GilfordGrok

My kids are out of the school system, so why should I care about what goes in it now?  Some might say "why bother?", it's over!  No worries, right?

Wrong.

I do care because I do see a breakdown of what the educational system, nationwide, is producing as its product - knowledgeable kids ready to compete globally.  Studies have shown that US students are not meeting the challenge; I hardly believe that our children are absorbing stupid pills without our knowing about it.

Rather, it is partly a lack of high expections, high standards, "educational mismanagement', an instant gratification society (results without the effort), parents not always demanding more from their kids and not support teachers, and teachers not having the disciplinary tools to "make it stick".

We as a society, wanting only the best for our children, always seems to be looking for that next "magic" bullet.  Looking to provide that "next better" environment, we are willing to accept the next message from the educational experts. 

We all want better, but I agree with Margo Weeks at the last School Board meeting, that yet another program is not going to be that "next better" thing (Daily Sun). 

However, Weeks remained skeptical. She noted that despite a number of initiatives to boost test scores, “they have remained the same” and asked “how will another layer of programs, expectations and requirements improve performance? If you can’t manage what we have,” she continued, “what is another program going to do for us?” 

All educational programs have a philosophy, stated or not; IB is no different (in fact, Dr. DiMinico has said as such (paraphrasing) "AP is a set of classes, IB is a philosophy - and not one that is that is friendly to America, our traditions, or our values.  After doing some no small amount of research, it is not (as Arthur Pontes of the Sturgis School said over and over and over again) an American philosophy.

Kurt Webber got it wrong during the meeting when a number of the public spoke against the IB - his rant missed the point:

When the discussion returned to the board, Kurt Webber described suspicion of the “I word, international” as “outdated thinking. The ugly American is alive and well.” He said the board should have “no problem with a curriculum that would expose students to the idea that they live in a world where 5.8 billion people live in different countries.” A graduate of the United States Military Academy, he emphasized that West Point has added a signifi cant international dimension to its curriculum and training. “The I of IB doesn’t scare me at all and it doesn’t scare the U.S. Army,” he proclaimed. “And I don’t see why it should scare people in Gilford.”

To set the stage straight, it is NOT that we need to shut our minds towards the world at large - we do need to know and understand other cultures.  That does not, however, mean that we subsume our culture to anyone else's, that we take what has made this country great and throw it under the bus for the sake of Multiculturalism.  I dare say that what is taught at West Point is not from an international foundation, but from an American one.

And it is that very point that causes concern - the IB program, if followed to the letter and spirit, teaches not from an American perspective but from an other-than-American one.  Learn about other nations, cultures, languages - sure!  But not by bringing in a philosophy that does not hold up American ideals.

From EdWatch, a good summary (bolded emphasis mine):

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free,"

- Ronald Reagan.

Patriotic Americans view our American system of rights, government and freedom, although imperfect, as the best system. Many scoff at those who believe our citizens will willingly accept global government.  If the education establishment continues its agenda of undermining the American system through programs like the International Baccalaureate (IB), our young people will have no objection to global governance.

IB's support of global governance and promotion of world citizenship over U.S.  citizenship is made clear by the words of its directors.  "International Baccalaureate school curriculum remains committed to changing children's values so they think globally, rather than in parochial national terms from their own country's viewpoint", retired IB director-general George Walker said. {The Washington Times, George Archibald, 1-18-04}.

Changing childrens' values?  And what if they run counter to that of their parents?   "Parochial" - a nice way of callously putting aside the ideals of our Declaration and Constitution. Sorry, but I want our children to be proud of this country, its history, and the ideas that still has legal immigrants coming here from all over the world to live and have a better life. 

This fall Monique Siefried, the current director said, "We should not be seen as an organization steeped predominately in Western Culture." {IB website}

Continue reading "IB - the connection and why Gilford should say no." »

Posted by Skip at 07:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On Friday students gathered at Carpy Field with their umbrellas before marching through downtown and arriving back at Carpy Field, where they had a hamburger lunch. On the way students flashed peace signs and some could be heard chanting, “No more war.”

Don't worry, though, because it's all thanks to St. Helena's

adoption of the International Baccalaureate program, which teaches students how to be a part of a global community.

Ugh! You'll cringe when you learn how deeply into local schools UNESCO and the UN have driven. Is this what parents want from their children's schools? If they only knew! More recommended reading here. Community theme pdf here (note freedom fighter reference). Here in Gilford, when promoting the program, the Superintendent mentions, according to meeting minutes that large portions of its education philosophy follow Dewy very closely. Find out about Dewey here. Yikes!

