Chariho to the public, “mind your own bee’s wax!”

FYI - It came out of the Chariho Contract Negotiations Sub Committee (or whatever its called) meeting that the negotiations for the teachers’ contract will NOT be held in public.  They will grant you a public meeting beforehand to express your thoughts.  Although, this seems as a waste of time as they know our thoughts, they just don’t seem to want to do it.  As a reminder, you might want to search old posts and see the contract over at OSPRI to refresh your memory of the average 10.5 percent raise - per year -  given to teachers in their first 10 years of employment. 

The sub committee consists of Holly Eaves, Andy McQuade and Bob Petit.  Maybe one of them would like to explain why they don’t want the public to have a say during the negotiations.  The Union gives the people they represent a word in the process - the Union won’t approve a contract without approval from the membership.  Why won’t our school committee, who spends our money, get our permission before they sign the deal?

Then again, they might not respond at all because they did all this in executive session.  But there are no penalties for divulging sealed information, including information that is questionably sealed in the first place.  So when they say, “I can’t speak about that, the meeting minutes have been sealed,” just ask them why they don’t give you, the public, the same rights they give to the Union membership.  Exactly who do they represent?

McCain on school choice

I was pleasantly surprised to hear McCain come out so forcefully for school choice.  I knew this would be a campaign item, but thought it would focus on urban settings and fall short of full choice.  I was wrong.

He has pledged to make all schools public schools.  Here is what he said last night:

Education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained. But what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity.

Senator Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I’m President, they will.

A little research reveals that I shouldn’t have been surprised as McCain has had these thoughts for years. 

McCain Quotes:

We must fight for the ability of all students to have access to any school of demonstrated excellence. We must place parents and children at the center of the education process, empowering parents by greatly expanding the ability of parents to choose among schools for their children.

Source: Campaign plan: “Bold Solutions for Economic Prosperity” Feb 3, 2008

schools, some have failed, but they’re competing with the public schools, and the level of education is increasing. In New York City today, there are some remarkable things happening under Mayor Bloomberg, who has done marvelous work with an educational system that was clearly broken. Those can be examples of a way to improve education, provide choice and competition, and give every family the same choice I and my family had, and that is to send our child to the school of our choice.

Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican Debate Dec 12, 2007

Q: How can we improve the quality of public schools in this country?

A: Choice and competition is the key to success in education in America. That means charter schools, that means home schooling, it means vouchers, it means rewarding good teachers and finding bad teachers another line of work. It means rewarding good performing schools, and it really means in some cases putting bad performing schools out of business. I want every American parent to have a choice, a choice as to how they want their child educated, and I guarantee you the competition will dramatically increase the level of education in America. And I applaud our former Governor [Jeb] Bush for the great job he’s done on education in Florida and America.

Source: 2007 Republican primary debate on Univision Dec 9, 2007 Q: How much power should the federal government have over state education? A: Choice & competition are the key to the future of education in America. Students in America rank at the bottom in the most disciplines such as physics & chemistry. We should try charter schools all over America.

Source: GOP Debate in Johnston, Iowa Jan 16, 2000

We have to have choice and competition in our schools in order to improve our school system, including charter schools, including a test voucher program that would be paid for with ethanol subsidies and with sugar subsidies. And in order to make that system work, the test voucher program throughout America, we have to have good teachers, and I would argue that merit pay, rewards for good teachers and helping bad teachers find another line of work is the way we must go about it.

Source: Republican Debate at Dartmouth College Oct 29, 1999

Our children deserve the best education we can provide to them, whether that learning takes place in a public, private or parochial school. It’s time to give middle and lower income parents the same right wealthier families have — to send their child to the school that best meets their needs. It’s time to conduct a nationwide test of school vouchers. It’s time to democratize education.

Source: Candidacy Declaration Speech, Nashua NH Sep 27, 1999

McCain proposed a school voucher program to offer education opportunities for disadvantaged children, paid for by eliminating $5.4 billion worth of subsidies for ethanol, sugar, gas and oil. Under McCain’s three-year test program, disadvantaged children would receive vouchers worth $2,000 a year. The money would be used to offset the costs of attending any school chosen by the student or parents. “We shouldn’t have special interest giveaways at the expense of our neediest children,” McCain said.

