When is "enough" adequate?
Analytically Speaking...by Skip Murphy
When is “enough” adequate? When is “enough” sufficient, and where is the line at which “enough” is “not enough”? When do we know that everyone is being served correctly, or not enough? How does one make a system that by definition is a “one size fits all”, flexible enough to fit all needs? Who benefits, and who does not in all this too (if we plow ahead or do nothing)?
No, this isn't about welfare, Medicaid, or a host of other things. It is a rant about education funding at the State level for those of us at the local level. And it isn't specifically about education (although it should be). In the time that has passed since the Clairmont decision, spending has soared but nothing has changed and nothing has been settled. Why?
A few reasons, with one being politics, plain and simple. Add in money and taxes, you have issues that few politicians are willing to look towards where the 10 foot poles are kept. All of rigamarole stems around taxes – who pays, and who receives. And add in fear, for going up against one the best political machines in the country – the NEA - is often the kiss of death. And our stereotypical New England Yankee stubbornness doesn't help either.
To this jaundiced eye, funding is perhaps all that will be discussed. All because those in charge refuse to either consider or answer the real reason, the most fundamental question in this debate. That simple question not yet focused upon by our “leaders” is “how can one fund an adequate education without specifying what an adequate education is”? And why aren't you folks answering this?
Yes, the debate needs to turn to an adequacy not in terms of money spent, but to one of student achievement. What seems to be going on in NH is a constant “cart before the horse” scenario. This is akin to approving budgets without knowing what the budget is to accomplish – what are the observable metrics? Last week I posted on GilfordGrok.com that 40% of Ohio's high schoolers going on to college have to undergo remedial classes before actually taking the “real college” classes. With the massive amounts of money spent in Ohio, did those students receive an adequate education?
Budgets say yes, results say no.
Why can't we here in NH learn from that harsh example?
When is “enough” adequate? When is “enough” sufficient, and where is the line at which “enough” is “not enough”? When do we know that everyone is being served correctly, or not enough? How does one make a system that by definition is a “one size fits all”, flexible enough to fit all needs? Who benefits, and who does not in all this too (if we plow ahead or do nothing)?
No, this isn't about welfare, Medicaid, or a host of other things. It is a rant about education funding at the State level for those of us at the local level. And it isn't specifically about education (although it should be). In the time that has passed since the Clairmont decision, spending has soared but nothing has changed and nothing has been settled. Why?
A few reasons, with one being politics, plain and simple. Add in money and taxes, you have issues that few politicians are willing to look towards where the 10 foot poles are kept. All of rigamarole stems around taxes – who pays, and who receives. And add in fear, for going up against one the best political machines in the country – the NEA - is often the kiss of death. And our stereotypical New England Yankee stubbornness doesn't help either.
To this jaundiced eye, funding is perhaps all that will be discussed. All because those in charge refuse to either consider or answer the real reason, the most fundamental question in this debate. That simple question not yet focused upon by our “leaders” is “how can one fund an adequate education without specifying what an adequate education is”? And why aren't you folks answering this?
Yes, the debate needs to turn to an adequacy not in terms of money spent, but to one of student achievement. What seems to be going on in NH is a constant “cart before the horse” scenario. This is akin to approving budgets without knowing what the budget is to accomplish – what are the observable metrics? Last week I posted on GilfordGrok.com that 40% of Ohio's high schoolers going on to college have to undergo remedial classes before actually taking the “real college” classes. With the massive amounts of money spent in Ohio, did those students receive an adequate education?
Budgets say yes, results say no.
Why can't we here in NH learn from that harsh example?
When is someone going to have the political courage to stand up to the “connected” and the “powerful” and simply say “Here is the metric - when a child reaches the end of each grade, this is what we expect the average child to have learned in the areas of reading, math, science, US history and civics, world history and geography, foreign language, physical education, art, and music.”? In short, back to basics – academic standards across the State. Only then can we ever begin to work it backwards (or forwards, depending on your viewpoint) to answer “and this is cost”.
The ability to find, ask, and keep the most fundamental question front most is often the ability to make a project work, or not. The “basic” question approach applies in many different situations, and I am surprised that many people don't put it up front and center more often. Or that it is so easily forgotten during any given process.
This type of question applies not just to educational ones, but to a situation in Gilford, too. In fact, I've asked it twice already, and will repeat it again as a public service for ears that either missed it or didn't want to hear it. Or, to put it into more kindly terms, those ears whose brains have raced forward to the “next things” without hearing “the first things”.
I have seen the newspaper reports about the Facility Planning Committee talking about ground soils, and this type of truss and that kind of material, energy efficiency, and setting down proposed floor plans, moving the well, moving the generator. That the lifespan was to be 30 years. I've read about getting the story out to the public better, that better marketing is needed. ALL these are important tasks that are absolutely necessary to populate a real good project plan.
I assume that most in Gilford agree that the Police need more space. Still, the fundamental question remains when the next proposal is brought forth, we will be able to ask “How do we know that it will be big enough, or is it too small?” and that everything else being proposed stems from answering that basic question.
The ability to find, ask, and keep the most fundamental question front most is often the ability to make a project work, or not. The “basic” question approach applies in many different situations, and I am surprised that many people don't put it up front and center more often. Or that it is so easily forgotten during any given process.
This type of question applies not just to educational ones, but to a situation in Gilford, too. In fact, I've asked it twice already, and will repeat it again as a public service for ears that either missed it or didn't want to hear it. Or, to put it into more kindly terms, those ears whose brains have raced forward to the “next things” without hearing “the first things”.
I have seen the newspaper reports about the Facility Planning Committee talking about ground soils, and this type of truss and that kind of material, energy efficiency, and setting down proposed floor plans, moving the well, moving the generator. That the lifespan was to be 30 years. I've read about getting the story out to the public better, that better marketing is needed. ALL these are important tasks that are absolutely necessary to populate a real good project plan.
I assume that most in Gilford agree that the Police need more space. Still, the fundamental question remains when the next proposal is brought forth, we will be able to ask “How do we know that it will be big enough, or is it too small?” and that everything else being proposed stems from answering that basic question.