If you are a parent with a child in school-- government or PRIVATE, you need to be on the watch for IB. You need to understand what it really means, and what it seeks to do to your child. The school board is looking at this NOW! You need to understand what is happening!

Click here to read more on an earlier posting at GraniteGrok...

Posted by Doug at 04:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

NRO:

On Tuesday, April 29^th, Manhattan Institute senior fellows Jay P. Greene and Marcus A. Winters released a new study, “The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: Evidence from Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program.” Contrary to those who argue that school choice harms public schools, Greene and Winters find that disabled students who remain in public schools made substantial test score improvements when their school faced greater exposure to the McKay program.

Highlights of the study include:

• Public school students with relatively mild disabilities made substantial and statistically significant test score improvements in both math and reading as more nearby private schools began to participate in the McKay program.
• The largest benefit was found for students diagnosed as having a Specific Learning Disability, a categorization that includes 61% of disabled students and 8.5% of all students in the state of Florida.
• The academic proficiency of students diagnosed with relatively severe disabilities were neither helped nor harmed by increased exposure to the McKay program.

The authors conclude that the McKay program has had a positive effect on the quality of education that public schools provide to disabled students.  

Assumption - we all want our kids to be well educated.

Question - Do we owe our kids a public education?  Or a publicly funded education?

The two are not the same. 

And I also saw this:

The Center for College Affordability and Productivity has a new study showing that North Carolina's higher-education system is costing taxpayers a bundle. At the same time, among other negative findings, the report shows that many campuses are spending only 20 to 40 percent of their revenue on instruction.

Author Richard Vedder concludes that North Carolina's colleges are neglecting their core mission, "actually teaching students," and questions the nature of the vast spending having that does not reach the classroom.

Similar reports on higher education spending in all states are needed, as well as analyses of campuses' spending priorities.

I asked a similar question this past budget season of the School Board - what is the ratio of indirect to direct labor (e.g., those not involved in student teaching to those who are).  

Never did get a straight answer.  Position and salary burden.

It will be asked...again. 

Posted by Skip at 07:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I am slightly puzzled over the official reaction of Gilford’s NECAP test results. If I understand it correctly the conclusion is that our students are receiving a quality education, however, they’re simply disinterested in taking a silly test to prove it. This shouldn’t come as a complete surprise since our nation’s educators have been publicly waging a war against any kind of testing that measures learning progress (Do you think this might be the reason for the "culture" problem regarding testing?). Our education leaders propose the obvious solution. Prior to the testing our students participate in a “pep” rally. I must admit, I never would have thought of that.

 On another front we have the results of the Gilford Youth Risk Behavior Survey showing that our children are increasing their engagement into risky behavior. This survey has been viewed as a serious cry from our children that they need help. Okay, so why aren’t the NECAP test results seen as a serious cry that our children’s education needs help? It makes me question the "pep" rally solution because if we are to believe the Youth Risk Behavior survey results, one could conclude that our students have got the “pep” rally part down.

Posted by Terry S. at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saw this over at NRO -I've put the info into a table.  It would be interesting to see if there are more in depth studies:

Just A Coincidence?   [John Hood]

While recently poking around some reports from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), I was reminded of two key facts about national education systems and performance. First, contrary to what the school-reform debate in the U.S. might lead one to believe, America is more reliant on government monopoly to deliver public education than are most developed countries. At the high-school level, only about 9 percent of American students are enrolled in non-government schools, compared to an average of 18 percent in Europe. The differences are even starker when considering only our major OECD competitors:

The correlation may be eye-catching, but it isn't sufficient. Some apologists for the American education monopoly attribute the test-score differences to other factors, and are right to do so up to a point. Fortunately, however, there is good evidence for the proposition that, adjusting for these population and policy differences, school choice does help explain why some countries outperform others.

(By the way, Canada is left out because of unavailable data. So are the Low Countries, because of a lack of data from the Netherlands, which would have made the case even stronger given its private-school majority.)

Posted by Skip at 06:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Obviously, folks are looking at Nashua where the Teachers Union is not a set of happy campers (perhaps more properly, the subset of happy teachers within the larger set of teachers is a minimal set). And our teachers will soon be negotiating their contract real soon too.

