Here's a guest opinion that was posted as a comment to the Budget Approval Due Tonight posting.
Well done, Peter. Well done.
Peter has left a new comment on your post "Budget Approval Due Tonight":
Before I respond, Anonymous, let's start with the definition of mandate:
Main Entry: man·date
Pronunciation: \ˈman-ˌdāt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French & Latin; Middle French mandat, from Latin mandatum, from neuter of mandatus, past participle of mandare to entrust, enjoin, probably irregular from manus hand + -dere to put — more at manual, do
Date: 1501
1: an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one
2: an authorization to act given to a representative (accepted the mandate of the people)
3 a: an order or commission granted by the League of Nations to a member nation for the establishment of a responsible government over a former German colony or other conquered territory b: a mandated territory
OK, with that out of the way, lets look at this two ways, financial and moral.
FINANCIAL
Financially, this town is at odds on how to improve things. There are the progressives (how I would classify most the of contributors to this blog, myself included) and the depressives (how I would classify the Board and Council majorities. A.K.A. NSN's on this blog). The progressives believe that by improving the town now, which, yes, does cost some money up front, we will save, even collect dividends, in the future. It is an investment for the future. That is the core of why most of us believed in a new school. A motto for this group might be, a stitch in time saves nine.
The depressives on the other hand believe that we need to keep taxes down at all costs. A motto on for this group might be, a penny saved is a penny earned.
I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye. These are deep, philosophical differences that are hard to overcome.
Now, financially, to answer your question, "how many more years do you believe we can afford to PROPERLY fund mandates with double digit annual increases?" I can't answer this for anyone other than for my family, however, I challenge the notion of double-digit increases. The state mandates (there's that word again) a max increase. Oh, but what about the exceptions, you ask. Yes, there are exceptions for things outside of our control, such as increased costs of special needs kids. Which leads to...
MORAL
We have a moral obligation to our community to educate our kids. It is our civic duty. At what costs? Well, at whatever the cost is to give our kids an appropriate education, to give them a chance at a future. This is a tenet of the progressives. Notice I am not asking for gold covered text books and marble-floored buildings. Yes, I think a new school was going to help build our community AND save money, but we never asked for a Taj Majal, no matter how you may have tried to spin it, Anonymous. Now, at this point, we are hoping to just keep our failing buildings and simply educate the kids, and so far it's not looking too promising that even that will happen.
I will say it again. We have a moral obligation to educate our kids. The current budget underfunds this mission, even at the pleas of the community and the real professionals, the administration.
So, you say, "Sooner or later, something has to give." Given the current budget, and Dr. Yonson's statement the other night that they will somehow figure out a way to appropriately deal with special education, etc, that means that, yes, something has to give. Sadly it will be education. Education will have to give and our kids will lose. We will give our kids a second rate education because YOU want lower goddamn taxes!
We have a moral obligation to our community to educate our kids.
Showing posts with label accountability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label accountability. Show all posts
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Fortune Telling in Morrisville
The Morrisville School District is performing the same dance I've seen in business quite often, and even participated in a few times. The organization is making the transformation from a vibrant and viable entity to something we talk about from the dim mists of the "good old days."
Sometimes the death throes come in a blaze of glory, as we learned recently with Bear Stearns. The comet blazes mightily and flames out leaving everyone stunned and confused. No, MSD is not going to go out with a bang, but with the metaphorical whimper.
The board of directors (our intrepid Stop the School board, also known as the Emperor and his Accomplices) is providing uncertain and confusing direction for the future. Remember the Frankenfield question: "What is your plan?" In every single job interview and at least once a year in my annual reviews, the question is asked: "What is your plan? Where do you see yourself in five years?" Everyone works toward a goal. That goal has to be defined by the vision makers at the top.
Since the vision is undefined, we have to read between the lines, and the lines speak of destruction: Don't hire teachers or staff. Lower the taxes, no matter the cost. Close the schools. Tuition out the students. Treat the administration like untrustworthy lackeys. That attitude filters through the organization and sets off the alarm bells of self-preservation in everyone. When they start asking the "five years" question of themselves, they are faced with what the district is expected to look like in 2013. "It's the end of the world as we know it" is not an unexpected conclusion.
These people have families, homes, cars, and visions and plans of their own for their lives. They all depend on an expectation of continued employment to make these dreams come true.
So now, those who are able or willing will be making the circuit on Monster.com and sending out their resumes. We're going to see a drain of some of the best and the brightest from MSD leaving for other greener pastures.
That happens all the time, but the reverse side of the exodus is that replacements come in. Here's where the dynamics fall apart. The future of MSD is cloudy and murky, and even the medium on Pennsylvania Avenue can see that. I think Helen Keller would have had a 90% chance in seeing it.
Imagine an applicant coming into a board meeting to see what the district is like. I would expect that a cartoonish outline of the person would be left in the wall as they made the hastiest exit known to man since Bugs Bunny.
The first interview question would be, "Do you want to work for the Emperor and his Board of Accomplices?" How many of us would answer yes? Tends to cut down the interviewing time, doesn't it?
Let's fast forward a year from now. Who replaced any of the departed people? Were their positions left vacant and the "do more with less" slack taken up by the survivors? How many of these survivors saw the handwriting on the wall and lit out for greener pastures of their own? No disrespect meant to any future district hires, but what of the caliber of the people who came in? We're not paying the best wages and overall job security is pretty minimal.
