) 525-8201.
---Scott
We also recommend Scott's brilliant series about tenure for your reading pleasure. Although the series pertains to Illinois the basic premises pertain to any schools with tenure.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Newport School Information and SAU 43 Information.
Since Croydon schools funnel their children to Newport Schools after grade three it is important that Croydon parents and taxpayers be aware of what is happening in Newport Schools.
As a reminded the Newport School Board meeting agendas and minutes can be viewed by going to the Newport School website. Once there click on School Boards or SAU 43 to access the needed information.
As a reminded the Newport School Board meeting agendas and minutes can be viewed by going to the Newport School website. Once there click on School Boards or SAU 43 to access the needed information.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
New SAU 43 Organization Commitee Report
On September 27, 2007 there was a presentation at the Newport School Board meeting regarding the reorganization of SAU 43. We have obtained a copy of the presentation and will be glad to send the report on to anyone who requests the report.
The following was gleaned from the meeting: Although SAU 43 loss 51% of it's budget revenues from the withdrawal of Sunapee from the SAU, the SAU has no intention of cutting it's budget or staff by 51%. This maneuver will likely lead to deficit spending or increased taxes through future tax warrants. The report also points out a continual increase in spending despite a continual decrease in the student population.
Croydon's best move would be to also withdrawal from the SAU. Better yet Newport should get rid of the SAU completely. SAUs have not been around that long, at best they are bureaucratic organization that wastes money. There appears to be no reason that the tasks conducted by SAU's can not be conducted on school site with current staffing and administration. Unless of course the purpose is to waste as many tax dollars as possible and keep people feeding off the Big Ed Gravy Train.
Our schools continue to have a spending problem not a funding problem with no increase in student performance.
The following was gleaned from the meeting: Although SAU 43 loss 51% of it's budget revenues from the withdrawal of Sunapee from the SAU, the SAU has no intention of cutting it's budget or staff by 51%. This maneuver will likely lead to deficit spending or increased taxes through future tax warrants. The report also points out a continual increase in spending despite a continual decrease in the student population.
Croydon's best move would be to also withdrawal from the SAU. Better yet Newport should get rid of the SAU completely. SAUs have not been around that long, at best they are bureaucratic organization that wastes money. There appears to be no reason that the tasks conducted by SAU's can not be conducted on school site with current staffing and administration. Unless of course the purpose is to waste as many tax dollars as possible and keep people feeding off the Big Ed Gravy Train.
Our schools continue to have a spending problem not a funding problem with no increase in student performance.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
CHECK THE FACTS: Selling adequacy, making millions
I finally got the chance to go to my first Croydon school board meeting. It was a real eye opener and I hope to attend more meetings on a regular basis from here on out.
A woman in the audience pointed out that her taxes went up from 300 dollars to when she first moved to Croydon to 3000 dollars the amount she is currently paying. Education spending in Croydon has out paced the rate of inflation without correlating improvement in student performance. Our goal over the next few months is to do some investigative reporting and report on said information here.
Along those lines we want to share with our readers a must read article regarding lawsuits bought on by organizations of which teachers belong. The following snippet appeared in the Hoover Institution's Education Next A Journal of Opinion and Research. The Sunapee School District is departing from SAU 43 this could mean bigger taxes for Croydon residents. In reality what should happen is the SAU should cut spending in proportion to the revenues lost by the departure of the Sunapee School District. On top of that we are facing income taxes as a result of adequacy lawsuits bought on by individuals that are to educate our children. It is really important for taxpayers and parents to become involved and try to reduce spending. If spending increases school employees will only have more power to continue to increase spending at rates far exceeding the rate of inflation meaning continually higher taxes in the future.
What Are States Paying For?
Cost estimates are an important component in the politics of court and legislative deliberations on schools. The adequacy debates are typically motivated by obvious and real shortfalls in the achievement of a state’s students, but a combination of naive concerned citizens and self-interested parties invariably pushes to translate these debates into a simple dollar figure. Such translation is salient for courts and legislatures and both simplifies and focuses the issue for the media.
