GilfordGrok

During a recent Budget Committee (BC) meeting I walked in at the 11^th hour and voted “NO” on recommending the proposed lacrosse warrant article. There was quite a bit of whispering from the usual suspects who were not pleased with my vote. How could I possibly be prepared to vote if I didn’t hear the forty minute discussion? Was I informed? Why did I hurry a two hour drive to the Atlanta airport, pay an extra $50 for a earlier flight and drive as fast as I legally could from Boston to cast my “no” vote?

The proposed warrant article was written and distributed back in November. Immediately upon seeing the warrant article back in November, I found out that the lacrosse program was requesting full funding from the tax payers. To refresh everyone’s memory, football wasn’t widely supported until the program agreed to offset a significant portion of the program through fundraising. I have always strongly believed that fundraising is part of the educational process in teaching children the value of something while building character and team work skills. The proposal also includes plenty of “stipend” money for the coaches, which I have always opposed. Not to mention that it’s well known that the lacrosse team completely refuses to help the football team maintain the field in which they both share.  

I’m actually stunned this budget request garnished any “yes” votes but there are those BC members that have yet to meet any spending proposals they don’t like. The big surprise however was a “yes” vote from John O’Brien, who represents the Selectmen. That means an automatic second “yes” vote from BC member Phyllis Corrigan because she parrots his votes. The reason his vote surprised me is because he expressed a great deal of concern over the school budget. Mrs. Corrigan’s vote makes no sense because she once fought for more focus on academics, believing the sports programs were more than sufficient. Their votes make absolutely no sense toward fiscal responsibility.

If there ever was a spending item that represented “spending just for the sake of spending”, this one would be the poster child! It’s not like the Gilford school district is lacking in a wide variety of electives. Gilford students have more than enough extracurricular choices to keep them engaged in school; some would say too many. Every BC member also knows the additional hidden costs for these programs such as, administration costs, field maintenance and escalating insurance premiums. Once all the “non discretionary” spending is accounted for, the sports programs account for about 30% of the discretionary spending. If you add the administration cost, it moves closer to 40%. Adding another sports program to the overall budget is nothing short of completely irresponsible.  

The school district has been very fortunate these past few years with teacher retirements, staff reductions and some debt retirement. That gravy train has come to an end. The non discretionary spending increases will no longer offset staff reductions and the student population will soon bottom out. If Gilford experiences any catastrophes such as emergency building problems, health insurance increases, new playing field needs and you have the making for huge spikes in the school budget. Is it any wonder why the Superintendant’s office is expressing serious concern toward future budgets?  

Given that back drop, how could anyone possibly support adding yet another program to the school budget? This has nothing to do with Lacrosse but one of fiscal responsibility. It’s time for the voters to say “enough is enough”.

Posted by Terry S. at 11:20 AM | Permalink

From the Steamer (12/10/09, p10) is this quote from Dr. DiMinico

There is no question that our students need to acquire knowledge from the traditional 3Rs—Reading, Writing and Arithmetic; but the traditional 3Rs alone will not guarantee success for the 21st century.  Many current researchers in education and in business have suggested that a new set of 3Rs needs to be considered when readying students for their universities, their careers and for their lives in general. They are Rigor, Relevance and Respectful Relationships.

No, but it certainly would help if students could MASTER the traditional three Rs first before moving to a second set. I think that advice would certainly be truthful for this trio of young adults (would you consider them "well educated" and knowledgable?).

As far as our high school students are concerned, do these signify that they are ready to graduate to the "advanced 3Rs"?

Just saying that Gilford Students are "less bad" is not a defense.  And it didn't get any better this year either:

Worse, year over year.

Shall we try Science, anyone?

Worse, year over year. Again.

My question is, why are these numbers NOT in the Steamer?  These were obtained from the NH Department of Education (I'll post the full results later on, as I have in the past) - they are publicly available.  Why are we paying more than the state average for less?

Reading, 'Riting, and 'Rithmatic - not looking good at all.  Looking at those marks for Proficient or Better, when did we decide as a Town that 40% was acceptable?  Or 34%? 

Methinks that perhaps that master of the first set of Rs might be well in order before we get to the next set.  Wouldn't that be Relevant to achievement and Respectful to the taxpayers?

Posted by Skip at 12:37 PM | Permalink

Dear Editor:

I recently read an article where Paul DeMinico [Superintendent, Gilford, NH SAU  -Skip] argued in favor of adopting the International Baccalaureate Program.  He seemed to be arguing against the many controversial issues that plague this program.  It's as if he simply cannot admit that this program comes with baggage.  Cost being one of those obstacles.

In these tough economic time, it's wise for taxpayers to look closely at any spending program.  This one should not be excluded from scrutiny.
 
This program does come at a hefty cost to taxpayers.  This is one of the main reasons Bow residents refused to allow the program in that district.