It was easy to attract applicants to the RMS Titanic when it was the indestructible behemoth. When you hire on a crew to staff a doomed ship, the applicant flow diminishes slightly.
Can this still be reversed? Possibly. Without more parents and concerned taxpayers showing up to challenge the self-destructive behavior of this board, this is the future. The PDE or the state appointed undertakers will just sift through the wreckage. Let's remember that our kids are in that wreckage.
Sometimes the death throes come in a blaze of glory, as we learned recently with Bear Stearns. The comet blazes mightily and flames out leaving everyone stunned and confused. No, MSD is not going to go out with a bang, but with the metaphorical whimper.
The board of directors (our intrepid Stop the School board, also known as the Emperor and his Accomplices) is providing uncertain and confusing direction for the future. Remember the Frankenfield question: "What is your plan?" In every single job interview and at least once a year in my annual reviews, the question is asked: "What is your plan? Where do you see yourself in five years?" Everyone works toward a goal. That goal has to be defined by the vision makers at the top.
Since the vision is undefined, we have to read between the lines, and the lines speak of destruction: Don't hire teachers or staff. Lower the taxes, no matter the cost. Close the schools. Tuition out the students. Treat the administration like untrustworthy lackeys. That attitude filters through the organization and sets off the alarm bells of self-preservation in everyone. When they start asking the "five years" question of themselves, they are faced with what the district is expected to look like in 2013. "It's the end of the world as we know it" is not an unexpected conclusion.
These people have families, homes, cars, and visions and plans of their own for their lives. They all depend on an expectation of continued employment to make these dreams come true.
So now, those who are able or willing will be making the circuit on Monster.com and sending out their resumes. We're going to see a drain of some of the best and the brightest from MSD leaving for other greener pastures.
That happens all the time, but the reverse side of the exodus is that replacements come in. Here's where the dynamics fall apart. The future of MSD is cloudy and murky, and even the medium on Pennsylvania Avenue can see that. I think Helen Keller would have had a 90% chance in seeing it.
Imagine an applicant coming into a board meeting to see what the district is like. I would expect that a cartoonish outline of the person would be left in the wall as they made the hastiest exit known to man since Bugs Bunny.
The first interview question would be, "Do you want to work for the Emperor and his Board of Accomplices?" How many of us would answer yes? Tends to cut down the interviewing time, doesn't it?
Let's fast forward a year from now. Who replaced any of the departed people? Were their positions left vacant and the "do more with less" slack taken up by the survivors? How many of these survivors saw the handwriting on the wall and lit out for greener pastures of their own? No disrespect meant to any future district hires, but what of the caliber of the people who came in? We're not paying the best wages and overall job security is pretty minimal.
It was easy to attract applicants to the RMS Titanic when it was the indestructible behemoth. When you hire on a crew to staff a doomed ship, the applicant flow diminishes slightly.
Can this still be reversed? Possibly. Without more parents and concerned taxpayers showing up to challenge the self-destructive behavior of this board, this is the future. The PDE or the state appointed undertakers will just sift through the wreckage. Let's remember that our kids are in that wreckage.
“This is ridiculous.”
Here's a background article on Wednesday night's meeting from the BCCT this morning.
Raucous? That's mild understatement. It started in the past with an extremely hostile audience led by those same people who now grace the dais. Soda cans and food packages made their start here too, provided back then by the stop the school side as a disruption for the pro school board members. The change in board majority ensured that the practice would eventually shift over to the other side now.
The food thing is a little over the top from BOTH sides. A quiet drink or small snack might be in order. After all, these are four or five hours marathons, but the practice THEN and the practice NOW of using these snacks as disruptive tools is childish at best.
The identification of the Hellmann-Radosti-Mihok voting axis is accurate but is missing a few members. Brenda Worob and Bill Farrell talk a big game about "independence" and "self-directed thought", but in the end come down on the short-sighted side far more often than a true "independent" would.
Jack Buckman has had an issue with late night meetings through his borough council days, so this is not a new position for him. I would like to know how he had enough information about the budget to be able to cast a vote approving it. Was he aware that he can be held PERSONALLY liable for civil damages as a result of his vote?
Until this school board remembers that they are NOT the local board of taxation, but the SCHOOL board, we're in for more late night meeting follies. The irony is that the Emperor and his accomplices themselves have created the firestorm they find themselves enmeshed in. When they were in the audience, they discarded reasoned discourse and discussion in favor of shouting, screaming, and outright mis-characterization of facts to make their points. Now that they are in charge, the wheel of karma has spun and they are now reaping what they have sowed in terms of audience behavior.
I'd like to say that the anti-board audience is wrong (and in the real world they are!), but it's also the only language these yahoos on the dais understand. Confrontation, maximum disruption, and agitation are their signatures. IRONY ALERT: We've elected a board largely made up of the village idiots to control the schools where we educate our young. And we did it only because we wanted to save a few bucks.
They also never, ever, even to this day, thought about a long term plan and released it to the public. "Stop the school" was all they had. They did it. Now what? I've been asking that question for almost a year now and silence is still the only response. Has it occurred to the Emperor and the board of accomplices that if they dialed back the angry rhetoric a bit and actually opened their mouths to EXPLAIN, that the results would be better?
