No this is royally ripped off!

Plain, simple and blunt.

Why do the Students in Northfield Public Schools, receive an average of, for the last four years, 4,288.00 less then Minneapolis Public Schools students.

And why in the coming, year 2010 is Minneaoplis to recieve an additional 1072.00  per student and Northfield an additional 6.00 per student?

Disparity? What disparity?

Ask our esteemed Senator Kevin Dahle. Why?

If I remember correctly his comment included a “Well they have different needs” or some such dumb thing?

Why do they have different needs? What makes them different then our students that it results in 4896.00 dollars in 2010?

14112.00 for Mpls to 9216.00 for Northfield. 4896.00 difference.

And if you look at Belle Plain they LOST 98.00 per student.

New Prague will receive 5855.00 less then Mpls in 2010.

And finally we have a little “BLOAT” in Mpls.

With poor, to very poor results?

Minneapolis reports 89 administrators making over $100,000. Another 24 make in the $90-100,000 range. The lowest paid administrator makes over $60,000. The highest paid (superintendent) makes nearly $195,000. (These figures are from the 2008-09 school year.)

This is in a school district where 53 percent of students are NOT proficient in math (the statewide average is 33 percent) and 49 percent are NOT proficient in reading (the statewide average is 29 percent). And a school district whose funding is several thousands of dollars (48 percent) higher than the state average

That is about enough. Know what would Mr Dahle have to say to explain this one?

The New  York Times reports:

The Obama administration is proposing a sweeping overhaul of President Bush’s signature education law, No Child Left Behind, and will call for broad changes in how schools are judged to be succeeding or failing, as well as for the elimination of the law’s 2014 deadline for bringing every American child to academic proficiency…

[The] administration is not planning to abandon the law’s commitments to closing the achievement gap between minority and white students and to encouraging teacher quality…
[The] White House wants to change federal financing formulas so that a portion of the money is awarded based on academic progress, rather than by formulas that apportion money to districts according to their numbers of students, especially poor students. The well-worn formulas for distributing tens of billions of dollars in federal aid have, for decades, been a mainstay of the annual budgeting process in the nation’s 14,000 school districts…

The changes would have to be approved by Congress, which has been at a stalemate for years over how to change the policy.

With reference to the story about the school, which banned pupils, who weren’t on free school meals, from going on funded trips, one needs to take into account the pressure on schools, in this respect.

The Education Department is required to try to counter social deprivation. It chooses to do this by taking note of the number of pupils registered with a school, for free school meals. It isn’t a very good yardstick, as there are regions, where residents are happy to apply for every state benefit going and are quite knowledgeable of their entitlements. There are regions where residents are too proud to claim entitlements, or their children are afraid of being stigmatised, or the parents simply aren’t aware of their eligibility. Such areas are often not classed as socially deprived and so do not have any Council funded centres advertising or advising on such matters. Some of these residents may be people, who earn just enough to keep them  locked out of any benefits and aren’t aware that cutting their working hours by just an hour or so, or putting a bit of their savings under the mattress, can launch them onto free  meals, prescriptions, dentistry etc.

Schools, try to encourage parents to register for free school meals, because this benefits the school. The school not only receives extra funding (as in the case mentioned , where extra funding had been made available to pay for trips for pupils on the register for free school meals) but they get Brownie points, when legal tables are drawn up. These tables purport to compare the performances of like schools (and even like Councils), where the comparison  is based simply on this one indicator.  A school may be achieving quite good exam successes, for its size and budget but another school with a similar roll of pupils but higher number of free meals and with a better budget achieving lower exam grades, is classed as performing at a higher level.

Perhaps the school, in your story, was simply trying to encourage eligible parents to register for free school meals!

Schools across Indiana face nearly 300 million dollars in cuts. They need a way to absorb the blow and legislators are trying to find a fix. Jo Ann Klooz reports. Hear the Story

“We all pay the same amount, and we feel that is a heck of a lot fairer than what your house is assessed for.“

That’s a reported quote from Kentville’s mayor referring to the County’s attempt to change the funding formula for area schools from a per student formula to one based completely (or partially) on assessment.

