I was happy to have a good group at April's and my cottage meeting. Not counting myself there were 18 in attendance. I started out talking about my meeting with Senator Bair, which I have talked about in the previous post. I talked about not really knowing yet how our this years school budget would end up. I talked some about the things we have had to cut, like summer school, and with less teachers how we can't offer as many electives as we would like. I asked as we look forward are these the kind of things patrons would be willing to fund a Levey for. I really don't like the idea of not offering summer school anymore. I understand how summer school can help some kids get caught up in their reading skills. I know this from experience. I was young September born boy. I was also very stubborn and hated to read. I would just pretend to read in class which worked for awhile. Probably just long enough to get me behind in school. I remember having to go to summer school in Shelley to take reading lessons from Mrs. Berg. I can't remember how many years I had to do this, but it did have the desired effect on me. I am still not a big reader, but I was able to improve my skills to catch up with my class. If I hadn't had the opportunity to be in a summer reading program, I probably would have struggled all through school.
Well back to the meeting. We have three high school teachers teaching in the middle school to cover the reduced staff we have there. Because of this we can't offer as many electives as we would like to in the high school. I hope at some point we are able to receive more funding so we can provide more opportunities in the high school. If not before, I hope when the middle school bond levy expires in I think 2014, we can ask for a levy to better fund our schools. The bond is for I think $250,000 a year. That much would go a long ways toward improving our funding.
I talked some about my concerns how the online program might be harder on our budget through lost ADA funding. Having to pay someone outside our school to provide these classes. And the challenge of having someone able to help the kids with these classes.
We talked about the stories going around about someone in the high school selling prescription drugs. There were a lot of stories but not much facts. I hadn't heard anything from the school directly about this. There was some concern about if our school policies were followed dealing with this issue. But again, I didn't know so I couldn't comment. I have struggles to get information on matters like this. I think I should be well aware of these type of issues so when asked I can respond appropriately. I do have an update on this matter. I talked to Mr. Tubbs and he filled me in a lot more. My understanding is at least one student was giving some pain medication to other students that were complaining of being in pain. I don't know if any money changed hands or if the students involved truly understood how illegal this is. The police were called in, and they investigated this issue, so it's up to the authorities how this is dealt with. I would like to think this would be a good wake up call for these students, to set them straight.
There was a lot of comments about the discipline problems in mostly the middle school. Students seem to have little respect for some of the teachers and substitute teachers. There was talk of fights going on during the school day, and complaints that not much was being done about it. I won't get into a lot of details that were brought up regarding this, but there is a growing concern among many how bad this is getting and what to do about it. There were stories how cell phone use in the high school is getting out of hand. A lot of students are texting in class, and someone said a mother called her daughter on her phone during class. The teacher would ask for the phone and the student would refuse to give it to her. There was concern that a lot of these problems were caused because of a lack of parent involvement and the lack of discipline and respect taught from their homes. There was a discussion of ideas of how to teach kids to have more respect for others. There was also concern about what the school policies are on matters like this, and if they are followed, and if discipline is applied fairly between students. April and I plan on studying this better ourselves to see if we need to have better defined policies. There was also concern brought up how many times when a school administrator was needed to deal with these issues they were not in the building. I think most of this problem is because of the multiple duties our administrators have.
There was a suggestion that Title I money could be spent to better educate parents about discipline matters in the grades K-8. I need to understand more about this funding. I have been reading some information about the use of these funds that was sent to me. I do know this money has been cut too. I will have questions about this during our next board meeting, so I can understand how we use this fund.
There was also a concern about the school dress policy. Some were saying kids are coming to school dressed very inappropriately, and that not much was being done about this. I need to find out how the school handles this also and if we need to encourage better compliance and enforcement.
I asked about the school calendar for next year. Those present seemed to support the original plan that was presented by the calendar committee. There were many objections to the idea of going to school after Memorial Day.
There was concerns that in some classes teachers aren't getting through the curriculum fast enough, especially math classes. Those who brought this up think it is because of not adjusting very well to the four day schedule. This is very important in many ways, one being that students need to be at a certain point in the year before they take the ISAT tests. If they are behind they won't understand all the concepts that are tested.
Another follow-up from my last post about Pay For Performance. When I talked to Mr. Tubbs, he assured me what we have done following the state plan this year is okay. There won't be an issue of not developing this plan further as a district. If we want to do our own plan which I think we do we will have to work on this pretty soon for next year. Some of what Mr. Tubbs said about this is very different than what Senator Bair said. I plan on investigating this further to better understand how this works and reconcile for myself the differences in what I was told.
During the meeting some parents expressed concern their children were not getting the proper help they need to succeed in school. They felt the school was slow to react to resolve the problems they were having. I hope this situation will improve and will try and encourage a better response to these parents.
There were a couple more things brought up in private that April and I plan on dealing with during a board executive session.
I feel like it was a good meeting and I am glad we did it. I think most present thought it was worth their time. I assured everyone we would follow-up on the concerns that were brought up. I think the input we received will provide a good board discussion at our next meeting. Thank you. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. Brian Esplin
Monday, April 30, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
My Meeting With Senator Bair
I thought since I said I would provide an update after meeting with Senator Bair, that I better get it done before I forgot a lot of what was said. I didn't take very many notes during our two and a half hour lunch and meeting. So here goes.
My wife and I met with Senator Bair and his wife at Tommy Vaughns. I had my topics for discussion broken down into two main items. The funding issues and my online concerns. I asked him if he had read the article questioning the consitutionality of the way schools are funded. He said that he had. I went over the premise that because poorer schools have to tax at a higher level than rich schools that it wasn't constitutional. First of all he disagreed with that premise. He even quoted a state supreme court case he said confirmed that it was constitutional.
I later found out after my emails I had sent him that he was so nervous to meet with me that he woke up at 4:30 and spent several hours going over things he thought I would ask him. He even printed a copy of the Students Come First Legislation and other documents to back up what he was telling me. The pile of papers he printed are at least an inch thick.
He told me how small schools get a better funding formula than large schools. He said it's because small schools without more help from state funds couldn't afford hiring all the qualified teachers we would need to teach all the subjects that need taught. He also said that if we were funded the same as the larger schools we would probably reicieve 30% less money than we get now. But I had pointed out the difference in the tax base per student, for example Firth at $226,000 and Blaine County at $4,000,000 and said that it is a whole lot easier to fund levies for the extra funds needed, and how much less of a tax they would need to have than us. He didn't disagree.
He gave me a paper that had all the cuts in the state budget that were made over the last few years. Public education was cut 10.3% far less than many other things had been. The state budget had gone from a high of $3,000,000,000 to a low of last year at $2,250,000,000. He said they would have had to increase the sales tax 2% to make up the difference in the public education budget, and that would have been too big a burden on the state economy. I can appreciate their concern about raising the sales tax that much, but don't overlook the burden and need for schools to then have levies to fund schools. I brought up what Senator Goeddle had said in the article implying that schools should be funded okay and only need levies if they wanted to fund something extra. And how he had said "just throwing money at public schools does not result in better education". He did agree that Senator Goeddle shouldn't have said that. He mentioned how schools have had levies for a long time before this financial problem. I pointed out how that was true, but that levies were used a lot different before. Levies used to be for the extra things beyond normal funding. Things like paying coaches more and offering a lot of extra electives. Now schools use levies to just try and fund schools to maintain basic education.
On this subjet I was trying to make him understand how in the media, and especially from Tom Luna, they make it sound like they have done well with funding schools and make it look like districts just can't live within their means, and ignore the burden levies have on the community.
I then got into my concerns about the online requirements that are being implimented this next year. He is a very strong proponent of this plan, so I had a hard time convincing him any different. But he at least acknowledged my concerns. I tried explaining how it just isn't the same to have a teacher teaching an online class, compared to having a teacher teaching in the classroom. He said there will be many ways to offer online classes that are not all online, or use the system that allows the students to see the teacher and the teacher to see the students. But he did concede that it isn't the same thing.
I asked him about the reduced funding for schools and teachers to fund this program. He didn't seem to think a lot more funds had been dedicated to this, but admitted that some had. I said at least the plan was a lot better than what Mr. Luna first wanted. He wanted at first for there to be a requirement of four classes instead of two. And for there not to be allowed to have a teacher in the room while they students were taking the class, and some other crazy ideas he had. At first he wanted the students to be able to take whatever class the student chose to take, now instead the school has control of what and how the classes are taken.The Senator explained Mr. Luna was a big idea guy, but he had others around him that took his ideas and made them more workable. I talked about how his ideas sure have a way of making people mad at him, and how he seemed to have no problem reducing teachers in schools to pay for this.
I talked about how I was concerned about the average or below average student succeeding taking these classes. He said there was a remediation plan for students that struggle to do somthing different, but I don't know yet what that alternative would be.
I tried expressing my concern about how do we help these kids taking these classes with less staff, and if we were able to provide the help necessary, how does that save money. I can't remember exatly how he answered this. He went into the idea how soon, the plan was for schools to get back to the same teacher funding formula we were at before. He explained that a teacher unit used to be funded at $24,000, but because of the cuts, it was reduced to $20,000 a unit. For us this meant the loss of three teachers last year. During our conversation he talked up all they had done to restore teacher salaries back to the grid, where they actually have hope of getting a raise sometime in the future. But acknowledged how they haven't done anything yet to restore the unit funding. From what I have read most of the surplus funding at least for this next year, if there is any, will go to fund the online program. I haven't read anything other than a very small amount going to discretionary funds. He said it all depends on the economy, but by the next budget they have plans to start restoring the unit funding, so eventually we should be able to hire more teachers.
