Archive for the 'Education' Category
August 26th, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
Despite what some are saying, the Sioux Falls school board has rightly apologized for distributing a school directory containing an ad for the pro-life Alpha Center against their own policies.
“We would … like to apologize for this lapse. We will do better work in the future,” said Darin Daby, president of the board.
The ad, purchased by the Alpha Center, is included in a directory the public schools began distributing last week. The school district supplied the news text for the directory. The Shopping News sold the advertising and published the directory before sending copies to the
schools for free distribution. The Shopping News printed 30,000 copies under an arrangement in place since 1993.
This isn’t about the pro-life/pro-choice argument, this is about the school system staying out of political issues of which this just so happens to be one of the most divisive.
The fact that they distribute it means that they should know what is in it and in fact their own policies say as much and to try and deflect this by contending that they have no control means that there is a problem with Superintendent Dr. Pam Homan’s leadership.
If the Shopping News wants to sell ads to the Alpha Center, put it in their regularly distributed issues and keep it out of the schools.
August 21st, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
The constitutionality of the funding question for the lawsuit brought forward by a majority of South Dakota’s school districts seeking increased funding was shot down today by Circuit Court Judge Lori Wilbur because it was ruled they cannot use tax dollars to help fund the suit.
Circuit Judge Lori Wilbur of Pierre says school districts do not have legal standing to seek a court judgment on the constitutionality of the state’s school funding system. She says the districts also cannot pay money to a coalition to support the lawsuit.
More than two-thirds of the state’s school districts have been financing a lawsuit challenging the school funding system. That case goes to trial September 2.
KELO
June 22nd, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
A quick follow up from yesterday’s post
Apparently the Ohio science teacher fired for burning crosses into his student’s arm was more of a Sunday school teacher than a science teacher. The Mount Vernon News has the results from the independent firm tasked with investigating middle school science teacher John Freshwater.
Besides burning the crosses into a students arm which is the offense that ultimately got him fired, the report documented an environment dripping in religion, anti-gay, and anti-science teachings that would make most people (but not all) cringe and ask why it wasn’t stopped long ago.
Some of the highlights from the report:
•Mr. Freshwater did burn a cross onto the complaining family’s child’s arm using an electrostatic device not designed for that purpose. While there did not appear to be any intent by Mr. Freshwater to cause injury to any student, he was not using the device for its intended purpose. Contrary to Mr. Freshwater’s statement he simply made an “X” not a “cross,” all of the students described the marking as a “cross” and the pictures provided depict a “cross.”
•The Ten Commandments together with other posters of a religious nature were posted in Mr. Freshwater’s classroom. Most were removed after Mr. White’s letter of April 14, 2008, but at least one poster remained which Mr. Freshwater was again instructed to remove on April 16, 2008, but did not do so.
•Several Bibles were kept in Mr. Freshwater’s classroom including his personal Bible on his desk and one he checked out of the library placed on the lab table near the desk. Other Bibles that had been maintained in the room were removed by the time the investigators viewed Mr. Freshwater’s room.
•Mr. Freshwater engaged in teaching of a religious nature, teaching creationism and related theories and calling evolution into question. He had other materials in his classroom that could be used for that purpose.
•Mr. Freshwater engaged in prayer during FCA meetings in violation of the district’s legal obligations for monitoring such organizations.
•Mr. Freshwater participated and possibly led a prayer during an FCA meeting that concerned a guest speaker’s health. There is no conclusion as to whether such prayer was a “healing” prayer.
•There is no evidence Mr. Freshwater violated the district’s permission slip policy.
•There is no evidence Mr. Freshwater made statements about FCA members “being the saved ones” nor was there any corroboration to the allegation Mr. Freshwater gave FCA members Bibles for them to distribute. He did have two boxes of Bibles in the back of his room.
•Mr. Freshwater gave an extra credit assignment for students to view the movie “Expelled” which does involve intelligent design.
A pillar of the profession, if his profession was a pastor that is.
June 21st, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
Updates Below
A science teacher who taught that carbon dating was unreliable as an excuse to argue against evolution was recently fired in Ohio. On the surface the guy seems to be well respected, at least according to a friend that was interviewed:
I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district,” he told The Columbus Dispatch for a story published Friday.
Well ok, a great guy except for that one minor issue:
Freshwater used a science tool known as a high-frequency generator to burn images of a cross on students’ arms in December
Despite that, the school district outside of Columbus actually tried to keep this guy employed despite numerous staff complaints over his preaching his Christian beliefs but couldn’t because he was only certified in science. So what would have been the last straw if he had other certifications, performing a crucifiction?
UPDATE: The actual Columbus Dispatch story has more on this including a photo of what Freshwater’s attorney called an “x” and not a cross (is he looking at the same photo?) and more on the friend whom was interviewed and defended Freshwater
Daubenmire is a former London High School football coach whose district was sued in 1999 by the American Civil Liberties Union because he led his players in prayer at games, practices and meetings.