Well, the "ill will" being displayed by the Nashua teachers seems to be going around.  When I saw this, the ONLY word that came to mind was:

CUTE 

Not cute as in "little kid" cute or "cuddly puppy" cute, but "aw, isn't that just barely amusing" cute coming from professionals (I cannot, for the life of me, seeing code herders doing something like this - naw, not a chance).  But at least, it isn't disobeying the law (e.g., going out on strike).

From EAOnline Intercepts:
 

In Indiana, the Michigan City Education Association is planning a unique protest of slow contract negotiations in the district:

As a protest, teachers will wear clothing in colors to express their
feelings about issues they say affect not only their working environment but
also students.

On Monday, they will wear blue "because we are sad for our children for not getting services they need due to large class sizes and the omission of programs."

On Tuesday they wear red because "we are seeing red because we are working without a contract."

On Wednesday they wear green because "we are envious of (school) districts that treat their teachers fairly and respect them as professionals."

On Thursday they wear orange. In the style of a children's riddle, they
ask, "Orange you glad you're with a highly qualified teacher today?"

On Friday, they wear black "because we have not received a raise to reflect a cost-of-living increase." 

Now, who is going to be seeing these colors?  Well, primarily, the kids - after all, it is ALWAYS for this children, isn't it (even contract negotiations).  People who use kids to make political  points in adult negotiations? Let's just say I keep thinking about that Pilgrim phrase "the stocks"...

Well, not leaving an opportunity to go to waste, the EAOnline folks decided on some colors of their own:

Here are a few ideas for the following week:

Monday - Silver and gold "for what we want from the taxpayers."
Tuesday - Brown "for the citizens who brown-bag it to pay for our benefits."
Wednesday - Yellow "for the politicians who cave in to our demands."
Thursday - Pink "for the pink slips against which tenure protects us."
Friday - Maroon "for the generation of maroons and ignoranimuses we're turning out."

A diversity of colors...and we have to celebrate diversity, right? 

Posted by Skip at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

And again, just like what was seen in Ohio (which I posted about here; the post also talking about Dr. DiMinico's dislike of standardized testing - how appropriate given Saturday's discussion!), secondary education may not be doing the of sufficiently preparing students for college:

Community college drop-outs

Three out of four students who enter California community colleges seeking a degree drop out in frustration, researchers estimate.

Most students are unprepared for college work, reports the Contra Costa Times. The story features an instructor who estimates only a third of his pre-algebra students will make it to algebra, a course they were supposed to have mastered in eighth grade.

One in 10 students at the lowest remedial levels — community colleges sometimes have up to five courses below the lowest college-level course — reaches a college-level course in that subject. The numbers are worse for black and Latino students.

Chaffey College in middle-class Rancho Cucamonga faced the remedial crisis in 1999:

Using a broader definition of underpreparedness than most schools, Chaffey educators determined that 98 percent of their students were unprepared for college work in at least one basic area.

The realization led to the most radical transformation of a community college in the nation. The school began hiring more basic-skills instructors, sometimes delaying the hiring of professors in fields such as biology and sociology.

With tutoring at “success centers,” the college tripled the number of students who transfer to a four-year university.

Aren't kids supposed to be ready for college by the time they are at, er, college?  So now, it seems, CA community colleges are mere extensions of what should have been taught in high school.

(H/T: Joanne Jacobs) 

Posted by Skip at 07:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This past Saturday, we had Dr. DiMinico and Ken Wiswell on Meet The New Press (I'll be posting up the video soon) talking about NCLB.  I suppose that if I rewatched the video, I'd remember how we got on the topic of vouchers.

I am in favor of vouchers - we allow for free market competition in almost all other markets except for elementary / high school education.  I do not believe it unreasonable that EVERY child deserves a publicly funded education - after all, we do that now!  Dr. D certainly is behind the "Follow the Child" philosophy; I just want to preface that with "Let the Money" too!

Well, Dr. DiMinco immediately brought up John Dewey (guess we'll have to look into his philosophy of education) and one other person who I cannot remember in defense of public education when I brought up home schooling.

Then he immediately came up with the example of a home school parent that would take the money and spend it on themselves instead of educating their child as the antithesis of public education.  Well, I should have ID'd right then and there as the silly outlier example it is (possible, yes....probable?).

Instead, let me go to the OTHER extreme and show what a home schooler parent has done that is probably WAY beyond what most school systems would do (once again, H/T: Joanne Jacobs emphasis mine):

Learning starts at home

Home-schooling has spread far beyond religious or counterculture families, writes Gregory Millman, a home-schooling father of six, in the Washington Post.

