Some thoughts on the proposed 2010-11 budget cuts following Monday's school board meetings...
1) The subject that everyone was afraid to address is out-of-control employee costs.
As is evident all over the country, and further emphasized by the economic downturn, the unionization of public employees has created an unsustainable condition for all local governments. Over the last few decades, the collectively-bargained salaries and benefit packages, not to mention growing numbers of employees, have simply out-paced the public's ability to pay. Then, to make matters worse, dollars initially generated from taxes are funneled through union dues to campaign accounts of politicians who are willing to fill the public trough even more.
In Wisconsin last year, WEAC (the teacher's union), spent $1.5 million lobbying our state politicians. That was more than double any other special interest group! Who benefits from this? Not our kids...only the teachers, of course! Then, when they retire in their mid-50's, the union counsels them to move out of state because (not surprisingly) the taxes rates here are much higher than elsewhere in the country.
It's time for taxpayers, and their advocates in government, to take back control. What was once considered "public service" has become an ever-growing drain on society. At this point, the only tool available is cutting positions and privatizing services wherever possible. It would be great to someday see a repeal of the laws that allowed the formation of public-sector unions, so that the general public could once again receive government service at a reasonable price.
2) Here in West Bend, we are facing the fallout of numerous bad decisions originating at the state level: The original funding formula, which punished low-spending districts like ours; the current Democrat legislature and governor, who cut dollars from school funding knowing that local boards would take the brunt of the public anger, having to make deep cuts or pass large tax increases; and the union-backed binding arbitration laws which essentially guarantee that the teachers will get whatever they request in contract "negotiations".
3) When the teacher's union gets its way, as it most likely will, the board will again face the tough task of balancing the books...and I for one, will not let the blame be misplaced. Program cuts will be a direct result of union greed. While we all negotiate for our maximum compensation, being able to leverage a captive employer, and use kids as emotional props, is simply unfair. As cuts are made, many of our brightest and most energetic young teachers will likely be the first to go because union seniority rules will take precedence over any subjective judgement of merit.
I believe the current proposed list of reductions for 2010-11 is pretty straightforward. Some things probably could have gone in years prior, like social workers and certain paid aide positions. However, the more difficult decisions are just on the horizon - many of the big-ticket savings will be quite controversial with the community. Others will undoubtedly again become focus points merely to generate backlash. It will require a strong, conservative board to face these challenges and the fallout that is sure to follow...but, we must all realize that the age of uncontrollable taxing-and-spending is necessarily over.
ps: Apparently the current board has also gotten the message. See here. Would they be talking this tough if Dave and I were not in the race? Based on last year, doubtful...
Friday, February 26, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Another take on the latest waste of money...
Background from the Daily News story:
“Challenge Day” at West Bend High Schools will not be taking place... But because a nonrefundable deposit of $12,800 was been invested in the program...The district is obligated to reimburse the grant. “We are working with attorneys determining how to recapture our funds,” Neitzke said. “They are reviewing the contracts to see what our fiscal obligation is. Our goal is to limit the cost to taxpayers.” The experience has resulted in changes to internal protocol, Neitzke said.
OK, so the first obvious fact is that the taxpayers have been exposed to a liability for which we received nothing in return. This occurred because administrators assumed since it wasn't local tax money (it was the magic "grant" form of tax money), they didn't need to run it by the Board, even as a courtesy. At least this incident has reportedly prompted changes in the protocols that led us to this point. But then again, it could be that the administration didn't bother because they knew it would have been approved on a 7-0 vote anyway!
The bigger question I have is, "Who thought this was a good idea in the first place?" Who researched this Challenge Day outfit, read about their program and said, "We need to apply for a grant to run this at our high school!" Is our community so devoid of psychologists and counselors that our school administrators felt they needed to find a way to provide these services themselves? Or, is it a case of certain people with their own agendas trying to use the schools to change what they see as improper social views and norms? It was stated here that a former district administrator was involved...yet the Board was not. Does that raise any questions in terms of who is in charge?
This is why David Weigand and I believe we need a change on the Board and need to restore the proper "separation of powers" at the top. This is also why we are advocating a focus on our basic mission of education - something this program had nothing to do with. As a school district, we had no good reason to: 1) consider hosting a program like this, 2) waste administator's time and effort applying for a grant, or 3) involve former employees in current school business. Everyone wants to look at grant money as "free", but there are always strings attached. If our administrators have too much time on their hands, maybe we could just eliminate a position and skip the grant processing - rather than searching for more revenue, we could lower spending (and even reduce legacy costs!).