I asked him about how I thought cheating would be a major concern. He didn't really say this wouldn't happen, but he explained with how the school manages this we should be able to prevent most of it. It will be up to the district for example, to decide if we let the students take the laptops home. The method of the classes offered could help prevent cheating. He also said the computers will have a chip in the hardware not the software, to filter the content they can access or download on the computer, which sounded like a good idea.
He said they had done piloting of this program in a few schools, I think Sugar Salem was one of them. He also referenced four big Texas school districts that had implimented an online program.
He talked with excitment with how this would be a tool for students to take conncurent college credits, and how this would save a lot of money. The state also plans on paying for the students to take these courses. The students can graduate early and start college with having earned credits for their college degree. He thinks the computers will save schools money for text books. Curriculam is a lot cheaper for a computer than buying a text book.
He did bring up some concerns for me. After the legislative session last year when they presented the pay for performance plan for the schools, we were told we needed to have a plan of how to impliment this plan. Things like how to reward hard working teachers with this money the state will give us if we meet certain state required goals. Because of the short time between finding out about this, and the time the state wanted to know what our plan would be, we were given the option of developing our own plan or going with the state plan, we were advised to go with the state plan so we did. Senator Bair said we should have submitted a detailed plan. In the state plan there is guidlines and suggestions of how to use the money, but no real plan as to axactly how this is to be done. He questioned if we haven't done this correctly, we may not even qualify for the money to be given to the school. I need to find out about this from Mr. Tubbs, but haven't had the chance yet to do so. I was given the impression from Mr. Bair that if we haven't done this right we may already be too late for this years funding. I sure hope this isn't the problem that I am afraid it is.
I also found out we should have submitted a technolgy plan. Detailing how we plan on implimenting the online program and making a request for what our needs will be for computers and the other technology we might need. He said most school districts had submitted their plans. I haven't heard anything about this yet. The administration may be working on it, but it hasn't come to the board. So good or bad, if I understood him right we won't be very high on the list for funding. He did say Snake River decided with the uncertanties with this legislation that it may be overturned by the voters this fall, they voted to not submit a plan until this issue is decided.
There was some other concerns that I need to find out about. But as I try and think of anything else, I believe that pretty much covers my conversation with Senator Bair. He said he would be happy to meet with Mr. Tubbs and talk over issues with him. He said he has never met him, and would like to. I will try and encourage them getting together. I am glad I brought my wife with me and not Mr. Tubbs. My wife had some good imput and I appriciated her support. I think we had a more open conversation, and I learned a lot more than if I had brought Mr. Tubbs. I also think I built a relationship with him. If there are other things that come up in the future, I think he would listen to what I have to say. We talked about a dairy issue that had been put aside. He said when this issue came back up I would be one of the first people he would discuss it with. So in this aspect I think it was well worth my time engaging him in a good debate over school issues.
I was going to write about the cottage meeting in this same blog, but this is very long in itself. As I am finishing, it's after 1:00 in the morning so I am tired and will try and write about the cottage meeting in the next day or two. I am going to have my wife do some editing of this, and since she was there, I will have her remind me it there is something she thinks is important that I may have left out. Thank you, Brian Esplin
My wife and I met with Senator Bair and his wife at Tommy Vaughns. I had my topics for discussion broken down into two main items. The funding issues and my online concerns. I asked him if he had read the article questioning the consitutionality of the way schools are funded. He said that he had. I went over the premise that because poorer schools have to tax at a higher level than rich schools that it wasn't constitutional. First of all he disagreed with that premise. He even quoted a state supreme court case he said confirmed that it was constitutional.
I later found out after my emails I had sent him that he was so nervous to meet with me that he woke up at 4:30 and spent several hours going over things he thought I would ask him. He even printed a copy of the Students Come First Legislation and other documents to back up what he was telling me. The pile of papers he printed are at least an inch thick.
He told me how small schools get a better funding formula than large schools. He said it's because small schools without more help from state funds couldn't afford hiring all the qualified teachers we would need to teach all the subjects that need taught. He also said that if we were funded the same as the larger schools we would probably reicieve 30% less money than we get now. But I had pointed out the difference in the tax base per student, for example Firth at $226,000 and Blaine County at $4,000,000 and said that it is a whole lot easier to fund levies for the extra funds needed, and how much less of a tax they would need to have than us. He didn't disagree.
He gave me a paper that had all the cuts in the state budget that were made over the last few years. Public education was cut 10.3% far less than many other things had been. The state budget had gone from a high of $3,000,000,000 to a low of last year at $2,250,000,000. He said they would have had to increase the sales tax 2% to make up the difference in the public education budget, and that would have been too big a burden on the state economy. I can appreciate their concern about raising the sales tax that much, but don't overlook the burden and need for schools to then have levies to fund schools. I brought up what Senator Goeddle had said in the article implying that schools should be funded okay and only need levies if they wanted to fund something extra. And how he had said "just throwing money at public schools does not result in better education". He did agree that Senator Goeddle shouldn't have said that. He mentioned how schools have had levies for a long time before this financial problem. I pointed out how that was true, but that levies were used a lot different before. Levies used to be for the extra things beyond normal funding. Things like paying coaches more and offering a lot of extra electives. Now schools use levies to just try and fund schools to maintain basic education.
On this subjet I was trying to make him understand how in the media, and especially from Tom Luna, they make it sound like they have done well with funding schools and make it look like districts just can't live within their means, and ignore the burden levies have on the community.
I then got into my concerns about the online requirements that are being implimented this next year. He is a very strong proponent of this plan, so I had a hard time convincing him any different. But he at least acknowledged my concerns. I tried explaining how it just isn't the same to have a teacher teaching an online class, compared to having a teacher teaching in the classroom. He said there will be many ways to offer online classes that are not all online, or use the system that allows the students to see the teacher and the teacher to see the students. But he did concede that it isn't the same thing.
I asked him about the reduced funding for schools and teachers to fund this program. He didn't seem to think a lot more funds had been dedicated to this, but admitted that some had. I said at least the plan was a lot better than what Mr. Luna first wanted. He wanted at first for there to be a requirement of four classes instead of two. And for there not to be allowed to have a teacher in the room while they students were taking the class, and some other crazy ideas he had. At first he wanted the students to be able to take whatever class the student chose to take, now instead the school has control of what and how the classes are taken.The Senator explained Mr. Luna was a big idea guy, but he had others around him that took his ideas and made them more workable. I talked about how his ideas sure have a way of making people mad at him, and how he seemed to have no problem reducing teachers in schools to pay for this.
I talked about how I was concerned about the average or below average student succeeding taking these classes. He said there was a remediation plan for students that struggle to do somthing different, but I don't know yet what that alternative would be.
I tried expressing my concern about how do we help these kids taking these classes with less staff, and if we were able to provide the help necessary, how does that save money. I can't remember exatly how he answered this. He went into the idea how soon, the plan was for schools to get back to the same teacher funding formula we were at before. He explained that a teacher unit used to be funded at $24,000, but because of the cuts, it was reduced to $20,000 a unit. For us this meant the loss of three teachers last year. During our conversation he talked up all they had done to restore teacher salaries back to the grid, where they actually have hope of getting a raise sometime in the future. But acknowledged how they haven't done anything yet to restore the unit funding. From what I have read most of the surplus funding at least for this next year, if there is any, will go to fund the online program. I haven't read anything other than a very small amount going to discretionary funds. He said it all depends on the economy, but by the next budget they have plans to start restoring the unit funding, so eventually we should be able to hire more teachers.
I asked him about how I thought cheating would be a major concern. He didn't really say this wouldn't happen, but he explained with how the school manages this we should be able to prevent most of it. It will be up to the district for example, to decide if we let the students take the laptops home. The method of the classes offered could help prevent cheating. He also said the computers will have a chip in the hardware not the software, to filter the content they can access or download on the computer, which sounded like a good idea.
He said they had done piloting of this program in a few schools, I think Sugar Salem was one of them. He also referenced four big Texas school districts that had implimented an online program.
He talked with excitment with how this would be a tool for students to take conncurent college credits, and how this would save a lot of money. The state also plans on paying for the students to take these courses. The students can graduate early and start college with having earned credits for their college degree. He thinks the computers will save schools money for text books. Curriculam is a lot cheaper for a computer than buying a text book.
He did bring up some concerns for me. After the legislative session last year when they presented the pay for performance plan for the schools, we were told we needed to have a plan of how to impliment this plan. Things like how to reward hard working teachers with this money the state will give us if we meet certain state required goals. Because of the short time between finding out about this, and the time the state wanted to know what our plan would be, we were given the option of developing our own plan or going with the state plan, we were advised to go with the state plan so we did. Senator Bair said we should have submitted a detailed plan. In the state plan there is guidlines and suggestions of how to use the money, but no real plan as to axactly how this is to be done. He questioned if we haven't done this correctly, we may not even qualify for the money to be given to the school. I need to find out about this from Mr. Tubbs, but haven't had the chance yet to do so. I was given the impression from Mr. Bair that if we haven't done this right we may already be too late for this years funding. I sure hope this isn't the problem that I am afraid it is.
I also found out we should have submitted a technolgy plan. Detailing how we plan on implimenting the online program and making a request for what our needs will be for computers and the other technology we might need. He said most school districts had submitted their plans. I haven't heard anything about this yet. The administration may be working on it, but it hasn't come to the board. So good or bad, if I understood him right we won't be very high on the list for funding. He did say Snake River decided with the uncertanties with this legislation that it may be overturned by the voters this fall, they voted to not submit a plan until this issue is decided.