We joined a Shakespeare troupe founded by a single mother who was a college professor of literature. She taught the children to find the characters through the language, and they staged a complete Shakespeare play every year. Other members of that troupe founded a home-schooled robotics team, building robots to compete in regional, national and international events. We founded a debate and speech team that continues to compete at the middle school and high school levels.

The results? Studies have shown that home-schooled children outperform the conventionally schooled not only on standardized academic tests but also on tests of social skills.

Home-schooled students outperform conventionally schooled students on college admissions tests, and earn higher grades in college, according to admissions officers at Indiana University-Purdue and at Georgia’s Kennesaw State University.

Associate Dean Joyce Reed of Brown University has called home-schoolers “the epitome of Brown students,” telling the university’s alumni magazine that “they are self-directed, they take risks, and they don’t back off.”

Home-schooling parents are, by definition, highly motivated, education-first people so it’s not surprising their children tend to do well.

Hmmm, I wonder how home schoolers compare to the IB students that Dr. DiMinico is gushing about lately...standardized tests might tell us more... 

Posted by Skip at 06:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by Doug at 09:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From Phi Beta Cons (emphasis mine): 

Profit-Seeking Benefits Educational Customers   [Candace de Russy]

A study by the RAND Corp. early this year found no impact of private management on student performance.

In a new study, Paul Peterson and Mathew Chingo, researchers at Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, contradict this finding. Analyzing for-profit management in Philadelphia public schools, they conclude that “those who need to make a profit have strong incentives to do well by their customers” and that this approach succeeds well in educating students in even the most troubled of urban schools.

Chalk up yet another victory for Adam Smith.

11/07 10:40 AM

From a rollup of that Peterson/ Chingo study from the Wall Street Journal:

When for-profit management of public schools was first proposed in Philadelphia six years ago, many in that city were extremely skeptical, if not aggressively hostile. So the Philadelphia School Reform Commission, the entity responsible for the innovation, gave only the 30 lowest performing schools to for-profit companies, while another 16 were given to nonprofit organizations, including two of the city's major universities (Temple and the University of Pennsylvania). Others were reorganized by the school district itself.

In effect, a competition was run among the three types of management -- for-profit, nonprofit, and government-run. Four years into the race, here are the results: Students at schools managed by for-profit firms were roughly six months ahead in math than would be expected had the schools remained in the hands of the school district. In reading, students in schools managed by for-profit firms were two months further along than they would have been if the schools had been under district control, though that difference was not large enough to give us statistical certainty. Meanwhile the nonprofits -- and the school district's own reorganized schools -- did no better than expected.

Our findings are based upon information gleaned from nearly 400,000 student test scores made available to us by the School District of Philadelphia. They gave us the test scores of every tested student for the years 2001 through 2006, allowing us to track student performance at for-profit, nonprofit and low-performing district schools both before and after the management changes took place.

That data was subjected to a rigorous, quasi-experimental, "difference in differences" analysis that estimates management impacts at each type of school by making use of information on how much students were learning both before and after the management change while controlling for the students' characteristics.

Competition in the private market almost always results in higher quality products at a lower cost.  Couple that with complete transparency / information in the marketplace for both consumers and producers to research, contrast, and compare, and the results usually rewards those producers with the best products at the lowest costs.

That is, in optimal markets.

Unfortunately, the education marketplace currently (both in the monopoly part and the "fairly" unregulated portion) is not a perfect, or even close to optimal, marketplace. 

Posted by Skip at 06:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Scott Laliberte

Former Gilford Elementary Assistant Principal

Moultonboro Central School Principal 

With the crashing of GraniteGrok a couple of weeks ago, I've been rather busy shuffling data around as we picked up stakes and moved from Yahoo to our new hosting company, Nexcess.  This site, GilfordGrok, will be following its big brother blog over to Nexcess as well over the next week or so.

And that's one reason why posting has been light from me for the most part.  But this situation with Moultonboro's Study Committee (the committee to see if Moultonboro should have a Budget Committee) seems to get bigger and more convoluted.

And now there's another local connection (besides last week's visit that turned from a public meeting to a closed door meeting, thanks to two of our elected leaders).