“Challenge Day” at West Bend High Schools will not be taking place... But because a nonrefundable deposit of $12,800 was been invested in the program...The district is obligated to reimburse the grant. “We are working with attorneys determining how to recapture our funds,” Neitzke said. “They are reviewing the contracts to see what our fiscal obligation is. Our goal is to limit the cost to taxpayers.” The experience has resulted in changes to internal protocol, Neitzke said.
OK, so the first obvious fact is that the taxpayers have been exposed to a liability for which we received nothing in return. This occurred because administrators assumed since it wasn't local tax money (it was the magic "grant" form of tax money), they didn't need to run it by the Board, even as a courtesy. At least this incident has reportedly prompted changes in the protocols that led us to this point. But then again, it could be that the administration didn't bother because they knew it would have been approved on a 7-0 vote anyway!
The bigger question I have is, "Who thought this was a good idea in the first place?" Who researched this Challenge Day outfit, read about their program and said, "We need to apply for a grant to run this at our high school!" Is our community so devoid of psychologists and counselors that our school administrators felt they needed to find a way to provide these services themselves? Or, is it a case of certain people with their own agendas trying to use the schools to change what they see as improper social views and norms? It was stated here that a former district administrator was involved...yet the Board was not. Does that raise any questions in terms of who is in charge?
This is why David Weigand and I believe we need a change on the Board and need to restore the proper "separation of powers" at the top. This is also why we are advocating a focus on our basic mission of education - something this program had nothing to do with. As a school district, we had no good reason to: 1) consider hosting a program like this, 2) waste administator's time and effort applying for a grant, or 3) involve former employees in current school business. Everyone wants to look at grant money as "free", but there are always strings attached. If our administrators have too much time on their hands, maybe we could just eliminate a position and skip the grant processing - rather than searching for more revenue, we could lower spending (and even reduce legacy costs!).
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
...and they're off...back to the race!
Comment in the West Bend News today: “I think it is very clear there are two sides of this debate,” said Corazzi. “There are two candidates who are committed to no tax increases and two candidates dedicated to maintaining quality education. The vote shows there are more people in the pro-education camp.”
Not surprising, there was Mr. Corazzi's thought process on display - he thinks that those who don't support more taxes and ever-increasing spending must be against "quality" education. Because, of course, if only we were able to spend an unlimited amount on schools, everything would be wonderful...darn those revenue caps!!
I, on the other hand, believe that a quality education has little to do with bricks-and-mortar, textbooks, equipment, complex education strategies, fashionable curriculum, or number of counselors available. What is important is finding ways to inspire students, develop life-long learners and raise expectations for individual success. These are things that do not have a price tag...they are character and personality traits that are instilled by parents and nurtured by our teachers. No amount of money can substitute for that development and no amount of spending can create it if it's missing. The Board simply needs to provide an acceptable environment to allow that process to take place.
For example, I believe the following ideas would improve our student's overall educational experience, without any additional spending:
Not surprising, there was Mr. Corazzi's thought process on display - he thinks that those who don't support more taxes and ever-increasing spending must be against "quality" education. Because, of course, if only we were able to spend an unlimited amount on schools, everything would be wonderful...darn those revenue caps!!
I, on the other hand, believe that a quality education has little to do with bricks-and-mortar, textbooks, equipment, complex education strategies, fashionable curriculum, or number of counselors available. What is important is finding ways to inspire students, develop life-long learners and raise expectations for individual success. These are things that do not have a price tag...they are character and personality traits that are instilled by parents and nurtured by our teachers. No amount of money can substitute for that development and no amount of spending can create it if it's missing. The Board simply needs to provide an acceptable environment to allow that process to take place.
For example, I believe the following ideas would improve our student's overall educational experience, without any additional spending:
- Simple Volunteerism - Encourage parents, grandparents, retired teachers to help out in the classroom...providing general assistance, help with projects, tutoring, etc.
- Real-life Experiences - Coordinate field trips or "internships" with local businesses to expose students to practical applications of what they are learning...especially those with direct classroom connections.
