Comments by myshortpencilPage 1 of 2 | Next Posted on August 24 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal) Mr. Strock, have you considered that perhaps there's another reason for NYC schools to under report violence in addition to avoiding a pejorative label? In 2007, Mayor Bloomberg signed a contract with the principals providing for a $25,000 troubled-school bonus and a $25,000 performance bonus, annually. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/nyregi... ). "The contract ... aligns the Principal Performance Review with the Department of Education’s new school accountability system, so that principals will be evaluated according to the same standards by which New York City schools are now measured" (News from the Blue Room, PR-122-07, April 23, 2007). I couldn't find a copy of the principals' contract online, not even at http://www.seethroughny.net/, but I'm guessing that one of the considerations for setting the amount of bonuses is the amount of violence in a principal's school. If that's true, then there's more than simple under reporting going on here. It's fraud--failing to report violent incidents for the purpose of receiving bigger bonuses. Given the reportedly large reduction of school violence in NYC this year, even as measured by police reports, it's not beyond the pale to consider that perhaps principals are deliberately failing to report incidents to both the police and to the education department. It's possible that what they previously called assaults are now being defined as unreportable disorderly conduct and handled in house. It's also possible that schools were over charging students before so they could pass of their discipline problems to the courts. See, "CRIME DIP AT SCHOOL" at http://www.myshortpencil.com/schooltalk/... Perhaps it's not the Education Dept. that should be looking into this matter, but the Comptroller and the Attorney General. Posted on June 29 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal) In today's world, with massive governmental powers of taxation and a military that has everything imaginable for its success and protection, it's very difficult to conceive of a time when the colonial and federal governments had relatively little power to collect revenues and even less ability to collect the taxes they did levy. The only practical way the states or the feds could quickly organize armed militias was if those being organized owned firearms in the first place. The very concept of a militia presumed a previously armed citizenry--one that was armed for self-protection, survival and hunting, not for the protection of a nation that didn't yet exist! If there were no individual right to keep arms, there could be no militias, or at least there would have been smaller and less well-armed versions of them. The governments simply didn't have the resources to fully arm the militias, and in fact, did a terrible job of keeping them fed and clothed, let alone armed. Posted on June 29 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal) Mr. Strock, I commend your indignity to Scalia's dicta that essentially supports the notion of a living constitution which can be amended on the fly by judicial fiat. As examples, you cite nods to the constitutionality of restricting gun ownership to sensible, law-abiding citizens and prohibiting the bearing of weapons in schools and government buildings. Whenever justices perceive that an unamended, strict interpretation of an ancient provision of the constitution would create something analogous to a suicide pact in the context of modern society, they uniformly and nearly unanimously vote to doctor the language to avoid undesirable consequences rather than hold fast to the document and insist that modifications come through the amendment processes provided in the constitution. This too-frequent practice is often justified by urgent needs, which sometimes exist but more often are dreamed up by justices with big egos desiring to be esteemed as indispensable saviors of the nation. But your indignity of the core holding that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right independent of membership in a militia is folly. Imagine what pioneers or frontiersmen would have said in 1800 if you, Mr. Strock, had told them as the governor of a state or territory that unless they (men only) had active membership in a militia that trained monthly they (men only) could keep and bear firearms only with state permission and only if they stored the firearms so they could not be used instantaneously for self-defense. Why, Mr. Strock, you'd be ridiculed and labeled as one of those feeble-minded sorts dispossessed of their right to bear arms today. The laws didn't state the right to bear arms was an individual right any more than they stated that marriage was only between a man and a woman. Both were so deeply entrenched in the culture that no one could imagine that anything different could possibly exist in the future. It's kind of like the right of columnists to make moronic comments destructive to a sound understanding of liberty. The right isn't explicitly stated anywhere because its daily repetitions are so much a part of society that no one can imagine anything different. I commend your continuing endeavors to preserve this implicit right for generations to come. I am, your greatest friend, Posted on June 20 at 2:20 a.m. (Suggest removal) Eureka! Mr. Strock and Mr. McMahon each get an A+. Educators don't want to have to compete with other government functions for funding any more than they have to. The more they have to compete, the slower the growth in spending. I've been working on a project, in part, to prove this very point. The Schenectady County Public Library has an important educational role and it is run by master-degreed librarians. Its public function is as close to being a school as you can get without actually being a school. It's a labor-intensive organization, with 70% to 84% of its budget going to employee salaries and benefits over the past 38 years. Importantly, the library is funded by the county tax levy, not by its own levy. The library budget has been 3.73%, or less, of the total county budget for the past 38 years, falling to its lowest level of 1.96% just this year. So, what happens when a master-degreed, educational service has to compete with other governmental priorities? My 1970-2008 graphic that answers this question is at While Scotia-Glenville's school spending has significantly increased from a low of $26.6 million to its current $46 million, library spending has remained practically unchanged, ranging from $4.9 million to $5.9 million and currently at $5.5 million. The per capita spending for the library has ranged from $31 to $39 over the 38-year period, while per capita school spending has ranged from $926 to its current high of nearly $1,600, despite serving 40% fewer students than it did in 1970. The more directly public schools have to compete with others for government funding, the less they get. And that tells you one of the most effective ways to slow the inflation-busting growth of school spending. On Tax cap Posted on May 19 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal) What could we say about a government that believes it must tell its citizens what to eat and where to eat it from? Can there be any limit to the powers of government if this is so? Why isn't the Gazette advocating for nutrition education, economic awareness, and personal choice and responsibility as