What Picus and Odden provide in their reports is essentially a selective review of the published literature on program effects. Why do different states and organizations pay ever-increasing amounts to see this research review when Google would bring up the most recent version immediately and without expense? The answer is simple. Clients want a bottom-line statement about how much spending would provide an adequate education, and they want this cost estimate attached to their specific state. Few people care about the “studies” on which consultants base their reports, or even their validity, because nobody really expects schools to implement these specific programs if given extra funding. Clients simply want a requisite amount of scientific aura around the number that will become the rallying flag for political and legal actions.
Summing the added cost of the separate programs suggested by Picus and Odden, I estimate that the overall plan, if fully applied, would increase average spending in Washington by $1,760 to $2,760 per student, or 23 to 35 percent. This estimate of the increased spending necessary to achieve “adequacy” is very similar to the percentage increases they have recommended to other states, and numbers like these will presumably become part of the headlines surrounding the new court case.
But pity the poor states that actually implement the Picus and Odden plan. They are sure to be disappointed by the results, and most taxpayers (those who do not work for the schools) will be noticeably poorer.
Eric A. Hanushek is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a member of its Koret Task Force on K–12 Education.
To read the full article go to Hoover Institution's Education Next website.
A woman in the audience pointed out that her taxes went up from 300 dollars to when she first moved to Croydon to 3000 dollars the amount she is currently paying. Education spending in Croydon has out paced the rate of inflation without correlating improvement in student performance. Our goal over the next few months is to do some investigative reporting and report on said information here.
Along those lines we want to share with our readers a must read article regarding lawsuits bought on by organizations of which teachers belong. The following snippet appeared in the Hoover Institution's Education Next A Journal of Opinion and Research. The Sunapee School District is departing from SAU 43 this could mean bigger taxes for Croydon residents. In reality what should happen is the SAU should cut spending in proportion to the revenues lost by the departure of the Sunapee School District. On top of that we are facing income taxes as a result of adequacy lawsuits bought on by individuals that are to educate our children. It is really important for taxpayers and parents to become involved and try to reduce spending. If spending increases school employees will only have more power to continue to increase spending at rates far exceeding the rate of inflation meaning continually higher taxes in the future.
What Are States Paying For?
Cost estimates are an important component in the politics of court and legislative deliberations on schools. The adequacy debates are typically motivated by obvious and real shortfalls in the achievement of a state’s students, but a combination of naive concerned citizens and self-interested parties invariably pushes to translate these debates into a simple dollar figure. Such translation is salient for courts and legislatures and both simplifies and focuses the issue for the media.
What Picus and Odden provide in their reports is essentially a selective review of the published literature on program effects. Why do different states and organizations pay ever-increasing amounts to see this research review when Google would bring up the most recent version immediately and without expense? The answer is simple. Clients want a bottom-line statement about how much spending would provide an adequate education, and they want this cost estimate attached to their specific state. Few people care about the “studies” on which consultants base their reports, or even their validity, because nobody really expects schools to implement these specific programs if given extra funding. Clients simply want a requisite amount of scientific aura around the number that will become the rallying flag for political and legal actions.
Summing the added cost of the separate programs suggested by Picus and Odden, I estimate that the overall plan, if fully applied, would increase average spending in Washington by $1,760 to $2,760 per student, or 23 to 35 percent. This estimate of the increased spending necessary to achieve “adequacy” is very similar to the percentage increases they have recommended to other states, and numbers like these will presumably become part of the headlines surrounding the new court case.
But pity the poor states that actually implement the Picus and Odden plan. They are sure to be disappointed by the results, and most taxpayers (those who do not work for the schools) will be noticeably poorer.
Eric A. Hanushek is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a member of its Koret Task Force on K–12 Education.
To read the full article go to Hoover Institution's Education Next website.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Suing school districts unhappy with state's position
The article at the bottom of this post appeared in the Union Leader.