There was some other concerns that I need to find out about. But as I try and think of anything else, I believe that pretty much covers my conversation with Senator Bair. He said he would be happy to meet with Mr. Tubbs and talk over issues with him. He said he has never met him, and would like to. I will try and encourage them getting together. I am glad I brought my wife with me and not Mr. Tubbs. My wife had some good imput and I appriciated her support. I think we had a more open conversation, and I learned a lot more than if I had brought Mr. Tubbs. I also think I built a relationship with him. If there are other things that come up in the future, I think he would listen to what I have to say. We talked about a dairy issue that had been put aside. He said when this issue came back up I would be one of the first people he would discuss it with. So in this aspect I think it was well worth my time engaging him in a good debate over school issues.
I was going to write about the cottage meeting in this same blog, but this is very long in itself. As I am finishing, it's after 1:00 in the morning so I am tired and will try and write about the cottage meeting in the next day or two. I am going to have my wife do some editing of this, and since she was there, I will have her remind me it there is something she thinks is important that I may have left out. Thank you, Brian Esplin
Saturday, April 21, 2012
School funding realities
For those of you who don't read the Shelley Pioneer. I sent this as a letter to the Editor.
It has a lot of the same information as my last post. Maybe just more to the point. I am taking my wife to a lunch meeting with Senator Bair on Tuesday. Thanks, Brian
School funding
There was a recent article in the papers about the constitutionality of how the state funds schools. A nonprofit called Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy wrote a twenty page report about this. I don't quite live in the Shelley school district, but most of my farm ground is in Shelley, so I do have an interest. This article points out the difference between rich school districts like Blaine County and the poorer districts like Firth and Shelley. There are 115 school districts in Idaho. In the state rankings based on taxable value per student. Blaine County is ranked 3rd with a dollar value per student of about $4,000,000. Firth is ranked 100th at $227,000 and Shelley is 109th at $191,000. The state constitution states "that the state, not the local districts, are to provide a uniform and thorough system of public and free schools". Because the state support for school funding has dropped so much it is forcing most schools to have levies to maintain a basic level of funding. It has a lot of information, but the main point is, because of the real need to have levies, the poorer districts have to tax at a higher rate than the wealthy districts and because of this it is unconstitutional.
The article quotes the Chairman of the Senate Education Committee. He doesn't think this is a problem. One thing he is quoted as saying is, "The current system gives communities the chance to approve property tax levies if they want to spend more than the state supplies". He also says, "just throwing money at the public schools does not result in better education". I find this statement offensive. Districts aren't just throwing hard earned taxpayer's money at schools to fund the deficit brought on us by the state, the state is forcing districts to have levies.
I wish Tom Luna would have the courage to say something like--"It's our fault because of the economy we had to reduce school funding to the point that we now expect the local districts to raise property taxes to fund local levies to support their own funding adequate for their local school districts". But he would never say anything like this, he would rather give the impression in the media that they have funded schools okay, and if there is a deficit in funds it's somehow the local districts fault.
Thank you, Brian Esplin Firth school board member and Shelley property taxpayer.
It has a lot of the same information as my last post. Maybe just more to the point. I am taking my wife to a lunch meeting with Senator Bair on Tuesday. Thanks, Brian
School funding
There was a recent article in the papers about the constitutionality of how the state funds schools. A nonprofit called Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy wrote a twenty page report about this. I don't quite live in the Shelley school district, but most of my farm ground is in Shelley, so I do have an interest. This article points out the difference between rich school districts like Blaine County and the poorer districts like Firth and Shelley. There are 115 school districts in Idaho. In the state rankings based on taxable value per student. Blaine County is ranked 3rd with a dollar value per student of about $4,000,000. Firth is ranked 100th at $227,000 and Shelley is 109th at $191,000. The state constitution states "that the state, not the local districts, are to provide a uniform and thorough system of public and free schools". Because the state support for school funding has dropped so much it is forcing most schools to have levies to maintain a basic level of funding. It has a lot of information, but the main point is, because of the real need to have levies, the poorer districts have to tax at a higher rate than the wealthy districts and because of this it is unconstitutional.
The article quotes the Chairman of the Senate Education Committee. He doesn't think this is a problem. One thing he is quoted as saying is, "The current system gives communities the chance to approve property tax levies if they want to spend more than the state supplies". He also says, "just throwing money at the public schools does not result in better education". I find this statement offensive. Districts aren't just throwing hard earned taxpayer's money at schools to fund the deficit brought on us by the state, the state is forcing districts to have levies.
I wish Tom Luna would have the courage to say something like--"It's our fault because of the economy we had to reduce school funding to the point that we now expect the local districts to raise property taxes to fund local levies to support their own funding adequate for their local school districts". But he would never say anything like this, he would rather give the impression in the media that they have funded schools okay, and if there is a deficit in funds it's somehow the local districts fault.
Thank you, Brian Esplin Firth school board member and Shelley property taxpayer.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
School Funding Update
I just wanted to point out an article that came out in Monday's Morning News. The front page headline was about school funding and about a report questioning Idaho's system of funding schools. The report was by the nonprofit Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy. The report says because of changes to the school funding system the state may be in violation of the state constitutional requirement to maintain a uniform and thorough system of public and free schools. This is interesting to me because it states many of the same problems with our school funding, and what's happened over the last few years, that I asked Senator Bair and the Department of Education about. The report talks about how the funding problems have brought about the need for local funded property tax levies. It says two thirds of the state's school districts now have them. One major problem with this is the disparities in wealth among school districts. So as I interpret what this means. It's saying because of the differences in wealth among school districts it violates the state constitution to provide uniform and thorough system of education. In other words wealthy school districts can provide better funding to schools than those not so wealthy and that violates the constitution. I would think this is especially the case when the school levy may only provide the very basic funding needed for the district. Funding that I would think should be provided from the state, not the local taxpayers. The report says that changing funding to schools and forcing the local schools to have to use levies in a dramatic way violates the constitution. One thing that the article doesn't point out, is there is an even bigger issue in districts that can't get voter support to fund a levy at all let alone a lesser amount than rich districts. Now the trick will be to get anyone in state politics to accept this report and do anything about it.
The article goes on to quote the Senate Education Chairman John Goeddle from Coeur d'Alene. After reading what he said he must be from a very rich district where funding isn't an issue. He states that the current system gives communities the chance to approve property tax levies if they want to spend more than the state supplies. He goes on to say, he thinks the state has an obligation to fund some equitable level of public school education, and I think it's the option of the local taxpayers to fund anything over that level if it's their desire. Later he says he hasn't read the report, but questions if there is any problem with equity in funding, or anything constitutionally wrong. His last statement was, "just throwing money at the public schools does not result in better education." At least he says if there is a problem it needs discussed.
After reading this, where do I start? When he says schools are given the chance to approve levies if they want to spend more than the state supplies, you wouldn't have two thirds of the districts with levies if the state supplied anything close to adequate funding. I don't claim to understand how state school funding works, but I can't see how districts with a low tax base can achieve an adequate level of sustainable funding without a local levy. We don't just have a desire to have a levy over what the state provides, there is no way we can now even sustain the basics of school funding anymore without a levy. This is the problem I have talked about with the state politicians. They seem to think they have done an okay job of funding schools, and that opinion gets presented in the media. Funding levies for more than what the state provides used to mean, if you wanted to pay more for coaches or teachers than the state funds, so maybe you could attract that star winning coach, or keep your very best teachers you would have a levy. If you wanted to lower your class sizes below state standards you had a levy. If you wanted to fund numerous extra-curricular class electives you had a levy. Now I think most school districts are just trying to fund basic school funding. I know a lot of schools have had to reduce funding for these extra traditional ways levies were used in the past.
In Firth, to my knowledge, we have never funded teachers, class sizes, or coaches or anything else above state funded recommendations. So as the school funding has dropped the last few years, we have had to cut in a lot of other areas. So to me he implies that if we live within what the state provides we shouldn't need a levy. I think he is very wrong, and it bothers me that the chairman of the senate education department thinks this way. As I have written about recently, it sure seems as if most of the politicians just go along and vote with the majority without really studying things over for themselves. And also the fact they have pushed school funding back on local property tax payers. So in the media they make themselves look good and local school boards end up appearing as if they just can't manage what they are provided.
I have not had my meeting with Senator Bair yet. I will write an update after I do. Thank you, Brian
The article goes on to quote the Senate Education Chairman John Goeddle from Coeur d'Alene. After reading what he said he must be from a very rich district where funding isn't an issue. He states that the current system gives communities the chance to approve property tax levies if they want to spend more than the state supplies. He goes on to say, he thinks the state has an obligation to fund some equitable level of public school education, and I think it's the option of the local taxpayers to fund anything over that level if it's their desire. Later he says he hasn't read the report, but questions if there is any problem with equity in funding, or anything constitutionally wrong. His last statement was, "just throwing money at the public schools does not result in better education." At least he says if there is a problem it needs discussed.
After reading this, where do I start? When he says schools are given the chance to approve levies if they want to spend more than the state supplies, you wouldn't have two thirds of the districts with levies if the state supplied anything close to adequate funding. I don't claim to understand how state school funding works, but I can't see how districts with a low tax base can achieve an adequate level of sustainable funding without a local levy. We don't just have a desire to have a levy over what the state provides, there is no way we can now even sustain the basics of school funding anymore without a levy. This is the problem I have talked about with the state politicians. They seem to think they have done an okay job of funding schools, and that opinion gets presented in the media. Funding levies for more than what the state provides used to mean, if you wanted to pay more for coaches or teachers than the state funds, so maybe you could attract that star winning coach, or keep your very best teachers you would have a levy. If you wanted to lower your class sizes below state standards you had a levy. If you wanted to fund numerous extra-curricular class electives you had a levy. Now I think most school districts are just trying to fund basic school funding. I know a lot of schools have had to reduce funding for these extra traditional ways levies were used in the past.