Given what we know about the “fairness” – or not- of assessments we have a certain sympathy with Mayor Corkum’s remark.

We’ve discussed the school funding issue before in this post – it’s the elephant in the schoolroom. If the application goes against the municipalities it will mean much higher costs for most of the municipalities involved. It would add, for example, $608,000 to the expense side of Wolfville’s budget!

It is not much discussed in open sessions nor has there been much attempt to get public support for the Municipalities’ position.

“I think it is important the mayor and you as councillors are in the community able to discuss it publicly,” Kentville chief administrative officer Keith Robicheau told the Council Advisory Committee January 11.

Mayor David Corkum was quick to respond.

“We’re in court over this and we have to negotiate a lot of the stuff in camera, unfortunately….

But there are lots of questions residents, and especially parents, might want to ask.  The reality is if we want decent schools, and schools which are funded fairly, perhaps the whole system should be changed. Education is a provincial responsibility. Perhaps it is time it came off of Municipal and County budgets entirely.

Meanwhile taxpayers somewhere are paying legal costs for both sides to go to court ;  Kentville CAO, Keith Robicheau,  is right -

“… this is not the way governments resolve agreements with each other.”

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

An outfit called the Arizona Education Network took issue with a piece I wrote showing that Arizona K-12 spending has increased by 20% since 2000 while math and reading NAEP scores are up by less than 1% during approximate same period.

Unsheathing their flaming sword of justice, they wrote the following:

Update: Debunking Latest Education Spending Report by Special Interest Group – AZ student population up 22.7% while funding only grows 20%

The Washington Post reports:

President Obama announced a $250 million public-private effort Wednesday to improve science and mathematics instruction, aiming to help the nation compete in key fields with global economic rivals.

With funding from high-tech businesses, universities and foundations, the initiative seeks to prepare more than 10,000 new math and science schoolteachers over five years and provide on-the-job training for an additional 100,000 in science, technology, engineering and math…

Business and government leaders have sounded alarms over science and math education in recent years as concern has mounted that the United States may be losing the technological edge that fueled its economy in the 20th century. The nation’s universities are still known as world leaders, but the performance of its K-12 schools has come under scrutiny. International math testing in 2007 found that U.S. fourth-graders trailed counterparts in some areas of Europe and Asia and that U.S. eighth-graders lagged behind those from a handful of Asian powers. Similar results were found in science.

Kevin Casey speaks to reporters on the Capitol steps in Albany, answering questions about the lawsuit filed against the governor for withholding school funds. Read full story.

Colorado is broke. Now the state of Colorado wants the same for our schools. Among many ideas purposed by the Wickerdale Walkers is the Scratch Ticket for education. The goal is that money collected from the sale of these tickets would directly benefit the county schools where the ticket was sold. The benefits to schools are obvious, the benefit to the lottery would be increases exposure and across branded advertising with Colorados schools for a great cause. Educating children.

In a 32-page opinion, written by Chief Justice Paul A. Suttell, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the lower court (Superior Court Associate Justice Jeffrey A. Lanphear Judith C. Savage) in favor of the defendants, the members of the Cranston City Council, the Mayor, and the Director of Finance and against the plaintiffs – the School Committee of the City of Cranston and the Superintendent of Schools – who had brought this “Caruolo action” seeking additional city funds for city schools for the fiscal year (FY) 2007-2008.

The plaintiffs contended that the trial justice erred in concluding that the school committee did not meet the statutory prerequisites for filing a Caruolo action under R.I.G.L. 1956 § 16-2-21.4, as well as alleging a number of other errors.

The Court concluded that, in light of the language of the Caruolo Act itself, as well as the other pertinent provisions of G.L. 1956 chapter 2 of title 6, it was clearly the General Assembly’s intent to encourage expeditious action in instances of potential school deficit spending.  The Court therefore affirmed the trial justice’s application of the doctrine of laches in the instant case. The Court further held that the trial justice did not abuse her discretion in discussing the plaintiffs’ failure to conform to other statutory requirements prior to bringing the Caruolo action.