"Those sitting near the front could hear Yonson say under her breath, 'This is ridiculous.' ” Oh, no, Dr. Yonson. Ridiculous is still a few miles down this pothole riddled highway. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses...
Raucous atmosphere at school board meeting
By MANASEE WAGH
Bucks County Courier Times
Morrisville meetings are known for their raucous mud-slinging. But Wednesday's meeting was one for the books.
From the shortening of Superintendent Elizabeth Yonson's contract from five to three years to the board president's proposal of across-the-board hiring freezes in the district, diehards on both sides of the issues stuck it out to watch events unfold past midnight.
One spectator started singing “It's the end of the school as we know it,” to the tune of rock band REM's “It's the End of the World as We Know It.”
At least eight people stood at the microphone to protest the board majority's decision to cut Yonson's five-year contract. Some said it was “a slap in the face” and “an insult.”
The routine replacement of aides and teachers who leave the district became fuel for a debate that raged for more than an hour.
Board President William Hellmann got worked up over hiring new staff. To save money, he suggested a hiring freeze, which elicited gaping mouths and stares of disbelief from administrators and boos from audience members.
Yonson explained that the employees are necessary, that they fulfilled vital educational functions, helping to make significant academic gains in the last couple of years.
For example, elementary math performances have risen in the past couple of years. This year's raw unofficial PSSA data shows considerable improvement in 11th-grade scores, from 11 percent proficiency to 55 percent proficiency, said Yonson.
“Do not expect to have the same results if we reduce staff,” she said.
Hellmann's determination to freeze hirings stems from the district's teachers contract, which stipulates a roughly 12:1 student to staff ratio.
Though most general classes are more than 20 students in size, according to Yonson, some kids who need particular help have more aides or teachers.
The bottom line for some board members was the ratio, though.
“It's too much. It's a problem,” was Hellmann's constant refrain about the number of staff needed to teach fewer than 1,000 students and run the district at an annual cost of $19.88 million.
“Our budget's way too high,” he said repeatedly.
Residents who didn't like what Hellmann had to say settled back with containers of goodies, opening them loudly and rumpling them during Hellmann's remarks.
The approximately 75 spectators filling the meeting room in Morrisville's high school during the five-hour meeting seemed as if they were a sporting event.
They booed and cheered repeatedly depending on who was talking.
Some demanded that Hellmann be heard. Others talked over him.
In the end, at least some of the votes did swing toward staff replacements, though Hellmann and board members Marlys Mihok and Alfred Radosti tended to vote against them. Their practice of siding together on just about every vote prompted a resident to demand that the board not “follow the leader.”
Throughout the noisy meeting, Hellmann and opposing board member Robin Reithmeyer drowned each other out, and Hellmann seemed to turn a deaf ear to Yonson's explanations of how the school system works.
Those sitting near the front could hear Yonson say under her breath, “This is ridiculous.”
John Buckman, who replaced the late Edward Frankenfield on the board last week, thought the meeting dragged on too long.
“It was way too long, that's crazy. If I was getting paid and paid by the hour, maybe I wouldn't care,” he said Friday, chuckling. “We've got to find a way to cut the time.”
Buckman, a former school director and borough councilman, said taking so much time is unfair to board members and the public. But he noted asking questions and airing grievances is good. He believes it's valuable to be up-front and communicate.
However, the board and the administration seem to clash frequently.
“In politics, forget it. It's just that way,” said Buckman. “They talk the subject over and over and over. You're not going to get away from it totally.”
Raucous? That's mild understatement. It started in the past with an extremely hostile audience led by those same people who now grace the dais. Soda cans and food packages made their start here too, provided back then by the stop the school side as a disruption for the pro school board members. The change in board majority ensured that the practice would eventually shift over to the other side now.
The food thing is a little over the top from BOTH sides. A quiet drink or small snack might be in order. After all, these are four or five hours marathons, but the practice THEN and the practice NOW of using these snacks as disruptive tools is childish at best.
The identification of the Hellmann-Radosti-Mihok voting axis is accurate but is missing a few members. Brenda Worob and Bill Farrell talk a big game about "independence" and "self-directed thought", but in the end come down on the short-sighted side far more often than a true "independent" would.
Jack Buckman has had an issue with late night meetings through his borough council days, so this is not a new position for him. I would like to know how he had enough information about the budget to be able to cast a vote approving it. Was he aware that he can be held PERSONALLY liable for civil damages as a result of his vote?
Until this school board remembers that they are NOT the local board of taxation, but the SCHOOL board, we're in for more late night meeting follies. The irony is that the Emperor and his accomplices themselves have created the firestorm they find themselves enmeshed in. When they were in the audience, they discarded reasoned discourse and discussion in favor of shouting, screaming, and outright mis-characterization of facts to make their points. Now that they are in charge, the wheel of karma has spun and they are now reaping what they have sowed in terms of audience behavior.
I'd like to say that the anti-board audience is wrong (and in the real world they are!), but it's also the only language these yahoos on the dais understand. Confrontation, maximum disruption, and agitation are their signatures. IRONY ALERT: We've elected a board largely made up of the village idiots to control the schools where we educate our young. And we did it only because we wanted to save a few bucks.