On top of the costs is the agenda of this program.  All one has to do is visit the IB web site to see that they promote a United Nations agenda within the program.  This isn't a conspiracy, they happily tell you this at their web site.
 
If Dr. DeMinico visits this site, he will read where IB states:

"The new syllabus, for which students will first sit exams in 2011, is designed to encompass the United Nations' millennium development goals, particularly those concerning poverty reduction, gender equality, improvements in health and education, and environmental sustainability." 

"Students must evaluate progress towards UN goals and take a close look at major global issues including population migration, global warming, biodiversity and resource availability."

Clearly the IB program does not shy away from using the classroom to advance the political agenda of the United Nations.

Given the fact that the IB was developed by individuals who promote a leftist agenda and given the fact that the UN is considered to be a leftist political organization, does anyone actually think that this program will refrain from politically indoctrinating students?

The NAEP (National Assessment) recently showed about half of our 4th and 8th grade students were NOT proficient in basic math.  The NECAP science proficiency scores were also recently released and the findings were troublesome.

The last thing we need to do is shift more education to indoctrination.  In fact, instead of promoting expensive political indoctrination programs, it would seem logical to instead use that money on the students who are failing in the core academic subjects.  
 
It is through education that our students will be able to compete in a global market, not through more political indoctrination.
 
Sincerely,
Ann Marie

Ann Marie Banfield is a mathematics expert and education standards activist residing in New Hampshire

(cross posted at GraniteGrok)

Posted by Skip at 08:31 AM | Permalink

Mary Grabar, over at Pajamas Media, has an interesting piece on Barack Obama's pal (and former Weatherman) Bill Ayers:

In To Teach, Ayers lists a number of “myths” about teaching. Number four is “Good teachers always know the materials.” Such an assertion flies in the face of research that indicates that knowledge is the most important quality of the teacher when it comes to student achievement. But when education majors take classes like “Education and Cultural Diversity” and “Introduction to Social Justice Education,” as they do at a major Atlanta university, little time is left to focus on subject areas.

Indeed, the model is the 1960s “freedom schools,” those schools that Stokely Carmichael taught in and whom Ayers references. In To Become a Teacher, Ayers repeats nostrums like “classrooms should honor diversity truly and fully,” and that children should “co-construct values” and be exposed to “community engagement and involvement.” In the collection Teaching for Social Justice, Ayers includes a piece by Rashid Khalidi, the pro-Palestinian professor who helped Barack Obama get into Columbia. In the suggested reading, amid offerings by Howard Zinn, Jonathan Kozol, and other left-wing ideologues, Ayers presents Obama’s Dreams from My Father.

A survey reveals what those of us in the academy already know: “the proportion of professors who believe it is very important to teach undergraduates to become ‘agents of social change’ is substantially larger than the proportion who believe it is important to teach students the classic works of Western civilization.”

And it seems that education colleges are churning out teachers more concerned with being “agents of social change” than the three “R”s. Little wonder, then, that Ayers’ book is being reissued as a graphic novel. Little wonder that student groups sponsored Ayers’ visit on March 5 to the University of Colorado to speak in defense of ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill, who was fired for plagiarism and not for calling 9/11 victims “little Eichmanns.” We can thank their teachers for planting in their heads notions about “social change” that would lead to their ignorantly calling the event “Forbidden Education and the Rise of NeoMcCarthyism.”

So, if parents demanded webcams for the classrooms to see what their taxpayer money was funding, would they find American Exceptionalism being taught, Bill Ayer's philosophy, or something in the middle? If asked, what would be the response to "Do parents have that right?"

In the recently released 2008 Annual Report Card, we are seeing more about IB - what is its core philosophy and what is that history? Does it match up with more with what we with grey hair remember as the fundamentals, or what we see in the above snippet? 

I continue look at the NECAP scores and wonder....

Posted by Skip at 10:02 PM | Permalink

"Howe said that this was the first time in his 30-plus years at The Citizen that the paper had been kept away from the site of a major news story for so long."

And THAT is the big story at the moment involving the flood damage at the new Gilford Middle School. As reported by the Citizen in both news stories and a blog posting by Citizen Editor and General Manager John Howe, the news media has been banned from being able to view the interior of the building and the damage caused by last weekend's pipe failure. This is noteworthy for several reasons, number one of which is the question posed in the headline of this post--

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

After all, what is the big deal of letting the local newspapers get a glimpse of both the damages and the no-doubt good work being conducted by the contractors doing the cleanup? Why would the administration and school board endure such negative publicity over a simple accident?

Or was it an accident? Here are my questions:

• Was there any foul play involved-- either involving students, or employees? Is there a way to keep track of who comes and goes and when?

• What kind of pipe broke, anyway? Was it a supply pipe, or a sprinkler system pipe-- you know, what they want to force into new home and biz building construction with the onorous new fire code they're pushing in next week's vote? (Article 8-- VOTE NO!!!!) And how could tens of thousands of gallons of water get unleashed without some sort of alarm activation?