The Columbus Dispatch article also lets us in on a few more of Freshwater’s ideas of classroom procedures
- Discrediting evolution in his classroom and focusing on creationism and intelligent design
- Preaching his Christian beliefs in class and slamming scientific theories
- Telling his class that homosexuality is a sin
- Keeping a bible and other religious material in his classroom
Sounds like this guy would be the perfect teacher if some of our local bloggers had their way…
UPDATE 2: That didn’t take long, the blog in question is already coming to the teacher’s defense and even suggesting that what he did was just fine.
One student complained about “branding with a cross” out of how many? Slight reddening of the skin hardly amounts to “branding.” I’d be interested to know how many tattoos and/or piercings this poor child has endured.
So there you have it, just because a kid may or may not have a piercing or tattoo, having a teacher burn a cross in their arm is no big deal. I wonder if the teacher had burned “666″ or some anti-religious symbol on the childs arm if they would have been so forgiving. Nothing if not predictable.
May 25th, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
A corporation tries to do something good for schools and all they get for their troubles is grief.
Subway wants your kids to write a story that could get their school $5000 worth of athletic equipment. All they need to do is go here, choose a sandwich, and get creative. Sounds like a pretty cool contest, except that is, when the wingnut nation strikes.
You see, considering the purpose of the contest is to win athletic equipment for the winners school, Subway decided that home schooled kids couldn’t enter. Kind of hard to donate equipment to a non-existent school (yes, I know there are donation option for home schoolers). Anyway, like I said the wingnut nation has latched on to this and now Subway is being bombarded with calls for boycotts as well as becoming the target of all sorts of unflattering comments.
Maybe Ms. Malkin could join with local our home school proponent Sibby to help lead a revolt against Citibank next. As those of us in South Dakota are aware, they are providing a boatload of cash to help provide laptops to our high schools kids, and if I am not mistaken, home schooled students need not apply.
UPDATE: It seems that Dunkin Donuts has attracted the ire of the Malkin led wingnut BS machine as well.
Tags: home school, subway, wingnuts
January 28th, 2008 by Bob Schwartz
Now that the deadline for introducing new bills has come and gone, the details of the 5 bills making the rounds this year that deal with increasing teacher salary are discussed in this morning’s Argus and are linked to below.
HB1214 - Creates minimum salary for teachers in districts that get state funds. $28,000 minimum in 2009 and $30,000 minimum in 2010. (Prime sponsors are Rep. Ed McLaughlin, R-Rapid City; Sen. Cooper Garnos, R-Presho)
HB1262 - Simply says, “The salaries of teachers in South Dakota are hereby enhanced,” a device sometimes used to get a bill in play while working on details. (Prime sponsors, Rep. Mike Buckingham, R-Rapid City; Sen. Ed Olson, R-Mitchell)
HB1268 - Creates minimum salary of $30,000 by 2013. Districts under that in 2008 must develop plan to move the pay to the minimum target. (Prime sponsors Rep. Kristi Noem, R-Castlewood; Sen. Ed Olson, R-Mitchell)
SB169 - Sets annual school-aid increase at 3.5 percent, requires a minimum teacher salary of $35,000 by 2012, increased in four annual steps from $29,000 minimum in 2009. (Prime sponsors Sen. Cooper Garnos, R-Presho; Rep. Ed McLaughlin, R-Rapid City.)
SB187 - Requires schools to increase average teacher pay by 4.25 percent or receive $80 per student less in state aid than schools that do provide that pay increase.
Does anyone think this year will be any different? Can our legislators push any of these bills past a probable veto by the Governor or does Rounds get his way as usual and push through the standard less than inflation increase again this year?
I’m betting a lack of backbone will again win out as will the meager 2.5% one time raise being pushed by Governor Rounds.
November 30th, 2007 by Bob Schwartz
School funding will be a big topic for discussion as the lawsuit against the state goes forward and during the upcoming legislative session. So when I saw this headline and accompanying story, I felt that it fit perfectly within that discussion.
Underfunded Schools Forced To Cut Past Tense From Language Programs
Faced with ongoing budget crises, underfunded schools nationwide are increasingly left with no option but to cut the past tense—a grammatical construction traditionally used to relate all actions, and states that have transpired at an earlier point in time—from their standard English and language arts programs.
A part of American school curricula for more than 200 years, the past tense was deemed by school administrators to be too expensive to keep in primary and secondary education.
Then the response from fictional educators in The Onion story sounded just like our school administrators as they are announcing the latest funding related cut.
“This was by no means an easy decision, but teaching our students how to conjugate verbs in a way that would allow them to describe events that have already occurred is a luxury that we can no longer afford,” Phoenix-area high-school principal Sam Pennock said. “With our current budget, the past tense must unfortunately become a thing of the past.”
And yes I know it is satire but not far from the truth here in South Dakota, especially for those of us with children in rural school districts.
