GilfordGrok

• better than the MSM with all but those 55 of age or older.
• rate pretty much higher than our Senators and Congress folks too.

This has been at Dale's site for a while (it is clickable).  The link goes to a piece by Kathleen Parker - a columnist I generally like to read.  In this column, however, she does take a slap at at bloggers (those upstart ruffians that dare defy the normal journalistic apprenticeship process!).

Heh!  One must graduate from a J-school and spend years learning a craft in order to ever put fingers to keyboard?  Many of the elite MSM do share her outlook. What they haven't realized is that this relatively new technology is one that can be classified as a true disruptive technology - one that changes the landscape of either an industry or makes it irrelevant (and no, I am not saying that it is the latter - but look what automobiles and trains did to horses in the transportation industry, or oil did to whale hunting).

However, upon reading what she wrote, the implication that journalists are automatically better and more professional, I think of the recent event when the Editors of the New York Times (supposedly la creme de la creme of the print journalism where articles are protected by "layers of fact checkers and editors"), declared that the most famous part of the Declaration of Independence is actually part of the Constitution  :

It is an eminently good thing that the anti-suicide measure would require medical specialists to keep track of veterans found to be high risks for suicide. But that’s to care for them as human beings, under that other constitutional right — to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Respect for the grave sacrifices by veterans requires the Senate to strike down the Coburn ploy and hurry this vital measure to President Bush.

(H/T: The American Pundit via Instapundit) 

Heh...which amendment in the Bill of Rights is happiness? 

J-School eh?  Most soldiers, fresh out of high school, know that simple difference.  I bet most elementary school kids know this (at least I would hope so).

More can be seen here of journalistic "mis-conduct" (and remember Jason Blair of the NYT?).  However, it goes without saying, and reverse paraphrasing from Technorati, "with 94 million blogs, some will not be good either".  Yes, there is stupidity on both sides.

For a more even handed treatment of blogs (and a bit of history that I was not aware of), try this....and you decide.

Posted by Skip at 09:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This is your chance to join a movement that will change Washington. Your chance to make yourself heard.

You, your family, and your neighbors are invited.
After all, it's their future, too...

Join us for free refreshments, spirited discussion,

and a few surprises.

Reservations requested but not required

Posted by Skip at 08:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

...in Laconia (so far) and has for quite some time in Franklin.  Nashua has one, Dover is looking at it hard.  Yet, if it works for Cities, why not towns?  Where the Cities have Charters that cast it in stone (legally), it could be done at the Town level as long as there is the leadership to promote and guide it through the budgetary process.  Hey, even the Selectmen in Meredith have at least raised the possibility of a "voluntary" Tax Cap...so there may well be merit to it.

While the following is also posted over at GraniteGrok for other purposes (we want Ken to win!), I would ask you to listen to the interview that we did.

His main message?  Keep the tax cap whole in Franklin.  Why?  It protects taxpayer monies and forces the city's managers and leaders to think hard and come up with creative solutions.  And it has worked well, giving rise to a growth in the State that is well managed and among the fastest in the state.  We wish him well and good success in the upcoming race!

Anyways, he promotes the case for a tax cap and why it makes sense better than I do:

Ken on Tax Caps

Posted by Skip at 08:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 10:04 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Click here for more cool pictures.

Posted by Doug at 09:53 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From the Citizen:

Gilford Workers to pay towards insurance

Just days away from taking up Gilford's 2008 budget, the Board of Selectmen announced a policy change based on discussions about town employee benefits with the budget committee last year.

By July 1, 2008, all town employees will be contributing to their health insurance costs. Currently non-union town employees hired before July 1, 2004, pay nothing toward their health insurance but, after July 1, they will begin paying 2.5 percent of the total cost.

Huzzahs for the Selectmen and Administration...

From the Sun (not online)

In a statement the Selectmen reaffirmed that the policy with respect to wages and benefits was the perogative of the board, not the Budget Committee, by declaring that "the Board of Selectmen will continue to review their policy concerning wages and benefits on an annual basis".  Grant said that the board would "absolutely not" change its policy on wages and benefits in the course of the budget process.

Town Administrator Evans Juris agree. "I don't see the board moving from the position it has taken," he said.

A stake in the ground....but still, progress...thanks!

Posted by Skip at 08:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From the Gilford Steamer:

First-year committee member Dale Dormody said that he hoped the same level of decorum was maintained "outside the meeting room as well as inside."

Same as he's said before - all but a campaign promise...and the result is? 

From the Citizen:

"The long and short is I am here to ask you for more time to allow for the staffing of the energy committee," said Dale Dormody.