I mentioned in my second post on this subject that Doug and I met Hollis Austin, a taxpayer from Moultonboro.  Well, even though he is being to be made out as a bit of a crank by some of the long term  powers that are not used to being challenged, we found him to be thoughtful and polite (if insistent on his rights) and a nice guy.  And takes lots of videos at the various official meetings that he then distributes free and unedited to anyone that wants to see what their elected and appointed representatitives are saying (a process that seems to be making a number of those representatives, especially Jerry Hopkins, very uncomfortable).

In fact, Hollis gave me a VHS of the previous meeting of this study committee that announced the meeting here in Gilford, and a whole lot more.  My impression after watching that hour and a half meeting is that most of the folks on that committee are already predisposed, via the use of stereotypes, against forming such a committee.  But that's just my opinion.

And that is the opinion of Mr. Laliberte who made the Gilford Budget Committee and the budget process, sound quite badly.  I'm going to be putting up a transcription up here as soon as I can, and I'm willing to make DVD copies for anyone that wants one (thanks for the permission Hollis!) to see for yourself.  No, no stark raving, no maniacal utterances, but certainly riddled with biases and mangled facts (some not quite right, some really not right). 

If the MSC is getting "advice" like this, I feel sorry for the taxpayers of Moultonboro. 

Posted by Skip at 08:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The NH Department of Education announced the 2006 test results of the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP).  This is a standardized test that is given to Elementary and Middle School students all across New England.

The ratings are as follows:

Level 4 - Proficient with Distinction

Level 3 - Proficient

Level 2 - Partially Proficient

Level 1 - Substantially Below Proficient

In the chart below (from the State), N is the number of children tested in that category.

In the following two charts, I've taken the liberty of collapsing Level's 4 with 3, and Levels 2 with 1 for a quick analysis.  I think that the charts speak for themselves:

In effect, between 21 and 28% of Gilford's children are not meeting norms for Grades 3 - 8.  In effect, almost 25% of the kids are below where they should be.

To put it into context, here is the State average: 

The overall state average of below proficient is about 29% -  a difference of only 4%.

My question is: does Gilford's academic results truly show results reflective of Gilford's above average budget?

Posted by Skip at 08:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the National Review 7/27/06) [bolded emphasis is mine -Skip].

I am a great believer in the "you cannot manage what you cannot measure" camp.  There are ways to measure almost everything in life effectively.  One only has to have the way to measure - that way, when different philosophies and procedures are dreamed up, they can be compared objectively and the less effective ones discarded.  

Testing works.... 

Disagreeing with Charles Murray on NCLB testing.

What would you think if you opened the Wall Street Journal to find an op-ed arguing that money managers should not be measured against performance benchmarks like the S&P? Further, the author argues, managers should not have to report performance figures to clients at all because it deters otherwise hardworking people from the profession because they believe that money management cannot be distilled into a quantitative measure.

It is difficult to imagine that such an article would appear in the Journal, which has championed measurement of standards in nearly all economic and public-policy endeavors. But change “money managers” to “public-school teachers” in the above hypothetical and you have the very real op-edJournal.

Murray, a conservative most renowned for his book Losing Ground, which was a highly influential criticism of the modern welfare state, joins the chorus of NCLB discontents in arguing that high-stakes testing narrows student learning to include only test-taking skills, and that it discourages teachers whose autonomy is threatened. These are popular mantras of the teacher unions and others opposed to reforming the nation’s public-school system.

But these criticisms would only be valid if “teaching to the test” meant that students weren’t also learning how to read and add. Reducing teacher autonomy by requiring students to learn tested material is only worrisome if it doesn’t also produce real learning.

In a study for the Manhattan Institute, we empirically examined whether Murray’s criticism is valid. If the accusation that high-stakes testing leads only to drilling and not real learning is correct, then the results of high-stakes tests should differ dramatically from the results of other measures of student achievement where no stakes are attached. After all, no one has an incentive to teach-to or otherwise manipulate low-stakes tests. A number of states, as well as several school districts, administered nationally respected standardized tests on which there were no stakes attached, in addition to the mandated high-stakes test. To see if the learning measured by the high-stakes test would be confirmed by the results of the low-stakes test, we compared their results. We found that these different tests produced remarkably similar results. In Florida, for example, we found that scores on these two tests correlated at an astounding 0.96 (a perfect correlation would be 1.00). Thus, the results of our study indicate that we can believe the scores on high-stakes tests. If the scores on high-stakes tests were manipulated or if students only learned skills that would help them to “beat” that particular standardized test without gaining real knowledge, then their results would not correlate with those of other respected tests on which there is no incentive to “teach-to” or manipulate.