Source: Mike Glover, Associated Press Jul 29, 1999

McCain’s platform calls for a school voucher program that would give tax money to middle- and lower-low low income families to send their children to private schools. And he praised charter schools - publicly funded schools that often serve a specialized curriculum and operate free from many government mandates.

 

Source: Associated Press Jun 14, 1999

McCain knows we can save public education if we “have the courage to do more than placate the defenders of the status quo.” McCain [supports] more money reaching our classrooms, increased financial flexibility for parents, greater choices for families, and well-trained teachers. He [opposes] Washington bureaucrats and public education unions dictating education policies. He believes in letting parents, educators, and local communities make the important decisions about our children’s education.

Source: www.mccain2000.com/ “Position Papers” 5/24/99 May 24, 1999  McCain believes school vouchers should be available to parents in order that they may place their children in the best learning environment for their particular needs. He feels that each and every child in every classroom deserves a teacher who is qualified and enthusiastic about teaching. “Some people just aren’t meant to be teachers, and we should help them find another line of work. Because if teachers can’t teach, our kids can’t learn.”

Source: www.mccain2000.com/ “Position Papers” 5/24/99 May 24, 1999

McCain supports the following principles concerning school choice:
• Allow parents to use vouchers to send their children to any participating school: public, private or religious
• Allow parents to use tax-free savings accounts to send their children to any participating school: public, private or religious
• Support creation of more charter schools where teachers and professionals receive authorization and funding to establish new schools

Source: Project Vote Smart, 1998, www.vote-smart.org Jul 2, 1998

SAT rankings

Thanks to our friends at Anchorrising for compiling this spreadsheet. 

Public School SAT Scores by State Ranking

	Reading	Math	Writing	Cumulative
Iowa	607	621	588	1816
Minnesota	599	610	579	1788
South Dakota	605	602	580	1787
Illinois	588	613	582	1783
Wisconsin	590	611	580	1781
Missouri	593	598	579	1770
North Dakota	592	607	566	1765
Michigan	579	602	570	1751
Kansas	582	593	566	1741
Utah	586	583	564	1733
Nebraska	577	583	563	1723
Tennessee	573	570	564	1707
Oklahoma	575	575	555	1705
Arkansas	575	570	559	1704
Colorado	566	577	555	1698
Kentucky	566	573	550	1689
Louisiana	568	567	553	1688
Wyoming	563	579	543	1685
Mississippi	569	550	559	1678
Alabama	562	558	551	1671
Montana	544	552	526	1622
New Mexico	545	536	524	1605
Idaho	539	541	515	1595
Ohio	529	543	514	1586
Washington	522	531	505	1558
Vermont	521	523	507	1551
Oregon	518	525	497	1540
Alaska	521	523	495	1539
Massachusetts	507	520	505	1532
Arizona	514	521	496	1531
New Hampshire	513	516	502	1531
Connecticut	503	507	506	1516
Virginia	508	510	496	1514
West Virginia	509	499	495	1503
California	494	513	493	1500
New Jersey	492	514	493	1499
North Carolina	492	511	478	1481
Maryland	490	498	490	1478
Indiana	492	505	477	1474
Nevada	495	504	474	1473
Pennsylvania	490	500	478	1468
Florida	492	495	475	1462
New York	484	503	475	1462
Texas	484	502	476	1462
Georgia	486	490	477	1453
South Carolina	484	496	471	1451
Rhode Island	483	487	479	1449
Delaware	482	483	471	1436
Maine	463	462	456	1381
Hawaii	456	473	441	1370

pay up or get out!

There was a great OpEd in the ProJo today regarding forced union dues for teachers.

With billions of dollars to play with, teacher unions wield significant influence and power. Unfortunately, too much of it is directed toward partisan political activity and controversial social agendas which are not directly related to the classroom. Often union political spending is at odds with the personal or professional views of many union members.

