Spend Taxpayer Resources Wisely to Get Better Results for Students
Districts should use resources efficiently to ensure sustainable spending that puts students first. Districts should be managed through structures that ensure a focus on student results rather than adult interests.
Districts should use resources efficiently to ensure sustainable spending that puts students first. Districts should be managed through structures that ensure a focus on student results rather than adult interests.
This organization also has a blog. I found this article, which is timely. A Call for Civilty A local shop owner closed their doors recently. This person spoke against the outrageous cost of the high school project, and was later harassed by members of special interest groups.
Another article, How to Reform School Boards had this to say:
School board members in America range from those with doctorates to those that have not even completed high school. Almost all come onto school boards (more than 90 percent of them through elections; the rest are appointed) with little or no preparation for the specific tasks that await them. Some outstanding people serve on school boards and some have no business on these boards, given their temperament and ignorance.Me thinks this is occuring in the Ward 3 Commissioner race. Sorry. Just my opinion.
If more school boards were appointed, and consideration were given only to candidates who have been interviewed and vetted by panels of leading citizens who do not represent special interest groups, this could make for better boards. Moreover, the criteria for consideration might go beyond the basics—citizenship and residence.
To read all 25 pages of Students First Agenda, go to A Challenge to States and Districts: Policies That Put Students First
After all, it's for the children.
18 comments:
How do you choose the people who get to appoint the school board? Are they appointed too?
Why limit it to the school board? Why not appoint the municipal council as well?
Why have elections at all?
Reading the Call for Civility took me back to a post on Bloglebo by Rob Gardner.
Here's an excerpt:
"Early this year I reached out to residents who I believed would make strong candidates. Far too often potential candidates said they were interested, but they were not willing to risk the ridicule that came with public office. They were not willing to have their spouses, their coworkers, and their children hear their intelligence, ability, and (worst of all) their integrity being questioned with the vehemence we have seen over the past year. They were willing to work hard and undergo public scrutiny, but they were not willing to have their character assaulted.
The reaction of these potential candidates leads me to these questions: Are the best possible candidates heeding the call to public service, or is the field stunted by the super-charged rhetoric that we’ve now come to expect? Are the few residents that often drive this rhetoric making Mt Lebanon a better place to live? Or are they hijacking the discussion and in doing so, suppressing the wider view the community could be offered if the field of candidates was broader? I believe the latter.
A fresh example of this hijacking came to light this week. Elaine Gillen, candidate for Commissioner in Ward 3, has served her potential General Election opponent, Kristen Linfante, with legal papers challenging the authenticity of the signatures on Ms Linfante’s nominating petition…"
I agreed with Rob's first paragraph, but then he lost me with the rest of his views: "Are the few residents that often drive this rhetoric making Mt Lebanon a better place to live? Or are they hijacking the discussion and in doing so..."
Then he goes on to accuse Elaine of hijacking by questioning signatures on a candidates petition. I thought hijacking was against the law? If so, tell me how do you DESCRIBE Elaine as a hijacker when she engaged in a common political process allowed by the law? She had questions about signatures and had a right to have those signatures examined. Most were OK and one or two were not.
Whose associates protested/picketed and ridiculed a community meeting in which one of their own asked one of the first questions.
What the kluck... Ridicule, assault, vehemence.... really who's really doing driving the rhetoric and "hijacking" the political process. Who's driving people from the arena of community service?
People complain about Elaine allowing anonymous post... I thank her. Perhaps Rob is really genuine in wanting people involved, but his writings suggest otherwise.
It's not Elaine that scares me.
I believe I'm smart enough to weed through her post and the accompanying comments to discern which are worthy of investigating and which are BS.
It's the tactics and the position of some residents (on both sides) that think they have to protect me from myself and my neighbors that does.
- Giffen Good
They're threatening Union money. That's why they're being attacked like that.
Anyone who's been in a Union know what I'm talking about.
Giffen, do you think it is fair that you are permitted to post anonymously while everyone else who chooses to do so is left out of the conversation?
We aren't really allowed to "weed through" the comments (as you suggest) because we're only seeing part of them I suspect.
Just curious . . .
Dave Franklin
Another interesting article emailed to me with the comment, "Is that going to be our future?"
What if they built a school and nobody got to go?
Good question Jeaton. I'm not entirely sure that appointments would lead to better boards and is exactly why taxpayers need to have more control via the reduction in Act 1 exemptions now being discussed in Harrisburg.