Superintendent reaches out to retired administrator to boost struggling schools [Las Vegas (Nev.) Sun]

Lack of computer access hampers some students [The Washington Post]

Diploma rate up; dropout rate falls [The Tampa (Fla.) Tribune]

Budget cuts inspiring advocacy for schools [The Arizona Republic, Phoenix, Ariz.]

Full report: Budget blame falls on Baldwin school board, state official says [Mobile (Ala.) Press-Register]

The Washington Post reports on the digital divide in Fairfax County, Virginia, one of the most affluent communities in the United States.

Henry Jenkins, a professor at the University of Southern California, describes today’s digital divide as the “participation gap” — the chasm between students who have ready access to the Internet at home vs. those struggling to work in public spaces. Those with home access have a big advantage because they’ll have ample time to develop social networking, research and other skills necessary to succeed later on, Jenkins said.

Simpson says cuts to education should be last resort
Says decisions should be made on annual forecast, not month-to-month targeting

INDIANAPOLIS –Senate Democrat Leader Vi Simpson (D-Ellettsville) responded to the governor’s announcement today that he will cut $150 million in state funding to public colleges and universities. Simpson says cuts to education should be the last resort and she questioned making the cuts based on monthly targets set by the governor’s office.

“The governor is right to be cautious in terms of the revenue going forward, but he should also be cautious in the kinds of cuts that he is making. Cuts to K-12 schools and higher education should be the last case scenario, not the first,” Simpson commented.

Simpson also said the targets that the governor refers to on a monthly basis are set by his office and the State Budget Agency, not the bipartisan revenue forecast committee.

“I appreciate the governor taking into consideration the seriousness of the situation, but I think it is important to understand that the revenue forecast and the budget are based on an annual basis and not on a month-to-month basis,” Simpson explained.

She pointed to approximately $100 million in motor vehicle excise tax revenue in the “Other” revenue category expected to be collected in October and November. Since property tax billings have been delayed in several counties, the revenue has not come in as targeted. Another $50 million is included in the “Other” category for December’s revenue target. Simpson says this is not lost revenue, but revenue that is expected to be collected before the end of the state’s 2010 fiscal year.

Listen to Senator Simpson’s comments >

November revenue report >

For more details on the November revenue report’s “other” category >

Education Week reports that California and other states are developing long-term plans to move away from traditional paper textbooks towards digital resources, some of which are available at not cost as open source materials.

The Obama Administration has made STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) education one of its priorities. Wired News provides an excellent round-up of the various programs currently underway:

“We’re going to show young people how cool science can be.”

Those were some of the inspiring words by President Barack Obama at the launching of the new “Educate to Innovate” campaign on Monday this week. This initiative aims to increase science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) literacy amongst students to improve our national standing from average (or in some cases, below average) to the top. $4.35 billion in Federal grants will be offered to schools who can innovate in STEM education and the private sector is stepping up with an additional $260 million in related funding and programs…

The biggest story in education last week was the release of the final application for the $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” funding that the federal government has made available for states. But what is the fund?  What are its objectives?  How do states actually receive the money?  Here are 10 things you should know about the fund.

1). It is a lot of money, but it is a small percentage of the annual education budget.

Qualifying states could receive as much as $700 million, which sounds like a lot.  But the $4.35 billion fund actually represents a small fraction of the annual U.S. spending in K-12 education, which was estimated to be about $667 billion in the 2008-2009 school year.  Cash-strapped states in this recession year will of course be more than happy to receive this funding. 

2). The fund is designed to encourage education reform and reward the best proposals by the states.

States must submit applications that explain in detail how they plan to reform their education system and to implement a comprehensive data collection and evaluation system to measure whether they have met these goals. 