"I think you have put the cart before the horse, when the selectmen have not adopted the committee," said Alice Boucher, chair of the Board of Selectmen, adding, "We are the three that will decide when and how the committee will be formed."

...but back to saying how he wishes to have things run...before he runs for it...

Requesting at least 30 more days for applications to be received, Dormody also raised some points about weaknesses he found with the board's attempt to solicit applicants.

...he found fault with the BudCom during the campaign...now finding fault with the Selectmen?

Naw, he must have been misquoted.  Let's find out from his website:

The three Selectmen - Gus Benavides, Connie Grant, and Alice Boucher - apparently felt that the applications received to date met this standard, though it is unclear whether their decisions were based on any personal knowledge of the applicants and their qualifications.

Committee members, as chosen by the Board of Selectmen, are: Doug Lambert, Chan Eddy, Howard Epstein, Gino Crecco, Bill Knightly, and Patrick McKenna.

Guess not - another possible swipe at the Selectmen?  Doesn't seem like he likes those appointed so far by the Board either...

Question - how does he know that the applicants DON'T meet the criteria?  Has he asked? Psst...try putting in an application first.... might increase credibility.....

"There seems to be some hesitation for people to put their heads above the line because some boards out there, who shall remain nameless, have been somewhat contemptuous in the past," said Dormody, in a veiled reference to disputes among members of the budget committee.

...now casting aspersions towards his fellow BudComm members?

Kinda sounds divisive to me...

Posted by Skip at 07:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Kudos to the Selectmen!

Posted by Doug at 05:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dale Dormody, apparent defender of all things government in Gilford, and spouse of the library director, signs a petition calling for the vitual elimination of the municipal budget committee.

Dale Dormody, after calling for the Budcom's elimination, reads the tea leaves and decides to cover his odds by throwing his hat in the ring for a seat on the same committee he wishes to all but eradicate after some fifty years as a part of Gilford's town government.

Dale wins the recount after finishing tied with newcomer Terry Stewart.

Doug Lambert submits proposal to selectmen asking for the creation of an energy committee as a result of the passage of Warrant Article #30 at the March Annual Town Meeting. It is mostly based upon the recommendations provided by the Carbon Coalition- the very group behind the movement that wrote the wording for the global warming initiative.

Dale Dormody, sensing some looming energy-related improvements and policy suggestions for the town and schools, apparently decides this won't do, and sets out on a course to derail the committee, submitting suggestions about such a committee that runs counter to what nearly every other forward thinking town and city in NH are doing. He hands in a letter to the Alice Boucher- "led" Board of Selectmen, calling for its dilution and, wanting it to, instead of looking inward at the government's facilities and energy-usage practices, somehow dictate to private citizens what THEY should do to save energy, thus sparing his beloved government from any real change.

The Selectmen, wanting, as always, to avoid any and all controversy and real decision-making, decided to punt. As a result of Dale's handywork, the Selecmen's support of the idea of an energy committee became obviously lukewarm at best. Thanks Dale!

Due to, in my opinion, the lack of direction and open support on the part of the Selecmen, interest in serving on the committee appeared to evaporate.

It looked like the concept of an energy committee for Gilford- one dedicated to conserving energy and protecting the environment, was DOA.

The papers again called for volunteers, and surely several phone calls were made, and suddenly, more people stepped forward. Things were starting to look better for the formation of the group.

And then... guess what? Yep-- enter Dale Dormody. Just like he was against the Budcom before he decided he wanted to be on it, now he wants to be on the energy committee too.

I continue to oppose the appointment of Dormody to this committee. That's not what Gilford needs now. We need committed people willing to do the hard work required to make Gilford as clean and energy efficient as can be!

Posted by Doug at 01:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Once again, NH Department of Education info summarizing the cost per pupil at the overall District level It shows, relative to the State average, Gilford is 31.9% higher in per pupil costing at the overall District level with 154 reporting Districts. 

The entire chart is after the break - for brevity, only the first 20 are here. Entire chart after the jump.

Districts Ranked by Descending Cost Per Pupil, District Level

(All State, irrespective of District Size)

Districts Ranked by Descending Cost Per Pupil, District Level

(All State, irrespective of District Size)

Posted by Skip at 05:38 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

NH Department of Education info: Relative to the State average, Gilford is 40.3% higher in per pupil costing at the High School level with 154 reporting Districts. 

The entire chart is after the break - for brevity, only the first 20 are here.

Districts Ranked by Descending Cost Per Pupil, High School

(All State, irrespective of District Size)

Districts Ranked by Descending Cost Per Pupil, High School

(All State, irrespective of District Size)

Posted by Skip at 05:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

NH Department of Education info: It shows, relative to the State average, Gilford is 25.3% higher in per pupil costing at the Middle School level with 154 reporting Districts. 