a solution rather than promoting a coerced, one-size-fits-all, debilitating imposition of government power? What’s most important isn’t that people eat right and buy locally, but that they learn through personal education and experience to make wise choices. This pathway strengthens the nation. The other weakens it. On Editorial: Healthy program for farmers, kids and taxpayers Posted on May 17 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal) The edited version of my letter was a little less precise than I generally prefer. The second paragraph of my letter originally read: "After the budget hearing, an audience of 13 heard seven-minute statements from the three board candidates running for three seats. Our newest board member will be a $94,000, Guilderland assistant principal, whose wife happens to be a $55,000 Scotia-Glenville teacher, according to 2006-07 state Education Department data. They received raises of 7.3% and 4.6%, respectively, over their 2005-06 salaries. Of our six other board members, two are teachers, one is the son of a retired superintendent and one is the brother-in-law of a Scotia-Glenville teacher." Sheree, I agree that board diversity is key. That's one reason why I've run for the school board 8 times in the past decade. See http://www.myshortpencil.com/schooltalk/... Sometimes a majority of voters voted for me, but I still lost every time. (Lots of people don't understand how that can be true, but in school board elections it can happen). Nonetheless, 2009 is looking like another good year for a run. As Sir Winston Churchill one said, "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." Jerry Moore Posted on May 2 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal) PART TWO What to do? Around October 2006, the county Legislature approved a $7.7 million, 9,000-square-foot expansion that eliminated a proposed second entrance but retained a newly designed entrance with an expanded lobby and a small cafe. The Gazette reported, "The county Legislature is expected to provide $5.7 million toward the cost of the project, paid through bonds. The library board and Friends of the Library have raised approximately $2 million. . . . The work would be performed in phases, which would allow the library to remain open during most of the construction" (Lamendola, October 4, 2006: "Library improvements advance - Scaled-down expansion likely to get county's OK"). Unfortunately, the new entrance called for the demolition of the cherished McChesney Room, which the original plans did not. The Schenectady Heritage Foundation's Board of Directors unanimously passed a resolution "supporting all efforts to preserve the present award-winning, architectural integrity" of the library (Lamendola, April 14, 2007: "Group aims to save McChesney Room - $7.7 million library renovation includes planned demolition"). That brings us to May 2008. There's been no construction. Many pledged donations have been revoked. People are dissatisfied over the design and highly dissatisfied with the 18-month proposed closure during construction. The 24,000 square-feet we could have gotten for around $8 million in 2000 has been reduced to 9,000 square-feet in 2008. What does it mean? Who are the heroes? The villains? What should be done now? I won't be so pretentious as to tell you, but I do envy Rip Van Winkle's talent for eliminating his problems by sleeping for decades in the Catskill Mountains. Posted on May 2 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal) PART ONE On May 6, 2001, Gazette reporter Marilyn Hipp reported that a 24,000 square-foot expansion to the main library would cost $8.3 million, based on a December 1999 consultant's report. "The plan include[d] a two-story addition, which would house a children's library and a nonfiction collection, and would free up much-needed space." By 2005, the library expansion was whittled down to a one-story, 12,000 square-foot project costing $4.9 million, of which the county Legislature agreed to contribute $2 million. In "Library kicks off expansion campaign" (Michael Lamendola, February 25, 2004), we read: . . . "Work is scheduled to begin during the summer of 2005 and be completed by the winter of 2006. "It will contain a 5,750-square-foot children's center, a 750-square-foot section for young adults, a 170-seat performance center, a 1,000-square-foot gallery and space that can be used to tutor students and for quiet reading." Around 2004, the county Legislature decided it wanted to control the library's expansion plans. It hired a new architectural firm and substantially redesigned the proposal for a 15,000 square-foot expansion costing $7.7 million. A coffee shop and outdoor dining area were added, as were new furniture, lighting, and a new heating system (Lamendola, December 7, 2005: "Cost for library grows to $7.7M - Original project didn't include many items now listed"). By March 2006 it appeared that the repair and expansion project would require a fire-control sprinkler system at an unknown cost (Lamendola, March 17, 2006: "Library renovation costs continue to rise - Building may need a fire-control sprinkler system"). Posted on May 2 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal) PART TWO What to do? Around October 2006, the county Legislature approved a $7.7 million, 9,000-square-foot expansion that eliminated a proposed second entrance but retained a newly designed entrance with an expanded lobby and a small cafe. The Gazette reported, "The county Legislature is expected to provide $5.7 million toward the cost of the project, paid through bonds. The library board and Friends of the Library have raised approximately $2 million. . . . The work would be performed in phases, which would allow the library to remain open during most of the construction" (Lamendola, October 4, 2006: "Library improvements advance - Scaled-down expansion likely to get county's OK"). Unfortunately, the new entrance called for the demolition of the cherished McChesney Room, which the original plans did not. The Schenectady Heritage Foundation's Board of Directors unanimously passed a resolution "supporting all efforts to preserve the present award-winning, architectural integrity" of the library (Lamendola, April 14, 2007: "Group aims to save McChesney Room - $7.7 million library renovation includes planned demolition"). That brings us to May 2008. There's been no construction. Many pledged donations have been revoked. People are dissatisfied over the design and highly dissatisfied with the 18-month proposed closure during construction. The 24,000 square-feet we could have gotten for around $8 million in 2000 has been reduced to 9,000 square-feet in 2008. What does it mean? Who are the heroes? The villains? What should be done now? I won't be so pretentious as to tell you, but I do envy Rip Van Winkle's talent for eliminating his problems by sleeping for decades in the Catskill Mountains. Page 1 of 2 | Next |
Advertisement
|
November 23, 2008
Posted on August 24 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
On second thought, perhaps the principal bonus plan has focused the attention of principals on reducing school violence, and perhaps they've been successful. If that's the case, they are getting paid more to do what they neglected to do before. Increasing the pay of public workers to end their neglect is poor public policy, but what else can you do to workers protected by contractual rules that make firings prohibitively expensive?
On Dangerous schools?