In Firth, to my knowledge, we have never funded teachers, class sizes, or coaches or anything else above state funded recommendations. So as the school funding has dropped the last few years, we have had to cut in a lot of other areas. So to me he implies that if we live within what the state provides we shouldn't need a levy. I think he is very wrong, and it bothers me that the chairman of the senate education department thinks this way. As I have written about recently, it sure seems as if most of the politicians just go along and vote with the majority without really studying things over for themselves. And also the fact they have pushed school funding back on local property tax payers. So in the media they make themselves look good and local school boards end up appearing as if they just can't manage what they are provided.
I have not had my meeting with Senator Bair yet. I will write an update after I do. Thank you, Brian
Saturday, April 14, 2012
April 12th School Board Meeting
Before I get into the board meeting. I have a little update from my last post. Senator Bair emailed me the next day and wants to meet me somewhere for a visit. He said he would meet for lunch or come to my house whenever it was convenient for me. He gave me his cell number to call him. I haven't done this yet. I mentioned to Mr. Tubbs after our board meeting that he wanted to meet with me. Mr. Tubbs asked if he could join us if that's okay. Part of me would like to meet with him by myself, because I had no outside information, for what I have emailed him. But maybe it would have more impact if he joined in. Maybe I wouldn't feel as comfortable telling him everything on my mind if he is there. I will have to decide.
Well here goes my summary of the board meeting, with some of our committee meeting discussion mixed in. It was held the week before.
Bart was not there. His son is very sick with pnemonia. I hope he feels better soon.
Lisa Phelps has resigned from teaching, I think from the second grade. She was a very good young teacher and will be missed. Mr. Tubbs has said her position will not be replaced. I don't know how they plan on moving teachers around to replace her. The second grade will need three teachers with the number of students that age.
We were presented a bid to replace our high school bleachers. The total bid is for $120,475. The money will come out of the student occupied fund. This fund can only be used for things like this. The school has to put a small amount of the total budget into this account every year. It currently has about $280,000 in it. We think it would be a good use of these funds, and we will still have a reserve to cover other things that might come up. The bid was accepted. It will take a long time to get them made and put in. They probably won't be installed until spud harvest time this fall. Mr. Tubbs thinks we can get a grant to pay for part of the cost, somewhere between $10,000 to $20,000. Once we accept the bid it's easier to get the grant. They will be very nice, and will meet all current safety requirements. We will have a few coloring options to choose from.
I then gave a report from the Excellence In Education Committee. We met last Thursday. I went over some of our discussion about the calendar for next year. It was recommended that we adopt the proposal that the calendar committee had come up with. Later the board had many questions and concerns with the calendar. The start date is August 13th. The plan was to have no school on Fridays even after Monday holidays. Have normal time off around holidays, and be done on the Friday before Memorial Day. There was a lot of concern starting that early, mostly because it can be very hot in the elementary building. Adapting to the required time for school on a four day schedule with no school on Fridays, requires some changes. In the committee it was brought up how there are a lot of athletic teams practicing the first of August, so those kids would be around. If they go to school after Memorial Day, it would be a challenge to have finals that week. It was later pointed out by Mr. Gee that it would be very hard for the seniors to have a senior sneak, if school went that late. I think educating kids after Memorial Day would be hard. I still think we should have stuck with the calendar presented or add two or three Fridays that fall after a holiday on Monday. It was pointed out that we could wait and turn in our calendar next month, so I made a motion to table it until next month. The calendar committee will come up with some more options to give to the school board before the next board meeting.
I also talked about our committee discussion about the Virtual Academy. I had asked Mr. Tubbs to present information about the funding problems with a Virtual Academy. He described how unit funding works. We have to have a unit to receive anymore funding. The size of a unit changes with the age of the kids. If the kids are kindergarten age it takes 40 kids to make a unit. I think from 1st to 8th it takes 23, and high school it takes 14 and a half. We were told there might be 12 kids wanting to attend the Virtual Academy, maybe more if they could recruit some from other schools. So bottom line this wouldn't likely bring in any money to cover the costs. Mr. Tubbs also talked about the challenges other schools have had with this program, and the changes that would have to be made with our policies and procedures. It would also be hard to hire a teacher for this program after laying off teachers from the regular classes. I recommended with all the unknowns and more expense to the school that we not go foreword with a Virtual Academy, and couldn't see the value in studying it further. There was more discussion but no more action.
I also talked about how we as a committee talked about ideas of how to get positive news out to the community. There are a lot of good things going on that people should hear about. Mr. Gee at the high school has been putting out a weekly email of the high school activities, and Mr. Mecham just put one out from the middle school, and Mr. Tubbs is working on an email from the elementary. This should help. I mentioned that the PTO spellathon had raised $4200, $1700 more than last year. It shows the community is willing to support our kids, and news like this needs to get to people. There is also ideas of getting more information in the newspapers. The PTO has really done a lot for the schools and should be thanked for their efforts.
In the committee meeting we talked some about the state of our funding. It's not good and sometime we are going to have to have a levy to bring us back to profitability. We have ideas of areas that we would like to have more funding for like summer school for example, but I think first of all we have to get our budget balanced. At our next committee meeting on May 17th at 7:00 I have asked Mr. Tubbs to give us all a lesson in school budgeting 101 you might call it. I want him to explain where all our funding comes from, what it is dedicated to, and what is truly discretional. I want him to go back to where we first started making cutbacks. I want a detailed list of all the cuts we made and the approximate savings from each item. Also to include the increased costs we may have passed on to the students and teachers. Including things like, no more summer school, no middle school football, less games and travel in some sports, no paid for field trips, less number of paid and lower paid coaches, no mid day kindergarten busing, less budget for textbooks and computers, the four day week, less teachers and paraprofessionals and less hours for them, and anything else he can think of. I would also like to have the amounts funding has dropped in each area from federal and state support. With all this information put together in a form easy to understand, I think we can then go foreword with a plan. We need to understand as close as possible where our money goes and how soon we will need to have a levy and for how much. I suggested that the whole board be invited to this meeting. From what I have read and talk about in my two recent posts. I don't believe the state will restore any degree of funding back to the schools, at least not anytime in the forcible future. We are on our own. We have to have a plan that we can make work for us. We can't let our schools fail. Whether we like it or not, the state is pushing some of the school support back to our local property taxes. I just wish they would admit this, and not keep giving the media the impression they have somehow made us whole, because they haven't. If you haven't read my two recent posts read them and you will understand what I am talking about better.
Back to the board meeting. We approved the BPA travel request to Chicago. They raised the money for their competition. One boy and two girls are going. We also approved the senior sneak. They are going to Lagoon and Lava Hot Springs on two consecutive days. They also raised the money or will pay the balance of what they need for this trip.
I also brought up the idea of cottage meetings. I don't think any board member has had one this year. It was asked during the committee meeting if we were going to have them. During the board meeting I asked for a show of hands who might come to one if we had them. Several hands went up. We all have had such poor attendance that I think we have all been discouraged to have them. April and I are planing on having ours together at my house. Hopefully that way we can get better attendance. Anyone can come to anybodies cottage meeting, you don't have to live in the zone. I have talked to April and I think we will have it here on April 25th at 7:00. My wife has volunteered to make some refreshments. If there is a change I will post it, so check back before that date to make sure there aren't any changes. I am not sure what the other board members are going to do. They will have to decide and get the news out to the paper or however they choose. I plan on having ours posted in the Pioneer also. I believe April was going to send out some invitations to her zone.
Well that is pretty much it. I do have a request. I spend quite a bit of time writing this blog. As you can tell from the time below often late at night, when I have time, and it's quiet so I can think. I am not a very efficient writer. I would really like your feedback. Doing this I always wonder if anybody is reading it, or if there is a value to very many in what I write. I see that I have six followers listed. Thank you for your interest. I know there has to be some questions or comments from what I write. Please give me feedback or at least in some way acknowledged you read this and want me to continue. Thanks, Brian
Well here goes my summary of the board meeting, with some of our committee meeting discussion mixed in. It was held the week before.
Bart was not there. His son is very sick with pnemonia. I hope he feels better soon.
Lisa Phelps has resigned from teaching, I think from the second grade. She was a very good young teacher and will be missed. Mr. Tubbs has said her position will not be replaced. I don't know how they plan on moving teachers around to replace her. The second grade will need three teachers with the number of students that age.
We were presented a bid to replace our high school bleachers. The total bid is for $120,475. The money will come out of the student occupied fund. This fund can only be used for things like this. The school has to put a small amount of the total budget into this account every year. It currently has about $280,000 in it. We think it would be a good use of these funds, and we will still have a reserve to cover other things that might come up. The bid was accepted. It will take a long time to get them made and put in. They probably won't be installed until spud harvest time this fall. Mr. Tubbs thinks we can get a grant to pay for part of the cost, somewhere between $10,000 to $20,000. Once we accept the bid it's easier to get the grant. They will be very nice, and will meet all current safety requirements. We will have a few coloring options to choose from.
I then gave a report from the Excellence In Education Committee. We met last Thursday. I went over some of our discussion about the calendar for next year. It was recommended that we adopt the proposal that the calendar committee had come up with. Later the board had many questions and concerns with the calendar. The start date is August 13th. The plan was to have no school on Fridays even after Monday holidays. Have normal time off around holidays, and be done on the Friday before Memorial Day. There was a lot of concern starting that early, mostly because it can be very hot in the elementary building. Adapting to the required time for school on a four day schedule with no school on Fridays, requires some changes. In the committee it was brought up how there are a lot of athletic teams practicing the first of August, so those kids would be around. If they go to school after Memorial Day, it would be a challenge to have finals that week. It was later pointed out by Mr. Gee that it would be very hard for the seniors to have a senior sneak, if school went that late. I think educating kids after Memorial Day would be hard. I still think we should have stuck with the calendar presented or add two or three Fridays that fall after a holiday on Monday. It was pointed out that we could wait and turn in our calendar next month, so I made a motion to table it until next month. The calendar committee will come up with some more options to give to the school board before the next board meeting.