In "How to Reform School Boards" the author makes point #4. Conduct by school members
"Finally, nepotism should be a concern when it comes to school boards. All too often a member may intercede to gain special treatment for a relative. Ethics regulations have been promulgated in many locales, and this has crimped but hardly eliminated the practice.
Concern about the conduct of school board members and their role in personnel decisions should go well beyond nepotism, though. Cronyism, favoritism, and patronage may not involve relatives, but they do lead to appointments and promotions that undermine the meritocracy and saddle school systems with employees who may not be the best qualified for their jobs—from security guards to principals."
I don't think most SB members intentionally set out to engage in this behavior, but end up doing so to move their personal agendas forward. Basically human nature, most people don't want to "hire/appoint" people that represent opposing views. Its easier to deal with YES men than naysayers, though that philosophy doesn't guarantee positive results.
Perhaps the ability to recall board member might work better.
- Giffen Good
Mr. Franklin,life isn't fair. Try being civil and see where it gets you. Sarah Morris
Sigh . . .
Ms. Morris, can you please give me an example of when I have not been civil?
Dave Franklin
Mr. Franklin, whether I or more specifically - you - think its fair whether I post under a nom de plume is irrelevant-- I'm breaking no law and if Elaine approves-- hey it's her space.
You don't like it don't visit her blog!
Or are you assuming the role of super hero hiding in Bird Park you wrote about?
Out to protect residents that you believe don't have the mental capacity to read something and evaluate it for themself.
Think Elaine's obstructing your freedom of speech or presenting one side of an issue-- go start your own blog and post whatever it is you wish, its a free country. You can reject Giffen Good comments all you want.
It's Elaine's blog and she's free to do with hers as she pleases andsorry-- you or I have no idea what she allows or doesn't.
- Giffen Good
One other thing Mr. Franklin.
You write: "We aren't really allowed to "weed through" the comments (as you suggest) because we're only seeing part of them I suspect."
If Elaine is your only source of information concerning the school board, the municipality etc., I feel sorry for you.
- Giffen Good
Mr. Franklin doesn't have anything better to do with his time than to talk sports and pick on widows.
John Ewing
Sigh...I will not let this thread be taken over by you again, Dave. Elaine
Mr. Franklin, don't confused the facts, I made no inference about anonymous post. I was writing about the article "A Call for Civility."
Which I believe concurs with Mr. Gardner's first point in his Hijacking article. I never said anonymous post should or shouldn't be allowed.
Frankly... or rather... Franklin, I don't care if you post under Dave Franklin, Super Hero or whatever. I'm always open to reading an intelligent perspective on a subject.
I feel pretty confident that Elaine presents as fair and balanced a conversation as Center Court, Bloglebo, the VOICE of Mt. Lebanon (by the way-- where are those "committed" people?) or MTL magazine.
So, since you took over this topic, Dave, I'm with Elaine regarding your hijacking. See ya.
- Giffen Good
In the article, "Call for Civilty," there is a sentence that sticks out in my mind. "All of us should have a right to speak without being bullied and harassed." There are people who have come to me and have said that they were afraid to comment on my blog for fear of being bullied. Some are afraid of losing their jobs. I have changed the comments policy to reflect these concerns. I have been sympathetic to a couple of individuals who wish to remain anonymous for personal reasons. I have deleted comments from two individuals today who would rather question my credibility because I am all about transparency, than step forward to record the Policy Committee meeting that was going on simultaneously. Tom and Dave, it is about GOVERNMENT transparency, not me.
A local shop owner closed shop, all because of a letter to the editor. Out of business. The same shop where a school board member would ask for discounts. This is tragic! Speaking of letters to the editor, several were written about me and were inaccurate, but were printed anyway. The sad part of it is, he checks my blog more than most people do. But that is how bullies operate. Our School Board President wrote a nasty letter to the editor about a structural engineer who donated his time for his community. It is appalling that in order for me to have a blog here in Mt. Lebanon, I have to take steps to protect people's identities because they don't want any consequences. That is pathetic.
Elaine
Re: A Call for Civility
This is an interesting topic. The article by Olivia Demas as seen on StudentsFirst.org states, in part, “Debate around school reform issues should be intense; disagreements will be sharp, and rhetoric will get heated. After all, the stakes are incredibly high; but there has to be a line.” Agreed. And I maintain that there should be an “option out” if one finds oneself at that line.
