The Return of the Jedi - Education Edition

I was one of the 110 folks who signed in opposition (0.00 / 0)

I think the goal of the sponsor in submitting this bill is good (he wants to re-empower local school boards by reducing state mandates to allow them to make more local decisions, especially when money is tight...), but the message the wording of this bill sent was incorrect, and picking certain subjects to 'cut' only reinforced the public perception that this was about removing these subjects entirely...  I wasn't in the hearing, so I can't comment on the speakers, etc...

We can and will argue over how much to spend on education, but I think very few legislators actually agree with not teaching students any "art, health, world languages and technology"  I'm a big fan of vocational training, for example, and technology is a vital part of that.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

---

by: SethCohn @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 17:13:34 PM CST

Seth it is not about state mandates but about state dollars (4.00 / 4)

 If the state shreds the definition of adequate, they also shred the state's financial responsibility to pay for any of those courses...they are worried about tight state budgets not about challenging budgets at the local level..."state Mandates" is a clever mantra to curry favor with those swept away by the illusion of local control so they wont focus on the incredibly shrinking state checks. If the adequate education check is in the neighborhood of $3,450/kid with art, music, technology, health and languages, imagine the size of the check without those subjects included in the definition of adequate education...got a change purse.

---

by: political chowder @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 19:36:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As stipulated... (0.00 / 0)

"We can and will argue over how much to spend on education"  If the amount was left intact at ~$3450, but schools were free to spend it as they saw fit (ie no state guidelines other than local control), would that be a problem?  I realize you think that's too low, but would you rather have $3.5k per pupil to spend freely or with strings attached (and more or less strings...)? Not would you like $4k or $5k or hate $3k, which is not the question being discussed at this time.  

I understand some will say that's not the point... The entire question of education funding is on the table (again), it's going to be discussed, with the involvement of the Governor, and a proposal will be made.  Realistically, that decision is a few years away, as likely it will be put before the people as a constitutional amendment to decide.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

---

by: SethCohn @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 20:23:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If you had been part of the initial wrangling over the definition of adequacy.. (4.00 / 3)

... 4 years ago, you would understand it is ALL about the dollars. It's pretty simple- you lower the definition of what constitutes an education, you reduce the cost per pupil of providing that education. And that means you can cut state aid.

This really ain't that hard to understand. If you believe it's about "local control" you are fooling yourself.  

---

by: Mike Emm @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 21:13:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

in my experience local control is overrated vis-a-vis school governance (4.00 / 2)

It seems we have school district and the associated overhead for just about every student enrolled! In the Monadnock region the small town of Roxbury had not been able to find a person to serve on the school board for two years and they have a vacancy from Sullivan as well.

Meetings are so contentious that they can't find people who want to serve which  often leaves people of questionable qualifications and intent (drown Public Education in a bathtub types) to advocate for the educational needs of kids.

High schools 5 miles apart from one another have vastly different opportunities resources for their students.

I for one would give up some control in exchange for not having the town drunk influencing curriculum decisions.


Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 20:06:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Three people (4.00 / 4)

who normally don't talk to me about these things but who know I have an interest in state politics asked me about this bill today.

All three were had looks of disbelief on their faces about it.

Relatedly, it has taken every ounce of discipline I have to stick to my custom of not blogging about this, as it crosses into my professional life.  Please do not mistake my silence for disinterest, and many, many thanks to those who have been writing about this and keeping me informed.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 17:20:04 PM CST

Majority leader in favor of bill (4.00 / 4)

DJ Bettencourt took time off from sending press releases to testify in favor of the bill under the pretext of "local control."
Hooey. This is not about local control, this is about downshifting costs to the local districts.

Union Leader coverage:
  http://www.theunionleader.com/...



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 19:50:40 PM CST

I don't understand this desire (4.00 / 1)

for local control.  My grandsons' elementary and high schools in MD are run by the county, and a pool of money that big brings a lot of economics of scale that we reject.  All we get for local control is the horror show of school district meetings every year to pit school against town, parents against grandparents, teachers against first responders and road agents, etc., etc., etc.

And if we accept federal money, which we really can't afford not to, we give up local control for what, in my town, is half of the school budget, special ed.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 11:51:27 AM CST

Right on (0.00 / 0)

Town structures make little sense especially in a state like New Hampshire where so many town lines are arbitrary--we know longer necessarily live and work in the same town, or a house on the edge of one town may be more intrinsically tied to the neighboring town.  This is not to say that town lines, involvement or all town government should be dissolved, just that in matters of education, planning, etc. a regional approach really makes considerably more sense from the perspective of economics, cohesion and basic common sense.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 16:39:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Disservice (4.00 / 2)

Local control is so short-sighted.  We want our graduates to be welcomed at colleges and universities around the country and around the world, don't we?

Try getting into a decent college today without at least two years of foreign language.  Good luck!

Paula

Paula M. DiNardo
Dover NH

A Blue Hampster since 2007!

---

by: pdinardo @ Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 15:28:04 PM CST

Yeah but... (0.00 / 0)

cutting foreign languages means less state aid, and that means we can reduce the business profits tax by maybe a half percent to benefit shareholders. Or make sure we don't bring in an estate tax.

So what's more important- our kid's futures or more money in the pockets of the wealthy?

---

by: Mike Emm @ Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 16:21:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]