November 18th, 2007 by Bob Schwartz
Apparently that is what some think our legislature should do this session in regards to education. KELO has a story about some tenative plans for the upcoming session which includes a comment from Democratic Senator Sandy Jerstad whom would actually like to look at funding our education system.
Democratic Senator Sandy Jerstad is hopeful the education lawsuit brought on by parents and their children will move education to the front of the line when it comes to deciding who gets more money this legislative session
“I’m hoping that we can strike a deal right away,” Jerstad says.
Jerstad says since the funding formula was put in place over a decade ago, schools continue to lose money. Last year a senate bill that would have given school districts a 4.3% annual increase in funding failed. Jerstad says if that bill would have passed a funding lawsuit may have never existed.
“I do believe that if the districts knew that they were going to receive the bill that we did last year I think they would cancel their lawsuit,” she says.
Now having our legislature actually address school funding instead of putting a year to year band aid on it might seem to be a good idea to most, but apparently not everyone thinks it should be addressed and instead believes our legislators should just continue to ignore it.
Sioux Falls Democratic Senator Sandy Jerstad exhibits something intestinal, because it isn’t fortitude this morning on KELOland, as she points out how in her view legislators need to strike a deal right away on education this session because of the pending lawsuit against the state.
Regardless of the fact that one court has basically said that school funding is up to the legislature, the Attorney General believes such lawsuits to be without merit, AND the legislature traditionally shies away from matters that are set to be heard in a court of law
Pretty interesting logic there, instead of addressing a problem that many parents and educators felt needed addressed to the point they were compelled to sue the state, our legislators should instead ignore it (as usual) because it will be decided in the courts. Oh and while they ignore issues being addressed in the courts they instead will likely work a bill that would put our state into court when they again look at attempting to ban abortions.
December 14th, 2006 by Bob Schwartz
The Associated Schools Boards of South Dakota has released a paper which dispels many of the myths being forwarded by many in Pierre when it comes to education funding.
Historically, South Dakota has funded education on a what-is-available basis – which mirrors a pre-No Child Left Behind mentality to public education where school districts used funds to provide educational opportunities to South Dakota’s children. No Child Left Behind, though, changed the role of public education from an opportunities-based operation to an outcomes-based system. In public education today, states set high standards for yearly progress, and schools are expected to deliver results.
South Dakota’s school finance system, however, has failed to recognize this dramatic shift in philosophy. In order to achieve the ever-rising expectations, the debate on education funding must shift focus to allocating resources needed to meet the needs of every student. Doing so sets public schools up for success and delivers a brighter future for South Dakota’s students.
Some of the more interesting low-lights from the report include the fact that even though the state is devoting more money to education than they have before, the actual share of state revenue dedicated to education is on the decline especially when it comes to K-12 education.
Almost half of South Dakota’s 167 districts (77) have had to opt out of the state’s property tax limitation which results in over 21 million in local funding towards education that the state doesn’t match.
No state in the nation contributes less per student than South Dakota even though South Dakotans pay approximately the same share percentage wise in property taxes as the surrounding states.
For South Dakota to just come close to the average in teacher salaries of our surrounding states, we would have to invest over $46 million. Even when using South Dakota’s adequacy study which takes into account cost of living we would still need to invest over $32 million just be be on par with our neighbors.
After seeing the total waste of time and money spent on the research done by the State Aid Study Task Force and then seeing Gov. Round’s annual education band-aid funding recommendation, this report finally gives some perspective to the crisis we have in our schools. Now the question is what will our legislators do about it next month? Given their recent history, I am not holding my breath…
December 5th, 2006 by Bob Schwartz
One Time…
Looking over the slides provided on the state website, one thing comes to mind. I doubt very seriously that the districts suing the state will have much hope for calling off their lawsuit anytime soon.
On the heals of the totally useless State Aid Study Task Force, Governor Rounds outlined his plans for the FY2008 budget and it again is filled with his favorite term when talking about education funding, “one time”.
Rounds did bring up his DOA proposal from last year that seeks to make available $4 million in state matching funds for districts to use to to compensate educators involved in what he terms as “education improvement projects”. This is the same project he proposed last year to a group of 400 educators that died because the districts believed that it would take away their control.
The only extra school funding proposed again this year is the mandatory 3 percent increase plus a few dollars for technology and special education programs.
One interesting side note from the governor that is a member of the “small government” GOP is that the discretionary spending increases budgeted for next FY includes 2.5 times more money for state employee compensation (10.4 Mil) than it does for K-12 teacher compensation (4.0 Mil) and remember that 4 million is contingent on the teacher being involved in one of those “education improvement projects”.
Now that Rounds has put his budget cards on the table, it will be interesting to see if the state legislature will do anything to change that “one time” label that is so prevalent in our school funding agenda these days. 3 percent a year funding increases barely cover inflation costs and funding new programs and teacher salary increases is hard to do with “one time” money.