I also talked about our committee discussion about the Virtual Academy. I had asked Mr. Tubbs to present information about the funding problems with a Virtual Academy. He described how unit funding works. We have to have a unit to receive anymore funding. The size of a unit changes with the age of the kids. If the kids are kindergarten age it takes 40 kids to make a unit. I think from 1st to 8th it takes 23, and high school it takes 14 and a half. We were told there might be 12 kids wanting to attend the Virtual Academy, maybe more if they could recruit some from other schools. So bottom line this wouldn't likely bring in any money to cover the costs. Mr. Tubbs also talked about the challenges other schools have had with this program, and the changes that would have to be made with our policies and procedures. It would also be hard to hire a teacher for this program after laying off teachers from the regular classes. I recommended with all the unknowns and more expense to the school that we not go foreword with a Virtual Academy, and couldn't see the value in studying it further. There was more discussion but no more action.
I also talked about how we as a committee talked about ideas of how to get positive news out to the community. There are a lot of good things going on that people should hear about. Mr. Gee at the high school has been putting out a weekly email of the high school activities, and Mr. Mecham just put one out from the middle school, and Mr. Tubbs is working on an email from the elementary. This should help. I mentioned that the PTO spellathon had raised $4200, $1700 more than last year. It shows the community is willing to support our kids, and news like this needs to get to people. There is also ideas of getting more information in the newspapers. The PTO has really done a lot for the schools and should be thanked for their efforts.
In the committee meeting we talked some about the state of our funding. It's not good and sometime we are going to have to have a levy to bring us back to profitability. We have ideas of areas that we would like to have more funding for like summer school for example, but I think first of all we have to get our budget balanced. At our next committee meeting on May 17th at 7:00 I have asked Mr. Tubbs to give us all a lesson in school budgeting 101 you might call it. I want him to explain where all our funding comes from, what it is dedicated to, and what is truly discretional. I want him to go back to where we first started making cutbacks. I want a detailed list of all the cuts we made and the approximate savings from each item. Also to include the increased costs we may have passed on to the students and teachers. Including things like, no more summer school, no middle school football, less games and travel in some sports, no paid for field trips, less number of paid and lower paid coaches, no mid day kindergarten busing, less budget for textbooks and computers, the four day week, less teachers and paraprofessionals and less hours for them, and anything else he can think of. I would also like to have the amounts funding has dropped in each area from federal and state support. With all this information put together in a form easy to understand, I think we can then go foreword with a plan. We need to understand as close as possible where our money goes and how soon we will need to have a levy and for how much. I suggested that the whole board be invited to this meeting. From what I have read and talk about in my two recent posts. I don't believe the state will restore any degree of funding back to the schools, at least not anytime in the forcible future. We are on our own. We have to have a plan that we can make work for us. We can't let our schools fail. Whether we like it or not, the state is pushing some of the school support back to our local property taxes. I just wish they would admit this, and not keep giving the media the impression they have somehow made us whole, because they haven't. If you haven't read my two recent posts read them and you will understand what I am talking about better.
Back to the board meeting. We approved the BPA travel request to Chicago. They raised the money for their competition. One boy and two girls are going. We also approved the senior sneak. They are going to Lagoon and Lava Hot Springs on two consecutive days. They also raised the money or will pay the balance of what they need for this trip.
I also brought up the idea of cottage meetings. I don't think any board member has had one this year. It was asked during the committee meeting if we were going to have them. During the board meeting I asked for a show of hands who might come to one if we had them. Several hands went up. We all have had such poor attendance that I think we have all been discouraged to have them. April and I are planing on having ours together at my house. Hopefully that way we can get better attendance. Anyone can come to anybodies cottage meeting, you don't have to live in the zone. I have talked to April and I think we will have it here on April 25th at 7:00. My wife has volunteered to make some refreshments. If there is a change I will post it, so check back before that date to make sure there aren't any changes. I am not sure what the other board members are going to do. They will have to decide and get the news out to the paper or however they choose. I plan on having ours posted in the Pioneer also. I believe April was going to send out some invitations to her zone.
Well that is pretty much it. I do have a request. I spend quite a bit of time writing this blog. As you can tell from the time below often late at night, when I have time, and it's quiet so I can think. I am not a very efficient writer. I would really like your feedback. Doing this I always wonder if anybody is reading it, or if there is a value to very many in what I write. I see that I have six followers listed. Thank you for your interest. I know there has to be some questions or comments from what I write. Please give me feedback or at least in some way acknowledged you read this and want me to continue. Thanks, Brian
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Another email to Senator Bair
I decided to write another email to Senator Bair. I guess you could say that maybe I don't know when to give up on an issue. I was just so frustrated by all the political spin in the answers that I felt compelled to respond to him one more time. I don't care if I get anymore response, at least he will know where I stand. This is long but maybe someone out there will find this interesting. Thanks, Brian
Senator Bair, Thank you for encouraging the Department of Educations response to my questions. I guess I shouldn't expect direct answers to my questions. Communication Directors know how to talk political speech. I have dealt with this on the dairy boards I serve on. I serve on the National Dairy Board a group of thirty eight dairymen from across the country that administer over the dairy checkoff program which has a budget of about $190,000,000. I have pushed for better accountability on this board, often getting similar language responses as I received from the education department. I once spoke out against an issue that I thought was an improper use of check off funds. Leadership brought this to us and even had approval from USDA to spend check off funds for it, but I didn't think it was right. I asked questions that nobody else seemed willing to ask. I had only been on this board for about a year at the time. I later found out from a long time member that to her recollection, no one had ever spoke against anything leadership wanted, partly out of fear they wouldn't advance in leadership or would loose their board position. It took a lot of time, a lot of emails and conversations with leadership, but I eventually encouraged enough support to stop this improper use of funds. I know I made some enemies, but also gained a lot of respect. I have served on the state dairy board for twenty years, and a regional western states dairy board that mostly deals with government regulations, emigration , and environmental issues, for several years. I have been on the school board for almost four years. So I serve on boards from local, to regional, to the national level. So I am well aware of how politics work at all levels.
I am sure there are many things that the state gets mandated from the federal government that you don't like and fight against. You probably wonder why the state isn't trusted better to make the decisions that you know are best for the people of Idaho. I am sure you don't like funds received from the federal government with so many strings attached that it's hard to manage them. You probably think what makes these people think they are so much smarter than the leaders from Idaho.
Well, I think about the same way as to how the state seems to think about the local school districts. What makes the state politicians think they know what's best for schools over the local districts. I do appreciate the discretion we received last year in regards to our teacher funding, other than it made us the bad guys RIFing teachers.
I don't expect another response from the Department of Education, I don't want to hear anymore political speech. But I want to point out to you a few things I still have problems with.
She says the online learning does not remove the teacher from the learning experience, because they still are taught by a certified teacher. That's totally not the point, there is a lot of difference between a teacher teaching over a computer and having a teacher in the classroom.
She says funding was not reduced to fund online courses, isn't that what we have heard was necessary to fund these classes and partly why our funding was reduced last year. She mentions that funding was raised 4.6 percent, but as I read it almost all of the increase either goes to raise the pay to teachers in some form, but no funding to restore lost positions, or goes toward funding different aspects of the online program. There is very little to restore general funding to schools. I also have read that if there is future surplus funding it too will go to the online program, no mention of restoring the schools general funds.
She says the goal of the online course requirement is to help increase student achievement. She says this in response what I say about how hard it is to succeed taking online classes and how many failed them at Firth, and who is to blame if they don't do well. I know there are many options to teach these classes, but I can't believe taking the teacher out of the classroom and replacing them with a teacher over a computer will increase achievement. She mentions the success of 15,000 students taking them and because they succeed all students can. That is a big assumption. Of the 15,000 students taking them, I would bet that most of them aren't the average or below average achieving students. Of course it is a good goal to raise student achievement, but I strongly doubt this will accomplish that goal.
I question her response to cheating. She says all the course work will be done in class so there will be no cheating. If this is true then they will have to change how it's been done in the past. A lot of the work has been done at home.
She makes it sound really good about all the pay increases for teachers. It will be good for the teachers to have an increase in pay, but what about all the teachers and paraprofessionals we either had to RIF or reduce hours, she doesn't even mention that or the challenges that brings to the schools, or how with less staff we are supposed to manage the online requirements. I have read nowhere that we will have anymore funds to hire more staff unless we are growing.
I still think they should have done more piloting of the online program. Not everything the State Department of Education has tried to implement in the past has been successful. Before I was on the board we participated in some type of computer grading system that was tied into the state system somehow. I don't know all the details, but I do know it was a major failure, and created a big headache that year for everyone trying to use it. Implementing this program with all the costs involved, if this fails or has problems, will be very expensive.
Her remarks on this whole program and particularly her last statement, to me could be summarized this way. Regardless of what concerns you might have or problems this might create, we know what's best for you so live with it and be happy, aren't we just wonderful for caring so much about your students future.
I have been a lifelong Republican and have appreciated most things the Republican party in Idaho has done for the state. But I sometimes wonder if the way this was presented having Tom Luna and the Governor strongly supporting this, if anyone really questioned leadership, and asked the tough questions. There was so much opposition to this, was the questions just brushed aside because it was thought most of the complaints were coming from the Democrats and teachers unions. Do many of the Republicans just go along to get along. Do most think for themselves studying each issue on their own to make the right decisions. Much like I face on the political boards I serve on, I sadly doubt that is what happens on too many occasions. I'm not saying that is how I think you vote, I don't really know much about how you vote, or how you personally arrive at your decisions.