They also never, ever, even to this day, thought about a long term plan and released it to the public. "Stop the school" was all they had. They did it. Now what? I've been asking that question for almost a year now and silence is still the only response. Has it occurred to the Emperor and the board of accomplices that if they dialed back the angry rhetoric a bit and actually opened their mouths to EXPLAIN, that the results would be better?
"Those sitting near the front could hear Yonson say under her breath, 'This is ridiculous.' ” Oh, no, Dr. Yonson. Ridiculous is still a few miles down this pothole riddled highway. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses...
Raucous atmosphere at school board meeting
By MANASEE WAGH
Bucks County Courier Times
Morrisville meetings are known for their raucous mud-slinging. But Wednesday's meeting was one for the books.
From the shortening of Superintendent Elizabeth Yonson's contract from five to three years to the board president's proposal of across-the-board hiring freezes in the district, diehards on both sides of the issues stuck it out to watch events unfold past midnight.
One spectator started singing “It's the end of the school as we know it,” to the tune of rock band REM's “It's the End of the World as We Know It.”
At least eight people stood at the microphone to protest the board majority's decision to cut Yonson's five-year contract. Some said it was “a slap in the face” and “an insult.”
The routine replacement of aides and teachers who leave the district became fuel for a debate that raged for more than an hour.
Board President William Hellmann got worked up over hiring new staff. To save money, he suggested a hiring freeze, which elicited gaping mouths and stares of disbelief from administrators and boos from audience members.
Yonson explained that the employees are necessary, that they fulfilled vital educational functions, helping to make significant academic gains in the last couple of years.
For example, elementary math performances have risen in the past couple of years. This year's raw unofficial PSSA data shows considerable improvement in 11th-grade scores, from 11 percent proficiency to 55 percent proficiency, said Yonson.
“Do not expect to have the same results if we reduce staff,” she said.
Hellmann's determination to freeze hirings stems from the district's teachers contract, which stipulates a roughly 12:1 student to staff ratio.
Though most general classes are more than 20 students in size, according to Yonson, some kids who need particular help have more aides or teachers.
The bottom line for some board members was the ratio, though.
“It's too much. It's a problem,” was Hellmann's constant refrain about the number of staff needed to teach fewer than 1,000 students and run the district at an annual cost of $19.88 million.
“Our budget's way too high,” he said repeatedly.
Residents who didn't like what Hellmann had to say settled back with containers of goodies, opening them loudly and rumpling them during Hellmann's remarks.
The approximately 75 spectators filling the meeting room in Morrisville's high school during the five-hour meeting seemed as if they were a sporting event.
They booed and cheered repeatedly depending on who was talking.
Some demanded that Hellmann be heard. Others talked over him.
In the end, at least some of the votes did swing toward staff replacements, though Hellmann and board members Marlys Mihok and Alfred Radosti tended to vote against them. Their practice of siding together on just about every vote prompted a resident to demand that the board not “follow the leader.”
Throughout the noisy meeting, Hellmann and opposing board member Robin Reithmeyer drowned each other out, and Hellmann seemed to turn a deaf ear to Yonson's explanations of how the school system works.
Those sitting near the front could hear Yonson say under her breath, “This is ridiculous.”
John Buckman, who replaced the late Edward Frankenfield on the board last week, thought the meeting dragged on too long.
“It was way too long, that's crazy. If I was getting paid and paid by the hour, maybe I wouldn't care,” he said Friday, chuckling. “We've got to find a way to cut the time.”
Buckman, a former school director and borough councilman, said taking so much time is unfair to board members and the public. But he noted asking questions and airing grievances is good. He believes it's valuable to be up-front and communicate.
However, the board and the administration seem to clash frequently.
“In politics, forget it. It's just that way,” said Buckman. “They talk the subject over and over and over. You're not going to get away from it totally.”
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
School Funding Fight
Today the BCCT prints an editorial on the school funding crisis in Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia Inquirer editorialized on the same plan back on May 4.
There's plenty to see at the PDE's website covering the 2008-2009 budget proposals.
What are the Emperor and his accomplices constructively doing about school funding? Are they pressuring the Rendell Administration? Lobbying our senator and state representative? Have they passed any resolutions declaring support or even opposition to this plan and sent the resolution to Harrisburg?
I'm asking because of the Allentown Morning Call (SW's favorite newspaper, don't forget) published an article April 11 that pointed out the problem of politicians: They don't wanna do nothin'. Once they commissioned the study that showed Pennsylvania schools are underfunded, they were left holding a political hot potato. So they are going to study the study and kill it with time and studied indifference.
We need to contact our representatives in Harrisburg. So do our elected school board members: clearly, vocally, and publicly.
Or are they just content with publicly whining about how unfair the current funding plan is and not following through with the hard work of making proposals become reality?
While I think about it, someone got up at a recent school board meeting and said, "Someone needs to do something" about the tax situation. Well, DUH. Talk about a stroke of the blinding obvious.
First off, I remember very well who said that from the audience. Now it's time to pay up. Congratulations! YOU, sir, are that someone. Introduce a resolution in the borough council supporting this tax plan. Get one introduced in the school board. Pass them both unanimously and present them tied with red ribbons and bows to Governor Rendell, Senator McIlhenney, and Representative Galloway.