And test scores have gone up in response to accountability programs. Though there is little research on the effects of NCLB in particular, there is actually significant evidence that accountability systems in general have improved student performance. Separate projects by researchers at Stanford University have each found that high-stakes testing has improved student proficiency, and we and other researchers have found that low-performing schools in Florida have improved in direct response to the incentives they faced under the state’s accountability system.

Murray provides us with a colorful anecdote about a dedicated schoolteacher who left the profession because the high-stakes tests stifled his professionalism. Truly, losing quality people from the teaching profession is a shame. But the goal of our education system is student learning, not teacher autonomy. And qualified teachers have little to fear from tests that accurately measure effective teaching.

It is worth noting that Murray’s larger point — that focusing on the percent of students reaching an arbitrarily chosen benchmark we call “proficient” instead of raw scores is imprecise and can lead to misleading results — is bang on. Murray describes expertly how reporting test results as the percent who read at certain levels throws away very useful information and is prone to unreasonable spinning of the results. However, rather than using these criticisms to improve NCLB and other high-stakes testing policies, Murray would have us through the baby out with the bathwater. The answer is not less accountability, but rather a system that utilizes test scores efficiently.

Though the money-manager hypothetical may seem outlandish, respected people make such arguments about public schools every day. But in education — or anything else that matters — we have no hope to manage what we do not measure in some way. Without testing we have no way of knowing how well (or poorly) our schools are performing, and we are left to trust schools when they tell us that they are doing their best. That public schools insist that they are performing up-to-par should provide no more comfort than if your money manager insisted that you need not see your portfolio because he was working as hard as he could to invest your money properly.

Research suggests that high-stakes testing can improve real student proficiency. We should not go back to the days when we had no tools for measuring and holding schools accountable for teaching students even the most basic skills.

— Jay P. Greene is Endowed Professor in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Marcus A. Winters is a senior research associate at the Manhattan Institute and a Doctoral Academy Fellow at the University of Arkansas.

Posted by Skip at 05:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“It really gives us a road map of the child's academic standing. Therefore the teacher is able to plan the instruction for the student.” 

Posted by Doug at 08:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here is my column from the Gilford Steamer concerning the new food policies of the Gilford School District (a link to the Citizen  article, my column is here [the paper is free, online is paid], couldn't find it on the Steamer and the Daily Sun is not online):

Analytically Speaking

Disruptive Technology: A new technological innovation, product, or service that eventually overturns the existing dominant technology or product in the market.

The Gilford School Board recently announced updated nutritional and behavior policies seeking to have more healthy students. Dr. DeMinico, Gilford District Superintendent, had a Commentary (Steamer, 9/14) that outlined a number of changes in the nutritional, physical activities, and behavioral policies.

Let me loosely translate – the non-official message is two fold - they think our kids are fat and they now see, as part of their educational mission, that they are to take a leading role in reducing such fat in the aforementioned kids. When I read it, I immediately thought of the character on the Seinfeld show (“no soup for you!”).

How? Some outright NOs: caffeine, sports drinks, only 100% juice, low fat milk, or water, less fatty meats (does that mean that “mystery meat” is a thing of the past?), and smaller portions. More “healthy” foods such as veggies and fruits to be served. Seconds? Get real. Higher prices too.

The Citizen reported that High School Principal Ken Wiswell added the reason for so few food choices is because of the fact the new policies follow federal guidelines. “In the long run, it will be good for us all”. So is cod liver oil, but I don't see any runs on that happening any time soon either.

Now, I will be the last person to cast stones at the “chubby” category – looking at my Body Mass Index (used to determine if weight / height ratios are in balance), I'm over the norm, just like many pro basketball, baseball, and football players (to be honest, much of my mass, however, is no longer built of muscle).

However, it's not that I eat too much. Rather, like many of us, I am way under exercised. And that, my friends, is the problem. For kids, in this day of GameBoy, Nintendo, X box, email, text messaging, MySpace.com, Internet, and other sedentary activities, it isn't always that they are eating too much – it is that they are eating too much for the exercise that they are not doing.

I applaud the willingness of the School to be part of the solution by adding new sports programs in the last few years like football and lacrosse that appeal to those kids that have not shown interest in Gilford's traditional sports. But there is something that is nagging me.

The above nutritional altruism aside, I did note that some of the changes are strictly financially driven. NOT following the federal guidelines turns the money spigots off – anathema to public services. Taken somewhat cravenly, does this mean that our kids get less to eat so that other programs can be funded?

