Hopkinton down another $200k

h/t RS for posting this link to a list of how much money each town will lose from the Governor’s proposed withholding of the car tax. If you caught my interview on the 6:00 ch 10 news you know I think this is good. The more pressure onto the towns the better. Sooner or later we are going to have to stop paying our public sector employees so much better than the private sector employees.

Hopefully, Hopkinton and all the other towns will look to cut spending rather than increase taxes.

See the list HERE.

If you are unfamiliar with the issue check out this morning’s ProJo article HERE and here is an excerpt:

While the governor can shut down state government on his own, he needs legislative approval for a second piece of his plan: withholding the last $32.5 million in promised car-tax reimbursements to cities and towns, which are already reeling from the elimination of a $55-million revenue-sharing program earlier this year. In short, he wants the lawmakers to restore to him an authority his predecessors had until 1996 to withhold money they have appropriated for a specific purpose

Tiverton’s anti-public sector union example

Anchorrising has posted information on the Tiverton School and the problems created when the unions control the employees.  It has spawned more discussion here and here.

“R.I. students lagging on national tests”

That was the title of today’s ProJo article.  Analysis over at the OSPRI blog.

Group home funding

There is a very interesting post on “level funding” over at one of my favorite blogs, Anchorrising.  

Please read the entire post, but here is one statement relevant to the rest of my comments.

Every community that received group home aid in 2007 is having their state education aid reduced by exactly their FY07 group home allocation meaning that, unless all Rhode Island group homes are being shut down (or unless a separate appropriation exists elsewhere in the budget that provides for group-home-related education costs), the legislature’s budget contains true cuts in education funding that go beyond just canceling the hoped-for increases.  

Currently, the State gives the local school an amount of money equivalent to the per-pupil education costs, multiplied by the number of students in the area’s group home(s) (using a formula to compensate for the high number of special education services needed). 

It appears that the funding is being transferred from the State budget to the local budget.  In a way, this makes sense.  A community should take care of it’s own.  But what if kids from Providence are moved to a group home in Richmond?  Now it is Chariho residents who pay the bill. 

This funding shift could go even farther.   If this budget goes through as described in the Anchorrising post, some services for group home kids will still be funded by the State (services such as psychiatric and diabetes treatments).  But what if there was a way to transfer those costs to the school too?  Enter RYSE. 

Image the opportunities a school like RYSE offers.   RYSE can provide education, individual and family services, diabetes treatments, and on and on – no longer on the State’s budget.  Funding responsibility is transferred to the local community. 

If you think this is far fetched, let’s look at a bit of history. 

Some kids make bad choices.  These kids get expelled from school, and with a lack of parenting, end up running the streets.  Because they continue to make bad choices, DCYF is called in to provide an “alternative learning environment.”  This is very expensive so DCYF pushes legislation that restricts the school from expelling the kids. 

This is exactly what happened and now, RI public schools may not expel a child for more than 10 days per year.  These kids are still removed from the school but they are not sent home.  They are sent to other facilities (Forwardview Academy, RYSE, etc..) that provide these alternative-learning services.   

If DCYF was able to shift the burden to the public schools, why can’t HHS, MHRH or whoever operates the group homes? 

This is indeed a slippery slope for not only wards of the state but for all public school kids.  Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that if a child needed any service other than education and basic nursing, the parent found it in the community.   Today, everything from clinical therapy to speech pathology is provided at the school.  

Theoretically, if a parent has the means (money or insurance), they can get services in the community.  But eventually, a parent may even loose the power to make those fundamental purchasing decisions.  Did we see a preview of this with Elaine Morgan?

Academic Achievement – an overview

** This post was made on April 8th but I have updated it with the new info **

In the big picture, student performance in America has dropped precipitously from it’s once lofty perch as the best in the world.  We are now at #18 of the 24 top industrialized nations.

On a national level, Rhode Island ranks somewhere between #32 and #41 in student performance (depending on grade and subject).  And when you factor in poverty, cost of education and infrastructure, RI received a 0.9 GPA on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce “Leaders and Laggards” report on education, the lowest GPA in the nation.

Now lets take it to a local level.  How does Chariho compare to our neighbors?

Below are the 2006 NECAP test results for several of our demographic and geographic peers (North Kingstown, South Kingstown, Coventry, Exeter/West Greenwich and Westerly).

Here is Chariho’s Grade 8 District Results Report

 

Notice the percentage of students who score in the top quartile (Level 4 “proficient with distinction”) and bottom quartile (Level 1 “substantially below proficient”).  Now lets compare those numbers to our neighbors.