For example, the NEA recently vowed it will spend more than $40 million this year on political races, and pledged another $500,000 of teachers’ dues to a universal-health-care advocacy coalition. The NEA has been called an arm of the Democratic National Committee, having granted millions of dollars to a litany of liberal organizations. Furthermore, over the past 15 years the NEA has given over 90 percent of its PAC money to Democratic candidates.

According to an NEA survey by Michigan-based Star Research in 2005, 50 percent of NEA members considered themselves politically “conservative” or “tend conservative.” Only 40 percent described themselves as “liberal” or “leaned liberal.”

Why the disconnect between members’ political views and NEA spending? Two words: forced dues. Teachers cannot withdraw their financial support to hold the union accountable.

The whole piece is worth the read.

This follows nicely to the piece recently published at Anchorrising - It takes a thief (lobbyist)

“Chariho Forever!”

That quip comes from Andy Polouski at the Charlestown meeting Monday night discussing their plans to withdraw from Chariho.

From the Westerly Sun:

CHARLESTOWN — After a rumble of misunderstand­ing about how its report was originally released, the Ad Hoc Withdrawal Committee presented its findings to the Town Council last night in a congenial workshop, where there was much agreement about the problems facing the Chariho Regional School District.
Emphasizing more than once that his committee sought a long-term solution to what it perceives as a long­term problem, Giancarlo Cicchetti said that the best option for Charlestown would be to eventually fully with­draw from the regional dis­trict and create its own kindergarten through grade 12 school system.
The primary problem with the regional district is entrenched political differ­ences over funding between the three towns, which has resulted in the defeat of need­ed bond referendums, Cicchetti said. Seeing no reprieve from this stalemate in the future, Cicchetti said the best way to secure Charlestown’s educational future is for the town to go it alone.
At that point, Cicchetti attempted to show render­ings of a new Charlestown school campus that were developed by Newport Collaborative Architects, but James Mageau, the Council’s acting president, objected.
“I think we’re getting off track here,’’ said Mageau.
Mageau said he did not want to give voters the impression that Charlestown had decided to split away from the district when this decision was still “prema-t­ure,’’ especially when their support is needed for a $25­million Chariho bond on the ballot this November. The bond money is slated to bring Chariho’s Richmond campus up to code and elim­inate the need for having classes in trailers.
“I don’t want to confuse the public,’’ said Mageau.
In his opinion, Charlestown should only consider withdrawing from the regional district if the bond questions fail and if the town is unsuccessful in get­ting Hopkinton to be more supportive of the regional district, Mageau said. On the latter point, Mageau said he wants to explore the idea of suing Hopkinton for breach of contract for failing to approve needed bond ref­erendums.
“Hopkinton has never been supportive of the dis­trict,’’ Mageau said, noting Hopkinton voters last November refused to pass a bond question to repair the schools.
At the end of the work­shop, the council did look at the architect’s renderings, but not before it was firmly established that the first order of business was con­vincing voters to approve the bond questions and, to that end, enlightening Hopkinton voters about the value of being part of the Chariho district.
“The people of Hopkinton must be educated about how lucky they are to have two other towns share the cost of educating their children,’’ said Andy Polouski, vice chairman of the Chariho School Committee, who spoke when the workshop was opened up for public comment.
Hopkinton could never afford to educate their chil­dren by itself, said Polouski adding, “I hope the people of Hopkinton are smart enough to stand up and not destroy the most valuable asset they have.’’
“Chariho forever!’’ Polouski said before leaving the podium.
Regarding the issue of withdrawal, councilwoman Harriett Allen asked the Ad Hoc Committee what they had concluded about the idea of partial withdrawal — in other words, leaving Charlestown students in the regional high school, but bringing the younger grades back to town. From talking to people in the three towns over the years, Allen said she has the impression that everyone wants their kids to go to the high school, but they want the younger ones closer to home.
“That just screams partial withdrawal,’’ she said.
The committee studied that option and concluded it wouldn’t work for the same reason it concluded that full withdrawal was Charles­town’s best recourse — polit­ical differences would pre­vent the three towns from funding such as system, said Cicchetti, a member of the school committee.
Toward the end of the workshop, Cicchetti sought to get the Council on record as saying they support the withdrawal plan, even though no vote can be taken during a workshop. If and when withdrawal comes about, it would expedite pro­ceedings with the state if longstanding Council sup­port could be shown, he said. But then the reality facing this council surfaced: Some of them may not be re-elect­ed in November. Cicchetti called this “unfortunate tim­ing.’’ But councilwoman Katharine Waterman said she was willing to go on record saying the following: “I would like to see Chariho remain strong; how­ever, I have very little faith in its ability to do so,’’ she said.
If Hopkinton voters don’t approve this November’s bond questions, Waterman said it would be time to “move on.’’