The entire chart is after the break - for brevity, only the first 20 are here.

Districts Ranked by Descending Cost Per Pupil, Middle School

(All State, irrespective of District Size)

Posted by Skip at 05:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

NH Department of Education has a report on the cost per pupil for each District.  It was interesting to see how Gilford placed on each ranking. It shows, relative to the State average, Gilford is 37.1% higher in per pupil costing at the Elementary level with 154 reporting Districts. 

The entire chart is after the break - for brevity, only the first 23 are here.

Districts Ranked by Descending Cost Per Pupil, Elementary School

(All State, irrespective of District Size)

Districts Ranked by Descending Cost Per Pupil, Elementary School

(All State, irrespective of District Size)

Posted by Skip at 05:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In my last post, I compared the results of 2006 to that of 2007.  In essence, the results showed a mixed result - not in terms of one year good, another bad but rather that there were ups and downs depending on the school and the subject matter.  The overall summary?  Essentially, depending on the school or the subject matter, between 23% and 30% of Gilford's elementary school students are less than proficient (see after the jump

The part that I did want to review was how Gilford performs with respect to the State as a whole.  After all, one of the purposes of NCLB is to allow comparisons to be made between schools using standardized measurements.

This was good to see:   

While having the actual numbers would have been helpful, it shows that while Gilford has less teachers with Masters than the overall State average, more have additional qualifications.  A good thing!

So, how did Gilford stack up academically with respect to the AYP scores?

Roughly, the Elementary School is a couple percentage points better than the State overall (proficient or better) in Reading, a percent better in Math.

Looks like the Middle School did about 7 percentage points better in Reading (proficient or better), around 6 points overall better in Math and much better in Writing (10 points)!

Posted by Skip at 03:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 07:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Snapshots are good as...snapshots.  Context is provided by incorporating time.  While two years does not give a lot more context than one, it sometimes can be better than one.

You decide about Gilford's results.

Posted by Skip at 10:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE: 2006 info after the break

--------------------------------------- 

Well, it was nice to see that Gilford's schools made Adequate Yearly Progress.  However, as I noted, not all the numbers looked great.  Going back, I took a bit deeper look at them (hey, it's Labor Day weekend!) for both the Elementary School and the Middle School.  I was going to do the High School, but that seems to be geared to simple graduation rates (see server outage below).

Last time I knew, as long as "grading on the curve" was not in force, something in the 70s was a C.  And for those that might question that conclusion, I did include the Educational Disability Group as there are many that object to that group's inclusion into the overall stats for a given school. 

More later (like the 2006 numbers - one should really judge within the context of a timeline) - when the Department of Education's servers come back up (sigh.....technology!).

Posted by Skip at 08:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

GilfordGrok is our local blog - we generally try to keep posts specific to Gilford and the surrounding areas...after all, there's generally lots to comment upon!  However, this caught my eye from Instapundit observing what is going on in Massachusetts.

At InstaPundit:

DEATH SPIRAL: Property tax bills soar as services fall. This is the inevitable result of a bloated and inefficient public sector. I doubt that Deval Patrick will do anything much to de-bloat it, though.

UPDATE: Heh.

The first link goes to Boston.com, the online presence of The Boston Globe (the power of linked Internet!):

Residential property taxes rose an average of $161 in cities and towns across the state in the past fiscal year, as home assessments hit historic highs despite declining market values.

[snip]

Since 2000, property taxes have shot up nearly 50 percent, from $2,679, far outpacing gains in wages, which climbed 30 percent statewide over the same period, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Over the past seven years, the average annual property tax hikes for homeowners have ranged from about $150 to nearly $215.

You know, the above would be a great research project for here in Gilford.  Given that I have seen math projects around the idea of "social justice" themes, I wonder if any of Gilford's math classes would conduct a research project around the idea of "taxpayer contributions"?

Continuing on to InstaPundit's HEH (almost a trademark symbol of "this is funny!") was this at Charlie Foxtrot:

I did like the hidden factoid in this paragraph, can you find it?

"Since 2000, property taxes have shot up nearly 50 percent, from $2,679, far outpacing gains in wages, which climbed 30 percent statewide over the same period, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Over the past seven years, the average annual property tax hikes for homeowners have ranged from about $150 to nearly $215."

What? Wages have increased?? By 30% since Bush took office????? I thought that wages were stagnant or falling. Isn't this the main premise of "The Two Americas"?

Somebody call John Edwards...

Note: 

Posted by Skip at 08:52 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)