- Real-World Connections - Encourage students to explore what their parents, neighbors, relatives do for a living...and what kind of skills or continuing education are necessary to do the job.
- Career Exploration - Invite local people from a variety of businesses/occupations to share their knowledge and experience with students that may be interested in a particular field.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Responding to Mark Peterson
Earlier this week, the Daily News published my Letter to the Editor responding to last Saturday's column by Mark Peterson.
Mr. Peterson wrote, "So long as candidates don’t insist on teaching their religious views as science, no problem. I mean, imagine if a religiously committed School Board member, maybe one who worshipped the old Scandinavian gods, insisted we teach science students that lightning is caused by Thor swinging his hammer. Thor is not a scientific hypothesis and this fact, along with the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, explains why fundamentalist Christian beliefs (in the form of creationism and its slicker but equally unscientific little brother, “intelligent design”) have repeatedly been removed from public schools by the federal courts."
Based on a simple, for-or-against answer to a question, he tried to put me down along with other candidates, "Maybe Marquardt, Rakowski or Weigand won’t try to impose their religious views on the science curriculum, but let’stake them at their word: they think religious doctrines should be taught in a science class — even though pursuing thisagenda would land West Bend in federal court."
This was the question, as asked in the Eagle Forum questionnaire: "What is your position relative to teaching alternate theories of origins such as Intelligent Design and Creationism as an alternative, or in addition, to the theory of evolution to students in science classrooms? I am in favor or I am against."
The following is my explanation and response:
Once again, Mr. Peterson’s anti-religion bias shines forth in a column. I do agree with him that a candidate’s religious views should be of no interest in a school board race. Unfortunately, he does not see the fact that his own views on science are also clouded by religion…simply a version that chooses to view things from a humanist and god-less alternative perspective.
Mr. Peterson wrote, "So long as candidates don’t insist on teaching their religious views as science, no problem. I mean, imagine if a religiously committed School Board member, maybe one who worshipped the old Scandinavian gods, insisted we teach science students that lightning is caused by Thor swinging his hammer. Thor is not a scientific hypothesis and this fact, along with the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, explains why fundamentalist Christian beliefs (in the form of creationism and its slicker but equally unscientific little brother, “intelligent design”) have repeatedly been removed from public schools by the federal courts."
Based on a simple, for-or-against answer to a question, he tried to put me down along with other candidates, "Maybe Marquardt, Rakowski or Weigand won’t try to impose their religious views on the science curriculum, but let’stake them at their word: they think religious doctrines should be taught in a science class — even though pursuing thisagenda would land West Bend in federal court."
This was the question, as asked in the Eagle Forum questionnaire: "What is your position relative to teaching alternate theories of origins such as Intelligent Design and Creationism as an alternative, or in addition, to the theory of evolution to students in science classrooms? I am in favor or I am against."
The following is my explanation and response:
Once again, Mr. Peterson’s anti-religion bias shines forth in a column. I do agree with him that a candidate’s religious views should be of no interest in a school board race. Unfortunately, he does not see the fact that his own views on science are also clouded by religion…simply a version that chooses to view things from a humanist and god-less alternative perspective.
I did not intend to get into a theological discussion when I entered this race. Eagle Forum posed the question of teaching “alternate theories of origins…as an alternative, or in addition, to the theory of evolution.” I focused on the word “origins” because there are vast differences of scientific opinion as to the beginning of our world and the one that Mr. Peterson chooses to believe is no more factual or provable than the next, including creationism. While the scientific process of evolution is proven fact, extending it backwards to attempt to explain the origin of life requires equally as much faith as any other theory. Therefore, I do not support teaching one origin theory as fact over the next, and neither do I believe in censuring any of them. Intelligent Design simply allows that religious beliefs are not necessarily incompatible with known science. What we are supposed to be doing is opening young minds to all possibilities, especially where facts are not clearly defined.
As for the idea of common sense, maybe Mr. Peterson needs to come down from his ivory tower once in a while – to talk with regular folks rather than just mocking them. Belief in God and his creation is rather normal down here, as is upholding moral principles, free enterprise and personal responsibility…all virtues that he, and the intellectual class in general, has been trying to erode in the name of “progress”.
Signs are here!
My yard signs have arrived. Show your support for my candidacy - email me if you'd like one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