Last year we laid off three teachers, and made many other changes. The superintendent is recommending already this year that we not replace one that is leaving and we might have to make more cuts. We haven't received enough information yet to know where our funding will end up. By the way the education budget gets presented on the news and in the papers, I think most people think the state has done a good job funding schools. But reality is much different. One thing I would like someone in state government to do is admit how the funding has evolved over the last few years. Someone should explain how property taxes used to pay for a lot bigger share of school funding. Explain how the home owners exemption and other property tax changes effected school funding. How the state said they would cover these reductions of property taxes through other state funds. Explain how with the bad economy funding for school support had to be reduced. And now explain how much the overall state support has dropped in all areas, with no political spin. And then the most important thing would be to admit that the state has no intention anytime in the near future of restoring funding, anywhere close to where it used to be. And finally, admit that the only way for schools to provide adequate funding is for the local tax payers to support school levies. That the state has decided to push a portion of the funding for schools back to property taxes. But I don't expect anyone willing to step up and really explain these issues, it would make them look bad. It's easier to make it appear that the local boards are just not being responsible with tax payers money. That because somehow our own mismanagement forces us to make more and more cutbacks, and ask for levies to bail us out. I think if things don't change and more aren't willing to step up and question leadership more openly, the citizens will take it upon themselves to make changes, either by hopefully electing politicians with a backbone or I hate to say more Democrats to bring a better balance. So Republicans have to work more with Democrats to come up with a better plan for schools.
When we tried to pass a levy two different times, we had so many accusations of how wasteful we must be by not being able to live within our budget. No matter how much we tried to explain all the cuts we had made, and how much our support had dropped, a lot of patrons didn't believe what we were saying. I think because we have done so many things to reduce our costs that aren't very visible, a lot of people don't realize what we have done. The first time we tried for a $250,000 levy, the next time $300,000, it wouldn't have been a very big burden on most tax payers. We would be asked, if we the patrons support the levy this time what are you going to do so we don't keep having to have them? I remember one board member saying. When the economy improves in a couple years, I'm sure they will restore school funding, so by then we won't need a levy. I was never that optimistic. Soon we will have to try for a levy again. This time we will need to convince patrons that we have made all the cuts possible, without cutting the few elective programs we have. And try to explain how the state won't restore our funding, so you the local tax payers will need to step up and provide the funding.
I wish the state politicians could understand the situation we and I'm sure many other districts are in. How can we feel good about the online program being mandated on us with all the cutbacks we have had to make. Dollars would have been much better spent in my opinion, on restoring funding to the schools, and helping to provide more opportunities for our students to take online courses if they chose to take them, not requiring them.
I know this is long, but I wanted to explain to you one more time in detail what my concerns are. I write this with no political spin, unlike the response from the state, just my honest straight foreword opinion. Thank you for your time. Brian Esplin
Senator Bair, Thank you for encouraging the Department of Educations response to my questions. I guess I shouldn't expect direct answers to my questions. Communication Directors know how to talk political speech. I have dealt with this on the dairy boards I serve on. I serve on the National Dairy Board a group of thirty eight dairymen from across the country that administer over the dairy checkoff program which has a budget of about $190,000,000. I have pushed for better accountability on this board, often getting similar language responses as I received from the education department. I once spoke out against an issue that I thought was an improper use of check off funds. Leadership brought this to us and even had approval from USDA to spend check off funds for it, but I didn't think it was right. I asked questions that nobody else seemed willing to ask. I had only been on this board for about a year at the time. I later found out from a long time member that to her recollection, no one had ever spoke against anything leadership wanted, partly out of fear they wouldn't advance in leadership or would loose their board position. It took a lot of time, a lot of emails and conversations with leadership, but I eventually encouraged enough support to stop this improper use of funds. I know I made some enemies, but also gained a lot of respect. I have served on the state dairy board for twenty years, and a regional western states dairy board that mostly deals with government regulations, emigration , and environmental issues, for several years. I have been on the school board for almost four years. So I serve on boards from local, to regional, to the national level. So I am well aware of how politics work at all levels.
I am sure there are many things that the state gets mandated from the federal government that you don't like and fight against. You probably wonder why the state isn't trusted better to make the decisions that you know are best for the people of Idaho. I am sure you don't like funds received from the federal government with so many strings attached that it's hard to manage them. You probably think what makes these people think they are so much smarter than the leaders from Idaho.
Well, I think about the same way as to how the state seems to think about the local school districts. What makes the state politicians think they know what's best for schools over the local districts. I do appreciate the discretion we received last year in regards to our teacher funding, other than it made us the bad guys RIFing teachers.
I don't expect another response from the Department of Education, I don't want to hear anymore political speech. But I want to point out to you a few things I still have problems with.
She says the online learning does not remove the teacher from the learning experience, because they still are taught by a certified teacher. That's totally not the point, there is a lot of difference between a teacher teaching over a computer and having a teacher in the classroom.
She says funding was not reduced to fund online courses, isn't that what we have heard was necessary to fund these classes and partly why our funding was reduced last year. She mentions that funding was raised 4.6 percent, but as I read it almost all of the increase either goes to raise the pay to teachers in some form, but no funding to restore lost positions, or goes toward funding different aspects of the online program. There is very little to restore general funding to schools. I also have read that if there is future surplus funding it too will go to the online program, no mention of restoring the schools general funds.
She says the goal of the online course requirement is to help increase student achievement. She says this in response what I say about how hard it is to succeed taking online classes and how many failed them at Firth, and who is to blame if they don't do well. I know there are many options to teach these classes, but I can't believe taking the teacher out of the classroom and replacing them with a teacher over a computer will increase achievement. She mentions the success of 15,000 students taking them and because they succeed all students can. That is a big assumption. Of the 15,000 students taking them, I would bet that most of them aren't the average or below average achieving students. Of course it is a good goal to raise student achievement, but I strongly doubt this will accomplish that goal.
I question her response to cheating. She says all the course work will be done in class so there will be no cheating. If this is true then they will have to change how it's been done in the past. A lot of the work has been done at home.
She makes it sound really good about all the pay increases for teachers. It will be good for the teachers to have an increase in pay, but what about all the teachers and paraprofessionals we either had to RIF or reduce hours, she doesn't even mention that or the challenges that brings to the schools, or how with less staff we are supposed to manage the online requirements. I have read nowhere that we will have anymore funds to hire more staff unless we are growing.
I still think they should have done more piloting of the online program. Not everything the State Department of Education has tried to implement in the past has been successful. Before I was on the board we participated in some type of computer grading system that was tied into the state system somehow. I don't know all the details, but I do know it was a major failure, and created a big headache that year for everyone trying to use it. Implementing this program with all the costs involved, if this fails or has problems, will be very expensive.
Her remarks on this whole program and particularly her last statement, to me could be summarized this way. Regardless of what concerns you might have or problems this might create, we know what's best for you so live with it and be happy, aren't we just wonderful for caring so much about your students future.
I have been a lifelong Republican and have appreciated most things the Republican party in Idaho has done for the state. But I sometimes wonder if the way this was presented having Tom Luna and the Governor strongly supporting this, if anyone really questioned leadership, and asked the tough questions. There was so much opposition to this, was the questions just brushed aside because it was thought most of the complaints were coming from the Democrats and teachers unions. Do many of the Republicans just go along to get along. Do most think for themselves studying each issue on their own to make the right decisions. Much like I face on the political boards I serve on, I sadly doubt that is what happens on too many occasions. I'm not saying that is how I think you vote, I don't really know much about how you vote, or how you personally arrive at your decisions.
Last year we laid off three teachers, and made many other changes. The superintendent is recommending already this year that we not replace one that is leaving and we might have to make more cuts. We haven't received enough information yet to know where our funding will end up. By the way the education budget gets presented on the news and in the papers, I think most people think the state has done a good job funding schools. But reality is much different. One thing I would like someone in state government to do is admit how the funding has evolved over the last few years. Someone should explain how property taxes used to pay for a lot bigger share of school funding. Explain how the home owners exemption and other property tax changes effected school funding. How the state said they would cover these reductions of property taxes through other state funds. Explain how with the bad economy funding for school support had to be reduced. And now explain how much the overall state support has dropped in all areas, with no political spin. And then the most important thing would be to admit that the state has no intention anytime in the near future of restoring funding, anywhere close to where it used to be. And finally, admit that the only way for schools to provide adequate funding is for the local tax payers to support school levies. That the state has decided to push a portion of the funding for schools back to property taxes. But I don't expect anyone willing to step up and really explain these issues, it would make them look bad. It's easier to make it appear that the local boards are just not being responsible with tax payers money. That because somehow our own mismanagement forces us to make more and more cutbacks, and ask for levies to bail us out. I think if things don't change and more aren't willing to step up and question leadership more openly, the citizens will take it upon themselves to make changes, either by hopefully electing politicians with a backbone or I hate to say more Democrats to bring a better balance. So Republicans have to work more with Democrats to come up with a better plan for schools.
When we tried to pass a levy two different times, we had so many accusations of how wasteful we must be by not being able to live within our budget. No matter how much we tried to explain all the cuts we had made, and how much our support had dropped, a lot of patrons didn't believe what we were saying. I think because we have done so many things to reduce our costs that aren't very visible, a lot of people don't realize what we have done. The first time we tried for a $250,000 levy, the next time $300,000, it wouldn't have been a very big burden on most tax payers. We would be asked, if we the patrons support the levy this time what are you going to do so we don't keep having to have them? I remember one board member saying. When the economy improves in a couple years, I'm sure they will restore school funding, so by then we won't need a levy. I was never that optimistic. Soon we will have to try for a levy again. This time we will need to convince patrons that we have made all the cuts possible, without cutting the few elective programs we have. And try to explain how the state won't restore our funding, so you the local tax payers will need to step up and provide the funding.