And my sense is that the School is taking more of an ownership position in student lives than in the past - “we have to get involved in our students' lives so that we can keep them from hurting themselves in any area possible, regardless if it is during school hours or on school grounds”. Regulating food consumption, dealing with bad or risky behavior at non-school activities, places, or times?

At what point was it decided that the School's “in loco parentis” role could be expanded into new areas that they have traditionally not been, such as what foods that can be send for celebrations, that behaviors outside of school time and grounds would be addressed by school officials (re: Canterbury's discussions a while ago about how to punish kids misbehaving while waiting for the bus?) Kids at private gatherings being punished for bad behaviors?

Isn't that straying into grounds that should be parental domain only? Isn't this more creeping Nanny State-ism?

Oh yeah, almost forgot - Disruptive Technology? This seemingly brand new technology that can pile-drive these new food regulations? Ya gotta hand it to those dang kids – sometimes they're pretty clever. Don't they understand that they shouldn't be doing an end around the policy that our officials spent all that time coming up with for their own good? The DT - a sandwich brought from home.

Imagine that, wanting foods that they like and not those they don't. Student Russ Hunter was quoted “There are not a lot of things to choose from and we are spending more money”. Gee, this is starting to sound like a consumer revolt – less choice at higher cost generally means that customers no longer patronize your services. Result: less revenues. Yes indeed – he continued to relate that other students were starting to bring in their lunches so they could eat what they wanted at a cheaper price.

What are the stats on food revenues?

Cross-posted at GraniteGrok 

Posted by Skip at 07:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The following was added to a Comment to the Post about Matt McGonagle ( see also here and here). Both Doug and I have discussed this between us and in an email string with the actual author. We have had to do a bit a “re-jiggering” (as I explained it to the author) to make sure of a few things:

• From parts of this, it appears that there is a gag order of some type concerning this case. Information that might pertain to it have been redacted.
• Names and some positions have been redacted.
• Spelling has been corrected.

That said, the Comment had a lot of points that we felt were worth discussing, so much so that we've decided to have it as it's own Post rather than a Comment (even though we may not agree with it all).

Please note that where ever editing was needed meet the above concerns, it is duly noted ( i.e., [redacted -Ed] ). This has been cross-posted over at GraniteGrok.

==========================================

I am compelled to respond to the recent postings on Matt McGonagle and his "guilty" plea to felonious sexual assault against a child.

First of all, shame on The Citizen's online version for calling it "rape", and referring to his victim as plural ("girls" instead of girl) is reckless reporting, in my opinion. Second, those of you who have offered opinions on Matt's case obviously don't know Matt. You don't know anything about this case other than what you've read in the papers. Do you know Matt? Do you know the “victim"? ( Do you know that this "victim" is related to[redacted -Ed]??? HELLO! That might be the first problem. Were you privy to ANY of the behind-the-scenes negotiations between the attorneys?

Continue reading "Another take on Matt McGonagle" »

Posted by Skip at 02:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Blogging has been sparse as TMEW and I are on vacation in the heart of the Amish country – Lancaster, NH. Why here? Well, TMEW had read a series of books by Beverly Lewis concerning the Amish culture and wanted to see the people and where they lived. So, here we are.

Unlike some who visit to see the shops and shopping, we took an alternative view of our visit – we wanted to know more about the Amish culture itself versus the culture surrounding it. So, we did a tour. And another. And yet another. Without boring you with details, one thing stood out:

How the Amish youth are educated.

Certainly surprised me! 

Continue reading "Is Discipline the key?" »

Posted by Skip at 09:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Up on your Nabokov by Alec O'Meara- Editor, The Gilford Steamer

Doug Lambert is right. Well, check that. He’s almost right; we’ll give him that. Lambert, a member of the Gilford Budget Committee and longtime local columnist, recently wrote about the sentencing of former middle school teacher Matt McGonagle. In his column, he raises some interesting questions. He also raises some we disagree completely with, namely insinuating that a cover-up occurred so that the school could continue raising taxes and avoid bad press. We don’t think that’s the case here.

.

Obviously, if there had been a cover-up, that is very serious business. In this particular case, were there both teachers and students at the time who knew something was up, but never went to authorities? It is a fair question, but since the entire administration of the middle school, high school, and SAU office has turned over since the incident, the question lacks the explosive implications it would have had otherwise.

.