3). The state applications are evaluated based on a 500-point scale.

A detailed summary and explanation of the scoring system and the scale can be found here.

4). There are two phases in the application process.

The funding application process is divided into two phases.  States that are ready now can apply in Phase I, which has a deadline on January 19, 2010.  Those that need more time can apply during Phase II, which has a deadline of June 1, 2010.  States that received grants in Phase I cannot reapply during Phase II, but states that did not receive grants are invited to reapply in Phase II.

5). The fund encourages linking teacher evaluation to student performance.

States are not eligible to receive the funds unless they do away with statutory or regulatory barriers to link student test scores and performance to teacher evaluation. Many states currently have this barrier, and several state legislatures have already moved to pass legislation that abolish these prohibitions in order to be eligible for the funding.

6). The fund encourages charter schools.

Both President Obama and Secretary Arne Duncan have been outspoken supporters of charter schools.  Race to the Top encourages states to create more charter schools.  Ten state legislatures have already responded by raising or repealing caps on the number of charter schools within the state.

7). “Common standards” and “data” are key words in the application process. 

This mean (mostly) student test scores.  The states are encouraged to develop and adopt ”standardized assessment” of student performance, implementing data systems to track and evaluate the performance over time, and score teachers and principals based on performance data.  

Altogether, tho parts of the application that deal with standard and data-collection are worth 175 points.  Moreover, “demonstrating progress” (30 points), demonstrating the turnaround of low-performance schools (40 points), and the effective implementation of other measures all rely on common standards and the development of a comprehensive data collection and evaluation system.

8). The biggest opposition has (and will continue to) come from teacher’s unions.

Unsurprisingly, the emphasis on using student standardized test scores to evaluate teachers, and the move towards “merit pay” in some states, have already met with fierce criticism from teacher’s unions and educational associations.

9). There is not enough focus on implementation.

Some are troubled by how little emphasis has been put on for making sure that states actually implement the wonderful plans that they create once they receive the funding.  One commentator put it very well:

I expect the plans to be truly impressive with the level of investment that Gates is making in helping states develop the plans. But education is full of well written plans that then become shelf art. I have written some of that wonderful shelf art myself. But, putting in place mechanisms to ensure that a state and its school districts live up to the plan that they have written does not seem to get much attention in this process.

10). Public reaction to the application has been largely positive but cautious.

Many questions remain, including how strictly the Department of Education will be enforcing the stated criteria and how high it would set the bar, and how much money would be left if the four biggest states (New York, California, Texas, Florida) decide to apply in Phase I.  We will be able to learn much more after April 2010, when the winners for Phase I are announced.

As is well known, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, among other things, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This is usually understood to mean, in Jefferson’s words, that there should be a “wall of separation” between the church and the state. Of course, Jefferson meant that the wall would only apply to the national government and not state government, who did have established religions (for example Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maryland). However, the practice of having state established religions discontinued, and definitely died out with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Today, however, it can’t be said that there is a “wall of separation” between religion and government.  The Supreme Court has allowed a few cracks in that wall. Here are just three examples. In Everson v. Board of Education, the Court held that reimbursements for transportation even to students of private religious schools do not violate the Establishment Clause. And in Simmons v. Zelman-Harris the Court ruled that disbursement of federal funds to local educational agencies which lent educational materials and equipment to public and private schools to implement secular, neutral and non-ideological programs, even though some of them are given to Catholic schools is constitutional as well.  Finally, in Agostini v. Felton, the Court held that public school teachers can instruct at religious schools so long as material is secular in nature.

In all these cases the Court has insisted that there be no excessive entanglement government and religion, and, as long as this condition was kept (along with other requirements), then the allocation of funds and resources to religious schools is constitutional. The flip side of this separation, of course,  is that government doesn’t have a say over the management of these schools.

Of course, this doesn’t have to be the case. One can ask the question why isn’t it the case that as long as federal (or state) funds are given to religious schools, government shouldn’t have more of a say in how these schools are run. If, as Greta suggested, education should be considered a basic right, perhaps we should be more inclined to increase state regulation on private religious schools. The problem here is that this type of involvement can create exactly the difficulties the Framers sought to avoid.