North Kingstown

South Kingstown

Westerly

Exeter/West Greenwich

Coventry

Notice that for students who score in the highest quartile (“proficient with distinction”), there are 15 comparisons to Chariho (5 schools and 3 disciplines – reading, math and writing).  In 14 of 15 comparisons, Chariho has the lowest percentage of students in the top performing group.  We beat Coventry in one category.

When you look at the lowest quartile (“substantially below proficient”), in all 15 comparison, Chariho has a larger percentage of it’s students who fall into this under-performing category. 

So, overall for our 8th graders, we ranked last in 29 of 30 comparisons and tied for last in 1.

Now lets look at Grade 3 comparisons.  Here are the Chariho results.

North Kingstown

South Kingstown

Westerly

Exeter/West Greenwich

Coventry

In 20 comparisons (5 schools, 2 subjects, high and low performers) Chariho was the worst performer in 17 of the 20.  We did manage to beat Exeter/West Greenwich in 2 measures and tied them in 1.

This first graph compares Chariho to our peers on the percentage of 8th graders who scored in the top 25% of the proficiency rating (“proficient with distinction”).

This graph compares Chariho to our peers on the percentage of 8th grade students who score in the bottom 25% of the proficiency rating (“substaintially below proficient”).

So lets review, America is ranked 18th in the industrialized world (depending on subject and study).  Rhode Island ranks between 32 and 41 in the nation.  And Chariho ranks last in our demographic and geographic peers.  So where does that put our students in a globally competitive market?

Reshaping society – public school style

Not long ago there was an unsigned editorial in the ProJo discussing a recent study on abstinence education produced by Mathmatica.  This article was not unlike many others written around the country.  Almost all main stream publications jumped on the bandwagon and said that abstinence programs were not effective at reducing sexual activity of teens.  Only Christian publications bothered to look at the details of the study.

You can find the complete study here.

I would suggest that you look at the study carefully.  What you will find is disturbing, most notably in the sampling.  What they did was looked at children who participated in abstinence education from the ages between 9 – 11.  Then, 4-6 years later, they surveyed the participants to see if their sexual activity was any different from students who did not participate in any abstinence programs.

Here are the main problems with this study.  First of all, they only looked at 4 of the approx 900 different programs (one of which was only an after-school activity).   But the most glaring problem was the fact that they only gave the children the abstinence information when they were ages 9 – 11.  Not exactly the ages when hormones are raging.  From the ages 12 – 16 they were given the standard “comprehensive sex-ed.”

Wouldn’t it be just as conclusive to say that if you give students “comprehensive sex-ed” for 4-6 years that you can convince children to become sexually active?  Maybe this study is more an indictment of comprehensive sex-ed than it is an indictment of abstinence programs. 

I do know what it has shown us is the bias and agenda present in many journalists.

If you think I am overreacting, let me remind you of the 2000, 2001, 2004 “Teach-Out” conferences held in Massachusetts.  This conference was nicknamed “Fistgate” for reasons you are about to learn.

“Fistgate” was the public school funded conferences where children as young as 12 were told such things as:

“Go out and get a bunch of condoms and plan a day of experimenting.”

“As with vegetables, children shouldn’t knock homosexuality until they try it.”

One instructor even went so far as to graphically describe “fisting” techniques, thus the moniker given to the conference.  If you have not heard about this conference, don’t be surprised.  It didn’t get much press – not nearly as much as is used to bash abstinence programs.

Do you think I’m kidding or overreacting?  Judge for yourself.  A parent recorded one of the meetings and audio clips can be found here.  (warning, many of these recording have graphic language)

It is truly shocking and something we need to vigilantly look out for here in RI.  Remember, RI was the first state where the ACLU was successful in banning abstinence programs in public schools.  Commissioner McWalters eventually reversed his decision but the ACLU is still trying.

EP, we feel your pain

As you read this article, keep in mind that Chariho is equally expensive and while we may score slightly better on the tests, we don’t have anywhere near the demographic charicteristics normally associated with poor student performance. 

Rick Croke: Explain This!

I was just wondering if someone could explain how the Seekonk School Department can maintain the 24 cents on the dollar on non salary piece of the pie while East Providence only has 13 cents on the same dollar? Seekonk’s 2007-2008 budget proposal is for $18,309,000.00 and they educate 2200 students that would breakdown to $8322.27 per student. As compared to East Providence which is currently operating on a $71,087,000.00 budget to educate 5895 students which costs us $12,058.86. They offer the same curriculum, with better student performance at a cost savings of $3736.59. oh by the way their dropout rate is almost nil and they don’t expel high school students like you run paper threw a shredder, and if you hadn’t noticed their school buildings are in much sounder condition.