I wish the state politicians could understand the situation we and I'm sure many other districts are in. How can we feel good about the online program being mandated on us with all the cutbacks we have had to make. Dollars would have been much better spent in my opinion, on restoring funding to the schools, and helping to provide more opportunities for our students to take online courses if they chose to take them, not requiring them.
I know this is long, but I wanted to explain to you one more time in detail what my concerns are. I write this with no political spin, unlike the response from the state, just my honest straight foreword opinion. Thank you for your time. Brian Esplin
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Too much top down management of our schools!
The following is some email communications that started with State Senator Bair and ended up with the department of educations communications director. It all started with an editorial I wrote for the paper titled the same as above. In it I expressed my concerns about the online requirements we will be faced with starting next year, and a couple other things that have bothered me. A couple days after that I read an editorial that Senator Bair wrote and asked for input about the extra money they had and wanted input as to where to spend it. So I decided to reply and said a little about my concerns about these new requirements. I had sighned it as a Firth school board member. The next day I got an email response from Senator Bair, where he expressed concern that I didn't like these requirements. I had talked to him a couple weeks before at a dairy meeting in Boise and had met him before. Since he asked me more about my concerns I decided to email him a longer list of questions. A couple days later I got another email from him with a response from the comunications director. Her response was very long and didn't really answer my questions. At the end of her email she asked if I had any more questions to let her know. Since I didn't like her answers I tried again restating many of the same things in a little more direct way, which are at the bottom of my post. It took awhile but her answeres with her summary of my questions are just below. I didn't address all the same questions or show the first email I recieved from Senator Bair, but I think if you want to read it all it explains itself pretty well. If anyone would like all the other emails I would be happy to send them to you. As you will be able to tell comunication directors are good at political speech. Mostly talking around issues without really answering the questions directly. Which I might add I have delt with on the other boards I serve on and very much dislike. What I mostly get out of this is regardless of what concerns you might have, or problems this creates we know what's best for you so be live with it and be happy, aren't we just wonderful for caring so much about your students future. I think you will see what I mean after reading what she says. Thanks, as always if you have any comments or questions let me know. Brian
Dear Mr. Esplin,
Thank you for the additional questions. I apologize for the delay in responding. I was out of town for a few days and am catching up on e-mails. Here are responses to your concerns.
Do you really believe it was more important to force these online requirements on the districts, than maintain teacher funding, forcing schools to cut teacher and paraprofessional positions? Are you really saying online education is more important than having a teacher, teaching the same thing in person in the classroom? You don't explain how with less staffing we are supposed to provide help for the students taking these classes? You seem to think taking online classes is the same thing as learning how to use a computer. You can teach computer business classes in school to all those wishing to learn these skills without forcing online classes.
The state believes it is critical for digital learning to be a graduation requirement for all students to ensure every student gains these skills before they leave high school and go on to postsecondary education or the workforce. These skills are not just important for a few students, but for all students, not matter which career path they choose after high school. In the 21st Century, they will encounter some form of online learning in the future. Superintendent Luna and Governor Otter truly believe the teacher is the most important factor in a child’s academic success while they are in school. That is why the state has invested $4 million a year in professional development for classroom teachers and $38 million a year in pay-for-performance bonuses to recognize and reward teachers. Online learning does not remove the teacher from the learning experience. Every online course is still taught by an Idaho-certified teacher and must meet Idaho content standards. These courses are just delivered in a different learning environment, an environment that students will face once they go on to postsecondary education or the workplace after high school.
Under Students Come First, districts do not have to make a choice between funding teachers and offering online courses. Funding was not reduced to fund online courses. In fact, the Legislature has increased state funding for Idaho’s public schools this year by 4.6 percent next year. Districts will have local control to determine the best way to deliver digital learning to the students in their community to meet this graduation requirement. This could include taking courses via the Idaho Education Network from another school district. Or if you have the staff available in your district now to accommodate this learning, you can develop a blended model in which students utilize digital learning a portion of the time and work teachers in your districts in person the rest of the time.
You didn't address how this might affect the AYP scores, which in turn can affect the pay for performance money for teachers. Like I said we had good students taking eleven online classes last semester and only five passed. What will happen when what you might call the more average students take these classes? Who gets the blame for students getting poor grades or failing online classes the provider or the local school district?
I would reiterate the local school district has the local control to choose the best way to deliver digital learning to students to meet the graduation requirement. Your local school board should work to find an online course through IDLA, the IEN, a private provider, or a locally developed blended model that increases student achievement. The goal of the online course requirement is to help increase student achievement and make sure every student graduates from high school prepared to go on to postsecondary education or the workforce without the need for remediation. We know there are successful online courses available. More than 15,000 students across Idaho are taking online courses in Idaho right now, and at least one Idaho district requires its students to take online courses in order to graduate. Therefore, we know all students can be successful in these courses and have given every local district the flexibility to find the best delivery model.
I still believe there would be more opportunities to cheat in an online class. If the student has online coursework that needs completed, couldn't the student, or whoever log on to the program at home if they have a home computer and create the possibility of cheating at home? How does an online teacher that doesn't know the student personally, know who does the course work?
For the purposes of the graduation requirement, online courses will be completed at school during school hours. This is important because we know not all students will have equal access at home, but all students will have equal access at school.
My understanding, this year you only increased the net general funding for schools .4% that much won't even come close to covering our increased costs, most likely forcing us to lay off even more teachers. How can we feel good about this knowing much of our reduced funds goes to pay for the online program?
The state general fund increase for public schools is 4.6% in FY2013. The total increase including federal funding is 0.4% because the federal Education Jobs Fund, which was one-time funding, is going away in FY2013. The majority of the 4.6% increase is going to funding growth in student enrollment and toward additional funding for Idaho teachers and other school staff. The funding will not go toward online learning, unless your local school district determines it should. Here are the highlights of the FY2013 public schools budget:
· Average teacher pay in Idaho will go up by over $2,000 this year, because of the following changes:
o No reduction in funding for teacher or administrator salaries: The state will fully fund current movement on the salary grid for teachers who gain years of experience and more education. At least 21% of Idaho teachers will see salary increases for gaining additional years of experience as they move through the grid next year.
o Pay-for-performance: Idaho is funding an estimated $39 million to implement a statewide pay-for-performance plan that recognizes and rewards great classroom teachers. Awards will be based on student academic growth and will be awarded by school. At least 85% of teachers will earn some form of a performance bonus next year.
o Increase in minimum salary: The minimum salary for beginning teachers will increase to $30,500. This will affect 31% of Idaho teachers.
· $4 million in ongoing professional development to help teachers integrate technology in the classroom.
· $2.5 million in additional funding for IT professionals in schools and districts.
· $4 million to fund growth in student enrollment, including additional teaching positions in growing districts.
· $842,400 for the Dual Credit for Early Completers Program, which allows seniors to take up to 36 dual credit courses paid for by the state if they meet high school graduation requirements early.
· $9.4 million in continued funding for the Idaho Reading Initiative, Idaho Math Initiative, and ISAT Remediation.
· $9 million in advanced classroom technology for all grades.
· $2.5 million to begin implementing the one-to-one initiative in high schools by providing a laptop device to every high school teacher, principal, and other certified staff.
· $5 million for Idaho Digital Learning Academy as it transitions to a self-funded agency.
I asked about piloting this program and you stated you couldn't do that. I know in other areas pilot tests have been done. I think the law was just not set up for this to be an option. I think there could and should have been a way to do this. You could have identified problems that occur and addressed them at much less expense and in a much easier way with it being on a small scale.
I apologize if my previous responses were not clear. We do not believe this should have been a pilot for two reasons. First and foremost, we believe we must have a uniform and thorough system of public education in which all students have equal access to the best educational opportunities before they graduate from high school, including digital learning opportunities. The second reason is that Idaho has been a leader in online learning for more than a decade, creating pilots in local school districts across the state. We have drawn on these successes and the lessons these districts have learned in order to implement online learning statewide.
My reference to the task force recommendations wasn't about worrying if they would get implemented. I was pointing out how long the list was and the work and time it would take to implement all these recommendations within the school, and who was going to have the time to do it. Our Superintendent is also our Elementary Principal. Our high school principal is also the Athletic Director. How can you keep requiring more out of our schools, but in turn provide us with less?
The goal of Students Come First is to build an education system that can educate more students at a higher level with the state’s current resources. This does require us to do things differently at all levels of education. At the State Department of Education, we have completely reorganized our internal structure to better meet the needs of the customers of education. Change is never easy. We understand it will not be easy for local school districts or schools to transition to the new education reform laws, but we believe it is necessary to ensure our students succeed in the 21st Century.
Thanks,
Melissa
Melissa McGrath
Communications Director
Idaho State Department of Education
(208) 332-6818
mrmcgrath@sde.idaho.gov
Follow Superintendent Luna on Facebook at www.facebook.com/superintendentluna or on Twitter @tomluna.
More online concerns
Do you really believe it was more important to force these online requirements on the districts, than maintain teacher funding, forcing schools to cut teacher and paraprofessional positions?
Are you really saying online education is more important than having a teacher, teaching the same thing in person in the classroom?
You don't explain how with less staffing we are supposed to provide help for the students taking these classes?
You seem to think taking online classes is the same thing as learning how to use a computer . You can teach computer business classes in school to all those wishing to learn these skills without forcing online classes.
You didn't address how this might affect the AYP scores, which in turn can affect the pay for performance money for teachers. Like I said we had good students taking eleven online classes last semester and only five passed. What will happen when what you might call the more average students take these classes?
Who gets the blame for students getting poor grades or failing online classes the provider or the local school district?
I still believe there would be more opportunities to cheat in an online class. If the student has online coursework that needs completed, couldn't the student, or whoever log on to the program at home if they have a home computer and create the possibility of cheating at home? How does an online teacher that doesn't know the student personally, know who does the course work?