We the public are keeping you accountable as local officeholders so you can keep our state officials accountable. Step up to the plate. Are you going to hit, or just take four pitches and hope for a walk? And if you can't or won't do it, let's all step up to the microphone at Union St and shout "Shame on You!"
Pay now, or pay later: School funding formula needs updating.
We go on and on about equal opportunity in this country. It’s ingrained in our thinking. Unfortunately, we don’t practice what we preach. Consider education.
Because Pennsylvania schools are largely funded with property taxes, wealthy school districts provide more and better educational opportunities than lowincome districts. A lot more. Try an annual expenditure of $21,399 per student in Lower Merion vs. $9,727 in Upper Darby.
No wonder there are vast differences in test scores and graduation rates around the state.
Harrisburg is supposed to even out things via a funding formula for rationing out state education money. But the formula is woefully out of date and is not getting the job done.
The governor’s proposed education budget, now under consideration by state lawmakers, proposes a new formula based on the Legislature’s own “Costing-Out Study.” Among the study’s findings was this shocker: Of Pennsylvania’s 501 school districts, 474 are underfunded. It also found that the state picks up just more than one-third of the cost of public education vs. the national average of nearly 50 percent.
We urge lawmakers to approve the governor’s updated funding formula.
If education is the key to success, every child deserves an “equal” opportunity to succeed.
The state can pay now and reap the benefits of its educated citizens’ success, or pay later to rescue those who fail.
The Philadelphia Inquirer editorialized on the same plan back on May 4.
School Funding: A fairer plan
It's past time for Pennsylvania to enact a new formula to fund public schools.
The legislature should approve Gov. Rendell's plan to change how state aid is allocated and boost education funding by $291 million.
It's not the complete funding overhaul that many education advocates want, but it puts the state on the right course.
The six-year plan would increase the state's share of education costs from the current 37 percent - among the lowest in the country - to about 44 percent.
Taxpayers should be relieved to know that the proposal calls for no broad-based tax increases.
The plan would increase state funding by 6 percent above the nearly $5 billion currently allocated to public schools. Similar annual increases would occur until Rendell leaves office in 2011.
In the biggest change, Rendell wants to distribute the new aid based on a formula that gives more money to the neediest districts - those with the largest numbers of students living in poverty and students learning English as a second language.
New Jersey began using a similar approach this year. It makes sense, given that it does cost more to educate students with special needs.
Last year's "costing out" study commissioned by the legislature recommended the new formula. The study also concluded that Pennsylvania public schools are underfunded by $4.38 billion.
Some districts may remain underfunded under Rendell's plan, but his proposed increases will be an improvement, and they will help bridge the spending disparities between the state's poor and wealthy districts.
For example, Lower Merion spends more than $21,000 per student, while Upper Darby spends $9,889. Getting a high-quality public education shouldn't depend on where you live.
Under the governor's formula, Upper Darby would get an increase of $4.9 million, or 22.4 percent, the largest percentage jump in the state.
Philadelphia, the state's largest district and one of the poorest, would get an additional $86 million, a 9.6 percent increase. That money is sorely needed; district officials are projecting at least a $39 million deficit.
Even the most affluent districts in the state would receive at least a 1.5 percent increase in aid. Rendell's plan also increases spending for special education, pre-kindergarten and charter school tuition reimbursements.
House Republicans argue that money alone won't fix public education. They're right, but it is absolutely essential for the many Pennsylvania districts with needs that truly require more spending.
Greater accountability is essential, too. One need only look at the Chester Upland district, taken over by the state years ago, to see an example of a lack of adequate oversight in the past.
But neither does accountability alone complete the equation that produces good schools.
Too many school districts have been underfunded by the state for too long, placing an unfair burden on local property taxpayers who must make up the difference. The governor's new funding formula should be approved.
Allentown Morning Call
Rendell calls legislators' bluff on school funds April 11, 2008
Last year, state lawmakers received the results of a study they had authorized to find out what it should cost to achieve a quality education in public school. Pennsylvania and Congress have demanded that schools do a better job, that all students be proficient in reading and math by 2014. But no one ever determined what doing that would cost.
It turned out that providing a quality education isn't cheap. And, it didn't really surprise many that the Costing-Out Study found that Pennsylvania isn't spending enough -- in either state or local dollars in the vast majority of school districts -- to get the job done. The real cost is about $4 billion more than the state currently spends.
This is all relevant because after everyone's attention shifts from the state's April 22 presidential primary, state lawmakers will refocus on the task of approving a state budget by June 30. This year, Gov. Ed Rendell has proposed making a $2.6 billion, six-year commitment to live up to the findings of the Costing-Out Study.
Gov. Rendell admits he was surprised lawmakers ever commissioned the report. It's implications are political dynamite. For years, Pennsylvanians have suspected that state government wasn't adequately funding education. For years, Pennsylvanians have complained about their local school property taxes going up every budget cycle. The report documented this reality, and in doing so, tossed the responsibility about doing something about it back onto lawmakers.
But lawmakers did what they often do when they're not sure what to do. They decided to study the study. Right after the report was released last fall, state Sen. Pat Browne, R-Lehigh, proposed forming a commission to draft a new public education funding formula. It has languished in the Senate Education Committee ever since. In January, the House overwhelmingly approved formation of such a panel. Doing so will ultimately be necessary. However, delaying action until lawmakers study the implications of the Costing-Out Study just pushes off the job of helping public schools do a better job for at least another year. Then, 2014 will be one year closer.