The only ones who are going to benefit from this court case our the employees of the school districts and any businesses doing business with the schools. This lawsuit is about one thing and one thing only, taking as much money out of our pockets and putting it into school employees pockets. Adequacy lawsuits never result in increased student performance. This is about greed not need. Our schools have a spending problem not a funding problem.
If only our congressmen and judges did a little research before handing done this insane decision students and taxpayers would have a brighter future.
CHECK THE FACTS:
The Confidence Men
By Eric Hanushek
Selling adequacy, making millions
Suing school districts unhappy with state's position
By NORMA LOVE
The Associated Press
Friday, Sep. 7, 2007
CONCORD – A coalition of towns suing New Hampshire over school funding wants the state Supreme Court to make lawmakers determine its cost and come up with a way to pay for it by June 30.
The coalition -- led by Londonderry -- is reacting to the state's request last month that the court dismiss the lawsuit without requiring it to come up with funding by next June.
The state argues that the Legislature has completed the first of four mandates set down by the court needed to settle the long battle over school funding -- defining an adequate education -- and is working on the second mandate -- determining its cost.
If the court decides not to dismiss the case, the state asked the court to put off any proceedings while lawmakers determine the cost of the state's share of school costs.
The towns want guarantees that whatever cost the Legislature settles on is funded next spring, not left to a future Legislature.
The latest arguments are in response to a July request by the court on whether the case should be sent back to the lower court.
The coalition said it would not push for the court to step in now if the state promised to fulfill the three remaining court mandates -- determine the state's cost, fund it and hold districts accountable to deliver it -- also by next June 30. The districts accepted the definition enacted by lawmakers.
The state only promised to determine the cost.
Now, the coalition is saying the state is failing to act in good faith.
"This inability or lack of desire to comply with a series of court rulings over the past 20 years is detrimental to the continued health and viability of the public education system and, in turn, the economy of our great state," the coalition said in a statement released Wednesday.
"Our good faith effort was that we defined an adequate education without regard to steps two, three and four and our good faith continues with the costing commission," House Speaker Terie Norelli responded yesterday.
The state has struggled over the school funding issue for years.
In 1991, Claremont and four other property-poor towns sued over the state's reliance on local property taxes to pay for schools. A series of Supreme Court decisions held that the state has a duty to provide an adequate education that is adequately funded.
A key 1997 ruling found the state's reliance on local property taxes for most school funding unconstitutional.
Last year, Londonderry and a group of towns won a lawsuit in superior court over the aid system put in place in 2005. The state appealed and the high court sided with the towns. (That funding system has since been replaced with an interim one to give lawmakers time to craft a better system.)
Last September, the court left the aid system in place but set the June 30, 2007, deadline for the state to define an adequate education. The court reiterated its four long-standing mandates that the state must meet to comply with the constitution: define an adequate education, price it, pay for it and hold towns accountable for delivering it. The court has said the amount need not be the same for every pupil, but emphatically rejected aid systems that help only selected towns.
Gov. John Lynch signed a law June 29 that defined adequacy. The definition includes subject areas, such as math and reading, without tying them to the hours taught or other specific cost components. It also mandates kindergarten.
Lynch would like to target aid to the neediest towns, but a constitutional amendment he needed to allow that died in the House this year. Senate Democrats tried to revive the amendment, but lacked the votes to pass it and decided to wait until January to try again. Lynch says he hasn't given up on putting an amendment before voters in November 2008.
A special legislative commission has just started working on determining the cost of adequacy.
The only ones who are going to benefit from this court case our the employees of the school districts and any businesses doing business with the schools. This lawsuit is about one thing and one thing only, taking as much money out of our pockets and putting it into school employees pockets. Adequacy lawsuits never result in increased student performance. This is about greed not need. Our schools have a spending problem not a funding problem.
If only our congressmen and judges did a little research before handing done this insane decision students and taxpayers would have a brighter future.