My understanding, this year you only increased the net general funding for schools .4% that much won't even come close to covering our increased costs, most likely forcing us to lay off even more teachers. How can we feel good about this knowing much of our reduced funds goes to pay for the online program?
I asked about piloting this program and you stated you couldn't do that. I know in other areas pilot tests have been done. I think the law was just not set up for this to be an option. I think there could and should have been a way to do this. You could have identified problems that occur and addressed them at much less expense and in a much easier way with it being on a small scale.
My reference to the task force recommendations wasn't about worrying if they would get implemented. I was pointing out how long the list was and the work and time it would take to implement all these recommendations within the school, and who was going to have the time to do it. Our Superintendent is also our Elementary Principal . Our high school principal is also the Athletic Director. How can you keep requiring more out of our schools, but in turn provide us with less?
Bottom line as I wrote in an editorial for the newspapers recently. There is way too much top down management of our schools!!
Thank you, Brian Esplin Firth school board member
Dear Mr. Esplin,
Thank you for the additional questions. I apologize for the delay in responding. I was out of town for a few days and am catching up on e-mails. Here are responses to your concerns.
Do you really believe it was more important to force these online requirements on the districts, than maintain teacher funding, forcing schools to cut teacher and paraprofessional positions? Are you really saying online education is more important than having a teacher, teaching the same thing in person in the classroom? You don't explain how with less staffing we are supposed to provide help for the students taking these classes? You seem to think taking online classes is the same thing as learning how to use a computer. You can teach computer business classes in school to all those wishing to learn these skills without forcing online classes.
The state believes it is critical for digital learning to be a graduation requirement for all students to ensure every student gains these skills before they leave high school and go on to postsecondary education or the workforce. These skills are not just important for a few students, but for all students, not matter which career path they choose after high school. In the 21st Century, they will encounter some form of online learning in the future. Superintendent Luna and Governor Otter truly believe the teacher is the most important factor in a child’s academic success while they are in school. That is why the state has invested $4 million a year in professional development for classroom teachers and $38 million a year in pay-for-performance bonuses to recognize and reward teachers. Online learning does not remove the teacher from the learning experience. Every online course is still taught by an Idaho-certified teacher and must meet Idaho content standards. These courses are just delivered in a different learning environment, an environment that students will face once they go on to postsecondary education or the workplace after high school.
Under Students Come First, districts do not have to make a choice between funding teachers and offering online courses. Funding was not reduced to fund online courses. In fact, the Legislature has increased state funding for Idaho’s public schools this year by 4.6 percent next year. Districts will have local control to determine the best way to deliver digital learning to the students in their community to meet this graduation requirement. This could include taking courses via the Idaho Education Network from another school district. Or if you have the staff available in your district now to accommodate this learning, you can develop a blended model in which students utilize digital learning a portion of the time and work teachers in your districts in person the rest of the time.
You didn't address how this might affect the AYP scores, which in turn can affect the pay for performance money for teachers. Like I said we had good students taking eleven online classes last semester and only five passed. What will happen when what you might call the more average students take these classes? Who gets the blame for students getting poor grades or failing online classes the provider or the local school district?
I would reiterate the local school district has the local control to choose the best way to deliver digital learning to students to meet the graduation requirement. Your local school board should work to find an online course through IDLA, the IEN, a private provider, or a locally developed blended model that increases student achievement. The goal of the online course requirement is to help increase student achievement and make sure every student graduates from high school prepared to go on to postsecondary education or the workforce without the need for remediation. We know there are successful online courses available. More than 15,000 students across Idaho are taking online courses in Idaho right now, and at least one Idaho district requires its students to take online courses in order to graduate. Therefore, we know all students can be successful in these courses and have given every local district the flexibility to find the best delivery model.
I still believe there would be more opportunities to cheat in an online class. If the student has online coursework that needs completed, couldn't the student, or whoever log on to the program at home if they have a home computer and create the possibility of cheating at home? How does an online teacher that doesn't know the student personally, know who does the course work?
For the purposes of the graduation requirement, online courses will be completed at school during school hours. This is important because we know not all students will have equal access at home, but all students will have equal access at school.
My understanding, this year you only increased the net general funding for schools .4% that much won't even come close to covering our increased costs, most likely forcing us to lay off even more teachers. How can we feel good about this knowing much of our reduced funds goes to pay for the online program?
The state general fund increase for public schools is 4.6% in FY2013. The total increase including federal funding is 0.4% because the federal Education Jobs Fund, which was one-time funding, is going away in FY2013. The majority of the 4.6% increase is going to funding growth in student enrollment and toward additional funding for Idaho teachers and other school staff. The funding will not go toward online learning, unless your local school district determines it should. Here are the highlights of the FY2013 public schools budget:
· Average teacher pay in Idaho will go up by over $2,000 this year, because of the following changes:
o No reduction in funding for teacher or administrator salaries: The state will fully fund current movement on the salary grid for teachers who gain years of experience and more education. At least 21% of Idaho teachers will see salary increases for gaining additional years of experience as they move through the grid next year.
o Pay-for-performance: Idaho is funding an estimated $39 million to implement a statewide pay-for-performance plan that recognizes and rewards great classroom teachers. Awards will be based on student academic growth and will be awarded by school. At least 85% of teachers will earn some form of a performance bonus next year.
o Increase in minimum salary: The minimum salary for beginning teachers will increase to $30,500. This will affect 31% of Idaho teachers.
· $4 million in ongoing professional development to help teachers integrate technology in the classroom.
· $2.5 million in additional funding for IT professionals in schools and districts.
· $4 million to fund growth in student enrollment, including additional teaching positions in growing districts.
· $842,400 for the Dual Credit for Early Completers Program, which allows seniors to take up to 36 dual credit courses paid for by the state if they meet high school graduation requirements early.
· $9.4 million in continued funding for the Idaho Reading Initiative, Idaho Math Initiative, and ISAT Remediation.
· $9 million in advanced classroom technology for all grades.
· $2.5 million to begin implementing the one-to-one initiative in high schools by providing a laptop device to every high school teacher, principal, and other certified staff.
· $5 million for Idaho Digital Learning Academy as it transitions to a self-funded agency.
I asked about piloting this program and you stated you couldn't do that. I know in other areas pilot tests have been done. I think the law was just not set up for this to be an option. I think there could and should have been a way to do this. You could have identified problems that occur and addressed them at much less expense and in a much easier way with it being on a small scale.
I apologize if my previous responses were not clear. We do not believe this should have been a pilot for two reasons. First and foremost, we believe we must have a uniform and thorough system of public education in which all students have equal access to the best educational opportunities before they graduate from high school, including digital learning opportunities. The second reason is that Idaho has been a leader in online learning for more than a decade, creating pilots in local school districts across the state. We have drawn on these successes and the lessons these districts have learned in order to implement online learning statewide.
My reference to the task force recommendations wasn't about worrying if they would get implemented. I was pointing out how long the list was and the work and time it would take to implement all these recommendations within the school, and who was going to have the time to do it. Our Superintendent is also our Elementary Principal. Our high school principal is also the Athletic Director. How can you keep requiring more out of our schools, but in turn provide us with less?
The goal of Students Come First is to build an education system that can educate more students at a higher level with the state’s current resources. This does require us to do things differently at all levels of education. At the State Department of Education, we have completely reorganized our internal structure to better meet the needs of the customers of education. Change is never easy. We understand it will not be easy for local school districts or schools to transition to the new education reform laws, but we believe it is necessary to ensure our students succeed in the 21st Century.
Thanks,
Melissa
Melissa McGrath
Communications Director
Idaho State Department of Education
(208) 332-6818
mrmcgrath@sde.idaho.gov
Follow Superintendent Luna on Facebook at www.facebook.com/superintendentluna or on Twitter @tomluna.
More online concerns
Do you really believe it was more important to force these online requirements on the districts, than maintain teacher funding, forcing schools to cut teacher and paraprofessional positions?
Are you really saying online education is more important than having a teacher, teaching the same thing in person in the classroom?
You don't explain how with less staffing we are supposed to provide help for the students taking these classes?
You seem to think taking online classes is the same thing as learning how to use a computer . You can teach computer business classes in school to all those wishing to learn these skills without forcing online classes.
You didn't address how this might affect the AYP scores, which in turn can affect the pay for performance money for teachers. Like I said we had good students taking eleven online classes last semester and only five passed. What will happen when what you might call the more average students take these classes?
Who gets the blame for students getting poor grades or failing online classes the provider or the local school district?
I still believe there would be more opportunities to cheat in an online class. If the student has online coursework that needs completed, couldn't the student, or whoever log on to the program at home if they have a home computer and create the possibility of cheating at home? How does an online teacher that doesn't know the student personally, know who does the course work?
My understanding, this year you only increased the net general funding for schools .4% that much won't even come close to covering our increased costs, most likely forcing us to lay off even more teachers. How can we feel good about this knowing much of our reduced funds goes to pay for the online program?
I asked about piloting this program and you stated you couldn't do that. I know in other areas pilot tests have been done. I think the law was just not set up for this to be an option. I think there could and should have been a way to do this. You could have identified problems that occur and addressed them at much less expense and in a much easier way with it being on a small scale.
My reference to the task force recommendations wasn't about worrying if they would get implemented. I was pointing out how long the list was and the work and time it would take to implement all these recommendations within the school, and who was going to have the time to do it. Our Superintendent is also our Elementary Principal . Our high school principal is also the Athletic Director. How can you keep requiring more out of our schools, but in turn provide us with less?
Bottom line as I wrote in an editorial for the newspapers recently. There is way too much top down management of our schools!!
Thank you, Brian Esplin Firth school board member
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)