Give Gov. Rendell credit for calling the General Assembly's bluff with his proposed education budget. He has ventured a first step. His approach isn't perfect and doesn't completely close the so-called ''adequacy gap'' between what school districts spend and what they should be spending. But, it has been embraced, with some recommendations, by 26 groups of educators and education advocates allied in the Pennsylvania School Funding Campaign. As lawmakers begin budget talks, they should heed the campaign's advice.
For instance, the Governor's plan would increase the state subsidy for 137 districts beyond a 4.4 percent inflation index. But all of those districts would have the added paperwork burden of proving to the Department of Education that 80 percent of the additional subsidy would go to programs to improve student performance. But, only 48 of those districts aren't meeting their Annual Yearly Progress goals. The campaign suggests limiting the extra accountability measures to just those districts.
Second, the campaign recommends basing state subsidies mostly on a district's wealth rather than its tax effort. Doing so would make greater strides to correcting the economic disparities between rich and poor districts.
Third, the campaign recommends that all districts at least receive a 2 percent increase in their state subsidy -- something that's often called ''hold harmless.'' Gov. Rendell has proposed a 1.5 percent minimum increase. However, under the requirements of Act 1, all 501 school districts have already built an expected 2 percent increase into their budgets. A 2 percent minimum increase is just basic fairness.
Finally, the campaign recommends at least talking about doing a better job funding special education, one of public education's fastest increasing costs. While the federal government has failed to live up to its obligations on special education, school districts still are mandated to provide programs to ever-increasing numbers of students.
All of these recommendations deserve the General Assembly's conscientious consideration.
There's plenty to see at the PDE's website covering the 2008-2009 budget proposals.
What are the Emperor and his accomplices constructively doing about school funding? Are they pressuring the Rendell Administration? Lobbying our senator and state representative? Have they passed any resolutions declaring support or even opposition to this plan and sent the resolution to Harrisburg?
I'm asking because of the Allentown Morning Call (SW's favorite newspaper, don't forget) published an article April 11 that pointed out the problem of politicians: They don't wanna do nothin'. Once they commissioned the study that showed Pennsylvania schools are underfunded, they were left holding a political hot potato. So they are going to study the study and kill it with time and studied indifference.
We need to contact our representatives in Harrisburg. So do our elected school board members: clearly, vocally, and publicly.
Or are they just content with publicly whining about how unfair the current funding plan is and not following through with the hard work of making proposals become reality?
While I think about it, someone got up at a recent school board meeting and said, "Someone needs to do something" about the tax situation. Well, DUH. Talk about a stroke of the blinding obvious.
First off, I remember very well who said that from the audience. Now it's time to pay up. Congratulations! YOU, sir, are that someone. Introduce a resolution in the borough council supporting this tax plan. Get one introduced in the school board. Pass them both unanimously and present them tied with red ribbons and bows to Governor Rendell, Senator McIlhenney, and Representative Galloway.
We the public are keeping you accountable as local officeholders so you can keep our state officials accountable. Step up to the plate. Are you going to hit, or just take four pitches and hope for a walk? And if you can't or won't do it, let's all step up to the microphone at Union St and shout "Shame on You!"
Pay now, or pay later: School funding formula needs updating.
We go on and on about equal opportunity in this country. It’s ingrained in our thinking. Unfortunately, we don’t practice what we preach. Consider education.
Because Pennsylvania schools are largely funded with property taxes, wealthy school districts provide more and better educational opportunities than lowincome districts. A lot more. Try an annual expenditure of $21,399 per student in Lower Merion vs. $9,727 in Upper Darby.
No wonder there are vast differences in test scores and graduation rates around the state.
Harrisburg is supposed to even out things via a funding formula for rationing out state education money. But the formula is woefully out of date and is not getting the job done.
The governor’s proposed education budget, now under consideration by state lawmakers, proposes a new formula based on the Legislature’s own “Costing-Out Study.” Among the study’s findings was this shocker: Of Pennsylvania’s 501 school districts, 474 are underfunded. It also found that the state picks up just more than one-third of the cost of public education vs. the national average of nearly 50 percent.
We urge lawmakers to approve the governor’s updated funding formula.
If education is the key to success, every child deserves an “equal” opportunity to succeed.
The state can pay now and reap the benefits of its educated citizens’ success, or pay later to rescue those who fail.
The Philadelphia Inquirer editorialized on the same plan back on May 4.
School Funding: A fairer plan
It's past time for Pennsylvania to enact a new formula to fund public schools.
The legislature should approve Gov. Rendell's plan to change how state aid is allocated and boost education funding by $291 million.
It's not the complete funding overhaul that many education advocates want, but it puts the state on the right course.
The six-year plan would increase the state's share of education costs from the current 37 percent - among the lowest in the country - to about 44 percent.
Taxpayers should be relieved to know that the proposal calls for no broad-based tax increases.
The plan would increase state funding by 6 percent above the nearly $5 billion currently allocated to public schools. Similar annual increases would occur until Rendell leaves office in 2011.