The reason why some school districts find themselves at “the line” is that the people involved in these debates cannot agree on what Duquesne University Economics Professor Antony Davies calls “First Principles.” First Principles are not derived from other truths. A First Principle is either a)assumed to be true, or b)so self-evident as to be beyond dispute. (In my college days a First Principle was called a Basic Premise.) A person cannot maintain contradictory First Principles because a contradiction cannot exist. The “line” exists at the interface between contradictory First Principles. By way of example, when Ms. Posti writes to me and politely (Ms. Posti is always polite) tells me that she does not believe in vouchers it is because in her world public education is morally superior to any other education system one may adduce. When I counter with evidence from dozens of school districts that have gone to this system with success, such as New Orleans and Baltimore, her response is, “Vouchers divert resources from public education but do not adequately reduce costs. When a student leaves a school district to enroll in a nonpublic school, the district’s costs associated with that student do not just disappear. Students typically do not exit the school district in neat groups of thirty, nor are they all from the same grade or class. Therefore, school districts are unable to reduce certain fixed costs necessary in the operation of a school.” Here we see what is known as the “Schopenhauer Principle.” The German Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, in his rules for debating, shows how to win a weak case by dragging an argument from its right field, and discussing it instead from some other, impregnable angle. The voucher idea - that money to educate a child should be “attached to the child” and not to a school district - is incomprehensible to Ms. Posti and her allies. Traditional, public, union education is her “First Principle” (and by the way, Baltimore and New Orleans have reduced costs!).
In the case of the current high school reconstruction project the issue is about expenditure, not vouchers. However, I think the high school project is only a symptom of more serious problems we face in Mt. Lebanon. Educational delivery systems are changing, and the days of brick and mortar structures on the grand scale proposed by our School Board (to service declining numbers of students) are numbered. Many of us feel a complete overhaul of local education is in order. Could it be that expressing such opinions approaches “the line?” And what will be the response of the “status quo?” Fortunately, such outrages as we have witnessed in Wisconsin and California have not happened in Mt. Lebanon – yet.
Richard Gideon
I find myself agreeing with much of what Richard Gideon wrote. The one thing I would add is that the school district does have a clear, agreed-upon first principle: its mission. To provide the best education possible. From this mission statement there is an easily derived test for whether a decision to do something is consistent with this first principle: If we decide to do this thing (that is, dedicate some of our resources to it), do we expect it to provide greater educational improvements than the other things we could do with the same resources?
To use the high-school project as an example, there’s a wealth of research (much of it summarized in this GAO report) arguing that investments in school facilities are among the least effective of educational investments. Given, then, that our school directors had the option to invest less in the renovation but still meet our genuine educational needs (and this was the case as far back as January 2010, when I asked the school directors who supported the current plan if any of them could offer a reason why our community couldn’t be well served by a more-modest renovation, and none of them could), it was probably a mistake when the majority chose instead to go ahead with a more-expensive option.
They did this, I believe, because they were led to consider the wrong question – Is it worth the money? – to which, they could honestly answer Yes. But, had they been more conscious of the school district’s mission, they would have realized that this was the wrong question.
The question isn’t, and never has been, Is it worth the money? The right question is, and always has been, Is this the best we can do with the money? Opportunity cost matters.
As a community, we need to do a better job of helping our school directors stay mindful of the school district’s first First Principle: its mission. We can do this by asking them, before any large decision, Is it the best we can do with the resources?
Cheers,
Tom
Tom we're all or at least you, I and Mr. Gideon thanks to Elaine's blog getting to the same "First Principal' and we did it without a Key Communicator's group, coffee klatches or "over-heated virtriol."
Can we expect others to join in or continue to drive wedges?
- Giffen Good
Is it the best use of money to tear down building C and replace it?
Is it the best use of money to squander $10,000,000 in interest in wrapping the elementary school bonds?
Is it the best use of money to spend $5,100,000 in debt service speculating on interest rates?
Is it the best use of money to accumulate $13,900,000 for the Capital Projects Fund?
Is it the best use of money to give each teacher their own room?
Is it the best use of money to spend $25,000,000 on an athletic field house?
Is it the best use of money to pass up a voluntary fund raising campaign for $8,000,000?
Is it the best use of money to continue to employ the Administrators who allowed this to happen?
John Ewing
Post a Comment