Consider this recent British Case. A 12 year old boy, son to a Jewish father and a Jewish convert mother, applied to the Jewish Free School. The school, like other parochial institutions, is partially funded by the British government. And yet, British law allows the school to decide on admissions based on criteria decided by a designated religious authority. Those criteria have denied the boy admission, since, per the school, the mother did not undergo an orthodox Jewish conversion, but a progressive one. Thus, per orthodox rules, the boy is not considered a Jew and thus was not admitted.

The parents sued, and though they lost, the appeals court reversed and held that the test of whether someone is Jewish — whether one’s mother is Jewish — was discriminatory, no matter what the rationale was. Further, the court held that the school did not use a religious distinction because its decision rested on the status of the child’s mother and hence it was an ethnic test, which is illegal. The court said that “The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act”. It concluded by saying that the admissions criteria must depend not on family ties on “faith. However defined”.

The ruling, which has been appealed to the Supreme Court, has rattled the Jewish community in Britain. The case is problematic on many grounds. We can talk about the usual problem of judicial overreach, but more importantly, there is the problem of a secular authority attempting to determine something which is clearly the purview of religious doctrine. Of course, the rationale for intervening is the fact of public financing. If public monies are used, why shouldn’t the larger community have a say on who gets admitted?

The problem, I think, lies with this dichotomy, this either-or thinking that once there is some state involvement then everything is up for grabs and is fair game. To be sure, I don’t know what the appropriate balance is, though my sense is that, at least politically, it would have been better for the court not to intervene and let this vexing issue be resolved inside the Jewish community. Legally, it’s hard for me to see why this is an “ethnic” issue and not also, or mainly, a “religious” one.

Be that as it may, my point is that the U.S. model is not the only one available to us. At present, there is very little regulation over the management and content being taught at religious schools. But with the increased allocation of funds, more regulation might be expected. And that might lead us to grapple with far more complicated questions than books and busing. Increased regulation necessarily means, then, making decisions on religious dogma in the name of constitutional principles. Currently, this opens up more problems than it purports to solve.

The Magna Sententia Podcast with Anna and Ellie Sherise. Hosted by Rodger McMillan.

This week:

• The Sherise Method: Rectify
• “Four Teens Arraigned In California Gang-Rape Case” (Agence France-Presse)
• “Richmond Gang Rape Seen As Nearly Inevitable” (SFGate.com)
• “Cellphones, Texts And Lovers” (NYTimes.com)
• “Obama Coaxes States To Change With School Dollars” (AP)
• “In Defense Of Extreme Pornography” (Reason.com)
• “Conscious Capitalism” (FlowIdealism.org)

Download Episode 4

Education Week reports:

After months of anticipation about who would head educational technology initiatives at the U.S. Department of Education, ed-tech advocates praised the appointment of Karen Cator yesterday, saying the former educator and Apple executive brings to the job a passion for the potential of technology to improve teaching and learning.

The long-awaited appointment comes at a time when interest in how technology can be used to improve education is growing as more K-12 schools offer online courses, use mobile technologies such as cellphones and laptops, and put in place high-tech data-analysis tools.

Recently, NEWSWEEK published this cover story by former US Secretary of Education (and current Republican senator) Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Sen. Alexander argues that four-year bachelor’s degrees are outmoded and too expensive to maintain in the current economic climate. He concludes:

Expanding the three-year option or year-round schedules may be difficult, but it may be more palatable than asking Congress for additional bailout money, asking legislators for more state support, or asking students for even higher tuition payments. Campuses willing to adopt convenient schedules along with more-focused, less-expensive degrees may find that they have a competitive advantage in attracting bright, motivated students.

 

In the same issue, NEWSWEEK published this very interesting debate between five researchers and policy makers from around higher education. Both these articles are well worth reading.