In the biggest change, Rendell wants to distribute the new aid based on a formula that gives more money to the neediest districts - those with the largest numbers of students living in poverty and students learning English as a second language.
New Jersey began using a similar approach this year. It makes sense, given that it does cost more to educate students with special needs.
Last year's "costing out" study commissioned by the legislature recommended the new formula. The study also concluded that Pennsylvania public schools are underfunded by $4.38 billion.
Some districts may remain underfunded under Rendell's plan, but his proposed increases will be an improvement, and they will help bridge the spending disparities between the state's poor and wealthy districts.
For example, Lower Merion spends more than $21,000 per student, while Upper Darby spends $9,889. Getting a high-quality public education shouldn't depend on where you live.
Under the governor's formula, Upper Darby would get an increase of $4.9 million, or 22.4 percent, the largest percentage jump in the state.
Philadelphia, the state's largest district and one of the poorest, would get an additional $86 million, a 9.6 percent increase. That money is sorely needed; district officials are projecting at least a $39 million deficit.
Even the most affluent districts in the state would receive at least a 1.5 percent increase in aid. Rendell's plan also increases spending for special education, pre-kindergarten and charter school tuition reimbursements.
House Republicans argue that money alone won't fix public education. They're right, but it is absolutely essential for the many Pennsylvania districts with needs that truly require more spending.
Greater accountability is essential, too. One need only look at the Chester Upland district, taken over by the state years ago, to see an example of a lack of adequate oversight in the past.
But neither does accountability alone complete the equation that produces good schools.
Too many school districts have been underfunded by the state for too long, placing an unfair burden on local property taxpayers who must make up the difference. The governor's new funding formula should be approved.
Allentown Morning Call
Rendell calls legislators' bluff on school funds April 11, 2008
Last year, state lawmakers received the results of a study they had authorized to find out what it should cost to achieve a quality education in public school. Pennsylvania and Congress have demanded that schools do a better job, that all students be proficient in reading and math by 2014. But no one ever determined what doing that would cost.
It turned out that providing a quality education isn't cheap. And, it didn't really surprise many that the Costing-Out Study found that Pennsylvania isn't spending enough -- in either state or local dollars in the vast majority of school districts -- to get the job done. The real cost is about $4 billion more than the state currently spends.
This is all relevant because after everyone's attention shifts from the state's April 22 presidential primary, state lawmakers will refocus on the task of approving a state budget by June 30. This year, Gov. Ed Rendell has proposed making a $2.6 billion, six-year commitment to live up to the findings of the Costing-Out Study.
Gov. Rendell admits he was surprised lawmakers ever commissioned the report. It's implications are political dynamite. For years, Pennsylvanians have suspected that state government wasn't adequately funding education. For years, Pennsylvanians have complained about their local school property taxes going up every budget cycle. The report documented this reality, and in doing so, tossed the responsibility about doing something about it back onto lawmakers.
But lawmakers did what they often do when they're not sure what to do. They decided to study the study. Right after the report was released last fall, state Sen. Pat Browne, R-Lehigh, proposed forming a commission to draft a new public education funding formula. It has languished in the Senate Education Committee ever since. In January, the House overwhelmingly approved formation of such a panel. Doing so will ultimately be necessary. However, delaying action until lawmakers study the implications of the Costing-Out Study just pushes off the job of helping public schools do a better job for at least another year. Then, 2014 will be one year closer.
Give Gov. Rendell credit for calling the General Assembly's bluff with his proposed education budget. He has ventured a first step. His approach isn't perfect and doesn't completely close the so-called ''adequacy gap'' between what school districts spend and what they should be spending. But, it has been embraced, with some recommendations, by 26 groups of educators and education advocates allied in the Pennsylvania School Funding Campaign. As lawmakers begin budget talks, they should heed the campaign's advice.
For instance, the Governor's plan would increase the state subsidy for 137 districts beyond a 4.4 percent inflation index. But all of those districts would have the added paperwork burden of proving to the Department of Education that 80 percent of the additional subsidy would go to programs to improve student performance. But, only 48 of those districts aren't meeting their Annual Yearly Progress goals. The campaign suggests limiting the extra accountability measures to just those districts.
Second, the campaign recommends basing state subsidies mostly on a district's wealth rather than its tax effort. Doing so would make greater strides to correcting the economic disparities between rich and poor districts.
Third, the campaign recommends that all districts at least receive a 2 percent increase in their state subsidy -- something that's often called ''hold harmless.'' Gov. Rendell has proposed a 1.5 percent minimum increase. However, under the requirements of Act 1, all 501 school districts have already built an expected 2 percent increase into their budgets. A 2 percent minimum increase is just basic fairness.
Finally, the campaign recommends at least talking about doing a better job funding special education, one of public education's fastest increasing costs. While the federal government has failed to live up to its obligations on special education, school districts still are mandated to provide programs to ever-increasing numbers of students.
All of these recommendations deserve the General Assembly's conscientious consideration.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Accountability and Involvement
Let's put Steve Worob and his specific issues off to the side for now. No matter what, the people in his district elected him. The same goes for the rest of the borough council as well as the Emperor and his merry band of sycophantic sheep.
I've been driving this point home for quite a while now: Those people sitting up on the dais work for YOU. They are no different than a plumber, car mechanic, doctor, contractor, or other professional service provider. You engaged them to perform a service by voting for them on election day.