CHECK THE FACTS:
The Confidence Men
By Eric Hanushek
Selling adequacy, making millions
Suing school districts unhappy with state's position
By NORMA LOVE
The Associated Press
Friday, Sep. 7, 2007
CONCORD – A coalition of towns suing New Hampshire over school funding wants the state Supreme Court to make lawmakers determine its cost and come up with a way to pay for it by June 30.
The coalition -- led by Londonderry -- is reacting to the state's request last month that the court dismiss the lawsuit without requiring it to come up with funding by next June.
The state argues that the Legislature has completed the first of four mandates set down by the court needed to settle the long battle over school funding -- defining an adequate education -- and is working on the second mandate -- determining its cost.
If the court decides not to dismiss the case, the state asked the court to put off any proceedings while lawmakers determine the cost of the state's share of school costs.
The towns want guarantees that whatever cost the Legislature settles on is funded next spring, not left to a future Legislature.
The latest arguments are in response to a July request by the court on whether the case should be sent back to the lower court.
The coalition said it would not push for the court to step in now if the state promised to fulfill the three remaining court mandates -- determine the state's cost, fund it and hold districts accountable to deliver it -- also by next June 30. The districts accepted the definition enacted by lawmakers.
The state only promised to determine the cost.
Now, the coalition is saying the state is failing to act in good faith.
"This inability or lack of desire to comply with a series of court rulings over the past 20 years is detrimental to the continued health and viability of the public education system and, in turn, the economy of our great state," the coalition said in a statement released Wednesday.
"Our good faith effort was that we defined an adequate education without regard to steps two, three and four and our good faith continues with the costing commission," House Speaker Terie Norelli responded yesterday.
The state has struggled over the school funding issue for years.
In 1991, Claremont and four other property-poor towns sued over the state's reliance on local property taxes to pay for schools. A series of Supreme Court decisions held that the state has a duty to provide an adequate education that is adequately funded.
A key 1997 ruling found the state's reliance on local property taxes for most school funding unconstitutional.
Last year, Londonderry and a group of towns won a lawsuit in superior court over the aid system put in place in 2005. The state appealed and the high court sided with the towns. (That funding system has since been replaced with an interim one to give lawmakers time to craft a better system.)
Last September, the court left the aid system in place but set the June 30, 2007, deadline for the state to define an adequate education. The court reiterated its four long-standing mandates that the state must meet to comply with the constitution: define an adequate education, price it, pay for it and hold towns accountable for delivering it. The court has said the amount need not be the same for every pupil, but emphatically rejected aid systems that help only selected towns.
Gov. John Lynch signed a law June 29 that defined adequacy. The definition includes subject areas, such as math and reading, without tying them to the hours taught or other specific cost components. It also mandates kindergarten.
Lynch would like to target aid to the neediest towns, but a constitutional amendment he needed to allow that died in the House this year. Senate Democrats tried to revive the amendment, but lacked the votes to pass it and decided to wait until January to try again. Lynch says he hasn't given up on putting an amendment before voters in November 2008.
A special legislative commission has just started working on determining the cost of adequacy.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
How far teachers unions will go to stop choice.
The following article appeared in the Wall Street Journal
on August 29, 2007; Page A14. This article is a great reminder as to how important saving jobs is to the teachers' unions. The teachers unions are about protecting teacher's jobs. They do not care about our children and improving the public education system as to provide the best possible education for our children.
Voucher Showdown
The Utah legislature passed one of the nation's most far-sighted voucher laws in February, and the state teachers union is calling in the national cavalry to help repeal it in a November 6 referendum.
Last month Kim Campbell, the head of the Utah Education Association, schlepped all the way to Philadelphia to speak at a National Education Association convention, where she asked the board of directors for financial support to oppose school choice. Ms. Campbell promised that her campaign to defeat it "will be ugly, mean and expensive," and she needs the outside cash to overwhelm pro-voucher supporters in the state. Look for other liberal activists to pour cash into what will be the most significant state-wide ballot test for school choice in years.