This is just another reason to consider a public flogging of certain elected leaders who think we can tax our way to better a public education system

Can it get any more obvious than this?

I think this story illustraits the illogical opposition to teacher performance pay.   The report is worth the read.

Teachers Unions and Teaching Quality

Teachers union researcher Mike Antonucci yesterday posted some interesting findings surrounding the report written by eighteen award-winning teachers, calling for a fresh perspective on performance pay (click here for the full report). Antonucci takes a look at one of the report’s authors, Nancy Flanagan:

She is a recently retired 31-year teaching veteran, 1993 Michigan Teacher of the Year, and worked for two years with the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and as a consultant with the Michigan Education Association.

Despite her awards and her long-standing professional relationship with the Michigan Education Association, Flanagan’s participation in a nuanced endorsement of performance pay has caused her union to roll up the welcome mat. As she told The Washington Post:

My state union, the Michigan Education Association, called to tell me that I will not be allowed to present at workshops and conferences in the future (something I’ve been doing for decade). I am officially persona non grata with the MEA.

If union foot-dragging on education reform weren’t clear enough from its shunning a Teacher of the Year, The Paducah Sun in Kentucky has more. A Suneditorial (subscription required) yesterday wrote up research by Illinois reporter Scott Reeder (whose Hidden Costs of Tenure website offers a treasure trove of information on how hard it is to get rid of a bad tenured teacher in his state) indicating that a common teachers union defense of tenure protection doesn’t hold up:

The teachers’ unions contend that the profession is self-selecting — that is, underqualified teachers leave the classroom before reaching tenure. But Reeder points to a North Carolina study that concluded: Teachers who left the profession early actually scored higher on teacher licensure exams than teachers who stayed in teaching. And a Harvard University College of Education study concluded: “Teachers with high IQs were more likely to leave teaching at the end of each year of service than those with low scores.”

That last paragraph sounds cold but some teachers do feel frustraition working in a system that rewards mediocrity and incompetence at the same rate as excellence. 

Fire code vote – update

Just in case you missed it in today’s Providence Journal, this editorial adds further support to my claim that changes may be coming to the fire code. 

In a previous post I notified you that Chariho is moving forward with a $532,000 contract to make fire code changes.  I suggested that we hold off, or at least communicate our concerns to the contractor, before authorizing the contract.  But these suggestions were ignored.

I doubt we will need to wait very long before I will be tempted to say, “I told you so.”

Fire code vote

More notes on the May 8 meeting.

 We voted to move forward with a contract to make fire code upgrades.  I made the point that there is a lot of talk about changing the codes and perhaps we should wait until the legislative session is done and see what changes may come (the session is usually concluded in June/July).  Of course, this was met with responses such as, ‘we need to protect the kids’, and ‘its about the kid’s safety.’  I find these comments a bit humorous but just to clear any confusion let me say that I don’t want our kids to burn in a fire.  There, now that that is settled, lets talk reasonably.

Besides, if it was all about the children’s safety, we wouldn’t be giving a raise between 6.7% and 21.2% for each and every teacher in their first 10 years of employment.  We would allocate raises appropriately (based on expertise and ability) and putting more money into maintaining our buildings so that our children were protected (say from falling ceiling tiles). 

It seems that every few  weeks we read another story about how legislators are looking at making changes (see articles here, here, here, here and here).  Most are simple changes that reflect the difference between the overly stringent and outdated requirements of the state versus federal laws.  Some are as simple as the type of wire that must be used to construct alarm systems.   As I said last night, its not so much about what must be done but more about how to do it. 

The main reason cited for not waiting was to ensure a $50K grant and that we can’t use the basement in the Richmond school until it is done.  I understand these issues, but it still seems to me that something could be done, such as a contract with stipulations. 

I got a lot of reasons why we can’t do it and no input on how we could.  I even suggested we table the issue until the next meeting (2 weeks) so Mr. Stanley could speak with Contractor’s Network (the contractor) and see if they could give us some input. 

Unfortunately, a motion was made to pass the contract and was passed in a 9-0-1 vote (I abstained).  Keep your eye on the papers to see if we have missed an opportunity to save money while still providing the same protection.