However, here’s a much more interesting question that is still in the ballpark of Lambert’s comments: how much of a role does gender play in how we all react to these cases?  More specifically, would that courtroom have been as full of friends and family supporting McGonagle if this had been about a 14-year-old boy instead of a girl? Would there have been as many “blind eyes” back in 2000? Does he get two years? What if he was black, or Hispanic? What happens then?

Continue reading "Teacher Sex Assault Discussion Continues..." »

Posted by Doug at 09:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sure, I can pile on! 

From CNN this morning, the Bush Administration announces a new push for school vouchers:

Congressional Republicans on Tuesday proposed a $100 million plan to let poor children leave struggling schools and attend private schools at public expense.

 Face it, there are schools, mostly in poor areas (or simply poorly managed areas) that are trapping kids in poor educational environments.  Throwing money at some problems can fix them but I believe it is has been proven that throwing it at this one generally doesn't work.  And it has been done in limited trials:

Under the new legislation, the vouchers would mainly go to students in poor schools that have failed to meet their progress goals for at least five straight years.

How long do we go before we admit that something has to change?  Five years is a long time in the educational life of a child stuck in a badly performing school. 

Parents could get $4,000 per year to put toward private-school tuition or a public school outside their local district. They could also seek up to $3,000 per year for extra tutoring.

Supporters say poor parents deserve choices, like rich families have. When schools don't work, said Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, "parents must have other opportunities."

During Bush's presidency, Congress approved the first federal voucher program in the District of Columbia, and private-school aid for students displaced by Hurricane Katrina.

 DC has some of the worst schools in the nation, and some of the highest per pupil spending in the nation to boot. What is needed is a new paradigm.  The old one is not working.  Yet, the folks who advocate for more money "for the childre" keep saying this:

"Voucher programs rob public-school students of scarce resources," said Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association, a teachers union. "No matter what politicians call them, vouchers threaten the basic right of every child to attend a quality public school."

How about we rephrase that and put the emphasis where it is needed:

Vouchers support the basic right of every child to receive a quality and publicly funded education. 

This places the emphasis on the child, not the school - a reformulation that I believe is better.

Reg Weaver of the NEA (See above) is advocating not for the kids, but for the status quo which in this case is the Teachers Union, plain and simple.   Teachers will be needed no matter if it is public or private schools in which they teach, but he knows that the power of the union will be diluted if the paradigm shif is accomplished.

More please, and faster please!

Posted by Skip at 06:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Red State has a little something that shows what the NEA is doing to enhance the education of our children:

Thanks to Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal, who noted in the Political Diary last Friday the NEA's Legislative Program for the next (110th) Congress. As we noted a few days ago, according to its website, the NEA exists, to "advanc[e] the cause of public education."

Good thing it's on the website, 'cause it's not entirely clear from the elements included in their legislative platform. While you'll see the garden variety stuff on education -- presumably their bread and butter, it also wanders into territory seemingly far from their mission, including:

* A nuclear freeze;
* The development of a national energy policy that stresses conservation and "reduces dependence on foreign sources of energy";
* The establishment and maintenance of federal wilderness areas;
* Stronger federal action in solving the problem of toxic waste dumping;
* A tax-supported, single-payer (i.e., Canadian-style) health care plan for all residents of the United States, its territories and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
* A moratorium on capital punishment at the state and federal levels;
* U.S. participation in and equitable financing of the United Nations and related bodies;
* A progressive tax system and restoring the estate tax.

Riley notes that last year, the NEA spent $25 million on "political activities and lobbying," and another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and grants" to other left-leaning groups. We earlier noted the $8 million they spent to beat the No Child Left Behind Act.

The NEA has long stood in the way of the real reforms needed to make sure our schools crank out kids who are prepared for the work world of today. They've been so busy coddling up to lefty causes out of synch with their membership that they've lost their way in terms of their stated goal. Along the way, we all lose.

Might be time for some hard-working teachers to ask where their money is going.

It warms the cockles of my heart to see the Teachers so focused on those issues that directly impact how our children stack up against the best in the world. 

No, any and everyone is entitled to their opinion on almost anything.  However, when I keep seeing reports that we lag most other "good" nations, and see report after report where the Teacher Unions refuse all efforts to try other things in the name of "for the children" that they cannot control, the NEA loses me. 

Face it - monopolies, not matter what the industry (and education is a business whether those on the inside wish to acknowledge it - they certainly don't work for free under a spreading tree of any type), never provide the best of breed of product or service at the best possible pricing.

Posted by Skip at 06:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)