The Utah union chief made her out-of-state trek, by the way, even as one of her spokesmen back home denounced the "river of money from out-of-state ideologues intent on starting a voucher experiment in Utah." Apparently, out-of-state contributions are only tainted when they're used to support something the teachers union opposes.
In any case, Ms. Campbell's plea didn't fall on deaf ears. Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency, a union watchdog, reported recently that the Utah union's $3 million request for its anti-voucher campaign was approved. The union's executive director wouldn't confirm or deny the amount when we inquired, but she did volunteer that "we're reaching out to the national affiliate for support and assistance, and we're hoping it will be significant." You can bet it will be.
on August 29, 2007; Page A14. This article is a great reminder as to how important saving jobs is to the teachers' unions. The teachers unions are about protecting teacher's jobs. They do not care about our children and improving the public education system as to provide the best possible education for our children.
Voucher Showdown
The Utah legislature passed one of the nation's most far-sighted voucher laws in February, and the state teachers union is calling in the national cavalry to help repeal it in a November 6 referendum.
Last month Kim Campbell, the head of the Utah Education Association, schlepped all the way to Philadelphia to speak at a National Education Association convention, where she asked the board of directors for financial support to oppose school choice. Ms. Campbell promised that her campaign to defeat it "will be ugly, mean and expensive," and she needs the outside cash to overwhelm pro-voucher supporters in the state. Look for other liberal activists to pour cash into what will be the most significant state-wide ballot test for school choice in years.
The Utah union chief made her out-of-state trek, by the way, even as one of her spokesmen back home denounced the "river of money from out-of-state ideologues intent on starting a voucher experiment in Utah." Apparently, out-of-state contributions are only tainted when they're used to support something the teachers union opposes.
In any case, Ms. Campbell's plea didn't fall on deaf ears. Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency, a union watchdog, reported recently that the Utah union's $3 million request for its anti-voucher campaign was approved. The union's executive director wouldn't confirm or deny the amount when we inquired, but she did volunteer that "we're reaching out to the national affiliate for support and assistance, and we're hoping it will be significant." You can bet it will be.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Panel examining cost of kindergarten start-ups
The article below our commentary appeared in the Union Leader.
First legislators and educrats want to mandate kindergarten and than they will want to mandate preschool. But are both even necessary and are they effective and cost efficient? Research generally shows the answers to these questions is no.
Essentially what you get is a waste of tax dollars with almost all gains lost by the third grade.
References materials to view.
Research Disputes Benefits of Early Education
A Fresh Start for Head Start.
The United States ranks 23rd in education performance in the world, despite spending more than any other nation. Most nations do not have kids start school until age 7. Imagine the billions of dollars we would save every year if we increased the age of formal education.
Panel examining cost of kindergarten start-ups
By TOM FAHEY
State House Bureau Chief
Concord – A special legislative panel on education costs will pay special attention to the costs of starting up kindergarten programs in 11 school districts.
A subcommittee will look closely at how the state should help the handful of districts that don't now offer kindergarten as they join the the 140 districts in the state that do offer it.
The 11-member committee began work yesterday on figuring the cost of the state's new definition of an adequate education. That definition, which lawmakers adopted just a few months ago, makes kindergartens a mandatory program in all school districts for the first time.
The state Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the state has an obligation to define an adequate education, figure out its cost and fund it. The work toward determining the cost has to be finished by Feb. 1, 2008. Then the state will have to figure out how to raise the extra money to pay that cost.
Total spending on public schools in grades K through 12 amounts to about $2.4 billion a year. Estimates are that the adequacy definition will require the state to supply about half that total. Current state funding for adequacy is about $800 million, significantly below the expected new cost.
Sen. Peter Bragdon, R-Milford, pointed out that the law requires kindergarten programs to be in place by next September, but local school budgets won't be voted on until next March. That leaves little time for construction of new buildings or renovations of existing space, he said.