Study on school choice

The Friedman Foundation released a study today on the Ohio school choice program.

INDIANAPOLIS (August 20, 2008 ) — A study of the new Ohio Educational Choice Scholarship program’s effect on public schools has found academic gains among students in participating public schools; this suggests that the threat of competition and losing students is causing these public schools to improve their academic outcomes, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice and several Ohio and national educational organizations announced today.

The rest of the PR is up on the OSPRI blog or, along with the study, at Friedman.

School Committee meeting

There is a school committee meeting this evening.  I came home a little early to read the packet and Kat “reminded” me that it is our anniversary.  So I looked over the packet and only see a couple of items that I would try to fight - and surely get outvoted on anyway -  so I’m taking the night off.  

But here are the items of concern, we will see what happens.   Not sure if George Abbott will be there.  He is pretty good at standing up for most issues - although, one of my concerns is about the upcoming bond flyer and he does support the bond.  And Bob does say he wants contract reforms, so lets see what happens.

1.  There is a sub committee on contract negotiations.  I think everyone knows where I stand here. 
A.  Make the negotiations public. (the items below are redundant if the public has input)
B.  Merit pay for all employees.
C.  Benefits should mirror the private sector.  (i.e. No more steps and double digit raises - remember, even after all the talk of contract reform last year, the support personnel contract was signed giving those on steps an average of a 9.5% salary increases).
D.  More management authority - principals are on the front lines, they should be able to hire and fire at will.

Just think about this - and I think RS has said it  before too.  The unions get to review and get input from their membership before the contract is ratified.  Indeed, the membership MUST approve (by vote) the new contract.  However, the public (The ones who pay the bills), are kept in the dark during the process, and not given any input until after the deal is signed.  WHY CANT THE PUBLIC VOTE ON THE CONTRACT JUST LIKE THE UNIONS?

2.  The committee will vote to approve the Annual Report. 
I cant read all the data on the copy but am told the data is on RIDE (if someone can find it please let me know and I will post - if not, Donna at Chariho said she could get me the address). 

One point of concern with the report is the layout - just a bit misleading in my opinion.  Each school has a page with its picture and under the picture is a box that says: “This School is Classified As: “High Performing”.  This box is also at the bottom of the page.  However, for the High School, there is no box on the top.  Could it be because this is the school classified as “Caution”

Secondly, and more of a curiosity than anything, is the listing for RYSE.  It is listed as “High Performing and Commended” - and says that 81.3% of grade 9-12 students are proficient in math.  Didn’t we just see a report that said it was 8%???  (I would look it up but I’m under some serious time constraints this evening - getting the evil eye soon).  RYSE is actually the highest ranking school in the district - go figure!

3.  Also up for approval is the Campus 2010 “FACT SHEET”
I’m guessing this will be this year’s sales flyer (remember the “Its time to..” brochure).  It does look less like a sales pitch but there is one bit that is lacking.  It says, “Chariho (sic) was completed in 1960 with a capacity of 700 students.  Even with previous expansions, today’s 1250 students are crowded in a facility with a failing infrastructure.”

First question is what were the expansions.  What is capacity and how much space is used for offices, etc…

Most importantly, at $14,000 per student why cant we manage to keep our buildings from falling apart.  Look at St. Pius or the group in Stonington - all under $5000 per student and they aren’t falling apart.