Your responsibility does not stop there once you exit the polling place. Just like watching over the pot on the stove or the kids while they're crayoning, you need to provide oversight for the activities of these officials. This means you need to hold them accountable for their past, present, and future performance.
Accountability takes many forms. At the lower end, it means being educated on the issues and being involved with the process. Watch cable channels 22 and 28 to at least see the meetings. Attend in person if possible. Know what they are discussing, debating, evaluating, and/or voting on, and be knowledgeable enough to know if they are doing the job correctly or pulling a fast one on you.
Moving toward the more advanced end of the spectrum, send them letters or emails (or call, especially for those who do not have computer access.)
Maybe you would want to speak up at a meeting. (BTW, would the borough council consider voting to remove the Christmastime poinsettias from the council chamber? It is May, you know.) Let your elected officials and your neighbors know what you're thinking. Start the debate and get engaged in the process.
Let's make one thing clear: This is CIVIL debate. The name calling crap is a clear sign of the weakness in your own position. If you can't point out the merits of your plan with reasoned argument, then why are you supporting it? Morrisville has been unable to sustain a civil debate for many, many years. Stop it. There's nothing beneficial about the name calling and tattling. Let's graduate out of elementary school.
Maybe you're smarter and better than the person on the dais representing you. We all think that from time to time, and it might even be true. Are you ready to replace them and do the hard work of governing yourself? Get started now.
"I don't have the time." Perhaps so. In all our lives, time becomes a premium commodity at some points, and more freely available at others. Some people just don't have the time. I can understand that.
"Who cares what they do? They're all corrupt or liars. They don't listen anyway." Perhaps so again. But who let them get that way? You did. Without accountability, every human becomes irresponsible. Our politicians can lie, cheat, steal, and perform as they desire without you there to tell them it's unacceptable.
Please don't write in to say, "But I know XXXXX is doing a great job!" There are several council and board members who are doing the hard work of governing. There are several who are not. We know who they are just by taking a few minutes to observe what they do. It isn't about how they voted on particular issues, because opinions change on a daily basis depending on how the wind is blowing and our current vantage point. Promising the world on Election Day is easy. Following through on those promises is the hard part.
Remember the last time you wrote that check to the mechanic for the car repairs? Did you ensure that the work was performed correctly and within the agreed upon standards? Of course you did! You probably hated writing the check, but you know it was a fair exchange of labor for cash.
So now ask yourself, did your elected official do what they needed to do? Are they deserving of your support in the next election? If the answer is no, then why are you reaching for the button to re-elect them?
I've been driving this point home for quite a while now: Those people sitting up on the dais work for YOU. They are no different than a plumber, car mechanic, doctor, contractor, or other professional service provider. You engaged them to perform a service by voting for them on election day.
Your responsibility does not stop there once you exit the polling place. Just like watching over the pot on the stove or the kids while they're crayoning, you need to provide oversight for the activities of these officials. This means you need to hold them accountable for their past, present, and future performance.
Accountability takes many forms. At the lower end, it means being educated on the issues and being involved with the process. Watch cable channels 22 and 28 to at least see the meetings. Attend in person if possible. Know what they are discussing, debating, evaluating, and/or voting on, and be knowledgeable enough to know if they are doing the job correctly or pulling a fast one on you.
Moving toward the more advanced end of the spectrum, send them letters or emails (or call, especially for those who do not have computer access.)
Maybe you would want to speak up at a meeting. (BTW, would the borough council consider voting to remove the Christmastime poinsettias from the council chamber? It is May, you know.) Let your elected officials and your neighbors know what you're thinking. Start the debate and get engaged in the process.
Let's make one thing clear: This is CIVIL debate. The name calling crap is a clear sign of the weakness in your own position. If you can't point out the merits of your plan with reasoned argument, then why are you supporting it? Morrisville has been unable to sustain a civil debate for many, many years. Stop it. There's nothing beneficial about the name calling and tattling. Let's graduate out of elementary school.
Maybe you're smarter and better than the person on the dais representing you. We all think that from time to time, and it might even be true. Are you ready to replace them and do the hard work of governing yourself? Get started now.
"I don't have the time." Perhaps so. In all our lives, time becomes a premium commodity at some points, and more freely available at others. Some people just don't have the time. I can understand that.
"Who cares what they do? They're all corrupt or liars. They don't listen anyway." Perhaps so again. But who let them get that way? You did. Without accountability, every human becomes irresponsible. Our politicians can lie, cheat, steal, and perform as they desire without you there to tell them it's unacceptable.
Please don't write in to say, "But I know XXXXX is doing a great job!" There are several council and board members who are doing the hard work of governing. There are several who are not. We know who they are just by taking a few minutes to observe what they do. It isn't about how they voted on particular issues, because opinions change on a daily basis depending on how the wind is blowing and our current vantage point. Promising the world on Election Day is easy. Following through on those promises is the hard part.
Remember the last time you wrote that check to the mechanic for the car repairs? Did you ensure that the work was performed correctly and within the agreed upon standards? Of course you did! You probably hated writing the check, but you know it was a fair exchange of labor for cash.
So now ask yourself, did your elected official do what they needed to do? Are they deserving of your support in the next election? If the answer is no, then why are you reaching for the button to re-elect them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)