Rep. Kenneth Weyler, R-Kingston, said the subcommittee ought to consider whether private contractors can continue to offer kindergarten programs, at public expense, as a way to make the transition.
"Rather than make it 'one size fits all,' we may be able to work it out on a case-by-case basis," Weyler said.
New Hampshire will have 11 school districts that do not offer public kindergarten after next month, when Fremont and the Timberlane School District in Plaistow launch programs. Timberlane also includes the towns of Atkinson, Sandown and Danville.
Litchfield has approved a program, but has no fixed start-up date, according to the state Department of Education.
Those with no locally approved program are Auburn, Chester, Derry, Hudson, Lyndeborough, Milford, Pelham, Salem, Windham and the Mascenic district, which serves, Greenville, Mason and New Ipswich.
Sen. Iris Estabrook, D-Durham, and Rep. Emma Rous, D-Durham, will co-chair the commission. Plans are to bring in consultants, national legislative experts and the public before the committee begins to write its report.
The panel has to find a method of pinning down the cost of programs set out in the new definition, come up with a kindergarten transition program and a method for identifying school districts that need more aid than the average.
First legislators and educrats want to mandate kindergarten and than they will want to mandate preschool. But are both even necessary and are they effective and cost efficient? Research generally shows the answers to these questions is no.
Essentially what you get is a waste of tax dollars with almost all gains lost by the third grade.
References materials to view.
Research Disputes Benefits of Early Education
A Fresh Start for Head Start.
The United States ranks 23rd in education performance in the world, despite spending more than any other nation. Most nations do not have kids start school until age 7. Imagine the billions of dollars we would save every year if we increased the age of formal education.
Panel examining cost of kindergarten start-ups
By TOM FAHEY
State House Bureau Chief
Concord – A special legislative panel on education costs will pay special attention to the costs of starting up kindergarten programs in 11 school districts.
A subcommittee will look closely at how the state should help the handful of districts that don't now offer kindergarten as they join the the 140 districts in the state that do offer it.
The 11-member committee began work yesterday on figuring the cost of the state's new definition of an adequate education. That definition, which lawmakers adopted just a few months ago, makes kindergartens a mandatory program in all school districts for the first time.
The state Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the state has an obligation to define an adequate education, figure out its cost and fund it. The work toward determining the cost has to be finished by Feb. 1, 2008. Then the state will have to figure out how to raise the extra money to pay that cost.
Total spending on public schools in grades K through 12 amounts to about $2.4 billion a year. Estimates are that the adequacy definition will require the state to supply about half that total. Current state funding for adequacy is about $800 million, significantly below the expected new cost.
Sen. Peter Bragdon, R-Milford, pointed out that the law requires kindergarten programs to be in place by next September, but local school budgets won't be voted on until next March. That leaves little time for construction of new buildings or renovations of existing space, he said.
Rep. Kenneth Weyler, R-Kingston, said the subcommittee ought to consider whether private contractors can continue to offer kindergarten programs, at public expense, as a way to make the transition.
"Rather than make it 'one size fits all,' we may be able to work it out on a case-by-case basis," Weyler said.
New Hampshire will have 11 school districts that do not offer public kindergarten after next month, when Fremont and the Timberlane School District in Plaistow launch programs. Timberlane also includes the towns of Atkinson, Sandown and Danville.
Litchfield has approved a program, but has no fixed start-up date, according to the state Department of Education.
Those with no locally approved program are Auburn, Chester, Derry, Hudson, Lyndeborough, Milford, Pelham, Salem, Windham and the Mascenic district, which serves, Greenville, Mason and New Ipswich.
Sen. Iris Estabrook, D-Durham, and Rep. Emma Rous, D-Durham, will co-chair the commission. Plans are to bring in consultants, national legislative experts and the public before the committee begins to write its report.
The panel has to find a method of pinning down the cost of programs set out in the new definition, come up with a kindergarten transition program and a method for identifying school districts that need more aid than the average.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)