4.  Abbott and Polouski requested to have “Correspondence/Communications” placed on each agenda.  It used to be that way - so when the district got a letter, or if a board member wanted to tell us about something from a constituent, it could be discussed at that time.  The new solicitor has sent a letter saying it is a bad idea to do this.  His thought process is that we might violate some notification rule by speaking about someone not present.  Of course, we did this for years and it wasnt changed until the recent rewrite (where they tried to completely restrict our access to information - look over the changes that were posted here previously).

Item 4 is the only one where I might have an impact.  Clearly, the board is going to do what it wants with the other issues.  But with Polouski being for the change, its possible to get enough votes to do it.  That one I am sorry I am missing.

Then again, the last time we had Polouski on the right side and had the votes to do something (the time we voted to stop the administrators contracts), they just ignored us anyway.  So, I’ll take the night off and enjoy myself.  I’ll post the scans soon.

Making tests matter

Over at the “progressive” blog, RI Future, they have posted information on the upcoming hearing at the Board of Regents regarding the change in test requirements.  Angus Davis provided some info for use before.  No surprise, they are against the change. 

The Board of Regents will meet to consider mandating that standardized NECAP tests count for 1/3 of the graduation requirements from high school.Currently, in order to meet the requirements for high school graduation, a student must complete 24 credits and a senior project or digital portfolio.New regulations propose that graduation requirements be fulfilled through three parts, with each being weighed equally: 1- 24 Course Credits (or Carnegie Units); 2- Senior project or digital portfolio; and 3- NECAP tests in Reading, Writing, and Math.  These tests must be passed with proficiency. There are many downsides to this proposal.  Special education students will be hurt the most, as NECAP tests are not aligned with IEPS. The Board of Regents will hold two meetings to consider the proposal- the first is a workshop on Wednesday, August 27, from 4-6 in Room 501 of the Shepard Building (255 Westminster Street, Providence), with the vote scheduled for Wednesday, September 3rd at 4:00 in Room 501 of the Shepard Building. If you are concerned about these changes, please attend the meetings!

While their point is similar to LB’s concern - it seems that we should be able to find a way to make testing more important for those who benefit from it and appropriately important for those with IEP’s.

“As you know, NECAP is only given in NE, so its hard to compare the results on a national level. “

This quote is from one of the “Chariho Parent” monikers.  He/she is correct - only NH, VT and RI use NECAP and VT only reports 3-8 averages and grade 11.  But he/she is wrong that its hard to compare, but they wouldn’t know that as it hasn’t been publicized yet.

Technically, if you add up all the individual school NECAP scores and average them, it should equal the NAEP score. That’s the purpose of the test, to show progress towards NCLB.  Unfortunately, the NECAP does not equate to the NAEP.  Not even close.  Call it grade inflation, dumbing down, whatever.  Preliminary research shows MA as the only coming close.

“26 teaching positions have been eliminated”

I saw a comment from Bob Petit saying “26 teaching positions have been eliminated”  

I’m not picking him out for saying this at all - I first heard Supt Ricci say it so we should assume that Bob heard it at the same time.  We should ask Ricci if that means that total employees were reduced by 26. 

Someone with more historical knowledge can correct me but I think Ricci became Supt in 2005.  According to NCES, Chariho had 566.2 Full Time Equivilents (FTE) in the 05-06 school year. 

The 06-07 payroll has 556 full time employees and 40 part time employees.  Technically, we have people classified as full time with as little as 28 hours (thats 2 good days for some of us) - but most full time positions re 35 hours. 

The 40 PT employees average 19.5 hrs.  So, even using a “liberal” interpretation of what constitutes an FTE, we can assume there are an additional 20 FTE’s in the part times (39 hrs).  That gives us a total of 576 FTE in the 06-07 school year.  An increase of 10 employees from the previous year (the first year of Ricci’s term).

It is a year later and I do miss quite a few meetings so its possible I haven’t noticed, but for the “26 teaching positions have been eliminated” to be true, we would have had to eliminate them all this year - plus the 10 we picked up last year.

Like I said in the beginning.  I’m not pointing this out to pick on Bob.  We were given this information, unfortunately, most (all?) board members don’t take the time to verify.  But even if they did, we would be told the data is wrong (remember the In$ight issue?).