• How DID the pipe break? Was it frozen? Did it get banged? Was crap being stored in a manner that could damage piping? (A look through the windows visible from the outside  facing the sports fields has long revealed piles of junk, paper, and other unsightly bric-a-brac.) Could something have fallen over? Was shoddy workmanship involved? Pipes don't normally just break.

• What is the normal security and inspection process for this facility? Given it's the most valuable piece of real estate the Town owns, and that it is supposed to serve as a public shelter in the event of emergencies, shouldn't regular rounds be performed?

• Why were the computers ON THE FLOOR? And, as reported by the media, CARPETED FLOORS at that. As a member of the committee that came up with the plan for the renovation/construction of this facility, I distinctly recall the major dust-up we had over carpeting in computer labs. Why are these particular rooms carpeted? So the Technology coordinator can wear her flip-flops? According to my son, who attends Bishop Brady, the computers in their labs are all suspended below the workdesks, providing for safety from flooding above, or water on the floor. Probably they care more about their stuff there than we do at our government school-- after all, Gilford purchases sh*tloads of computers year after year with little argument. Why take care of 'em when we'll always get more?

John Howe, writing in his blog is dead-on regarding this issue:

we were denied access to the building, and have been forced to shoot pictures only on the outside. I contacted the Superintendent of Schools personally, and was told we are not entitled to gain access at this time. He said there would be a press conference on Friday.

This does not settle well with the newspaper because we believe the public has a right to know and a right to see what it looks like now, not after it has been cleaned up.

There may be initial concerns about safety, but after three days, that can't possibly be the problem any more. Having been at reporting for 30 years, I've never seen anything like this. Our motivation is to help voters know what is happening in their community.

Indeed. keep up the good work, John. Inquiring minds want to know. After all, it's OUR building that we are PAYING for. We have a right to know...

Posted by Doug at 09:14 AM | Permalink

Hmm, things seem have changed, eh?

Citizen: 1/6/09

School Board members and the selectmen discussed the possibility of relocating the SAU offices that currently are in the Gilford Town Hall basement. The School Board has budgeted $74,000 for the upcoming year to move the offices.

Last year, the SAU had to temporarily move to a section of the elementary school while repairs were being done to the ceiling of the SAU offices.

"The best-case scenario would be to have a place before Town Meeting in March," Town Administrator Scott Dunn said. "We're keeping in mind the best interest of the school district. We are not throwing anyone out."

Citizen: 1/15/09

Selectmen have decided to hold off on recommending the renewal of the SAU lease agreement with the town until after March's Town Meeting. The board felt that there is too much going on right now and they felt that a few items on the ballot need to be voted on before proceeding with the lease.

1/22/09, School Board meeting at GES concerning the budget and its impact on staffing and locations (which I attended)

paraphrased: "we got a letter today saying that the lease for the SAU is not going to be renewed..."

Well, THAT progression didn't take long, did it? I think that Joe Wernig et al are going to have their knickers all in a knot over this one.

The problem is that space on the municipal side IS a big problem - I support the moving of the heavy files / Planning Dept down to the lowest level so that we don't have the same problem of the roof starting to crack (which forced a temp move of the SAU) return anytime soon.  Which does leave the SAU in a bit of a bind.

Last year, Joe was one of the most vocal protesters against the warrant that would have enabled the SAU offices to move to the Elementary school - it seemed that a lot of the teachers there did not want their management in the building either.  Lots of reasons were actually given, but my personal belief still remains - it seems that the staff wanted to tell the management what was going to happen, and when that happened, people got riled up 

Sidebar: hmm, sounds familiar!  Am I starting to sound like Terry?  Good - I hope I am.  Frankly, I am in complete agreement with Terry with his current series on the School side of the budget process.  We pay REALLY GOOD bucks for Management to manage - their staff, while being allowed input (and from Thursday nite's meeting, certainly seems that they have been given that opportunity - and more!)

Look, the SAU needs to move.  I also believe that the SAU should move to the "educational" campus and use the now available space within GES - either up or down, although I'm betting that the first floor will be better for ADA compliance (no elevator will be needed). NO, the SAU should not move to the old library building (I still think it should go back to the heirs and [ha!] I still want my chainsaw out of that race car!).

And NO, the SAU should not be moved to other quarters outside what is already owned by the Town.  While it sounds good in theory, I don't want to extra expense. Sure, there is a line item to pay "rent" to the Town, so some might say "hey, it's already budgeted!".

OK, call me cheap - right now, looking upward as a taxpayer supporting both the SAU and the Town, the money collected from me via the school tax is merely an accounting action - it goes right to the town and (every so slightly) lowers the tax I pay on that side of the ledger. Basically, it stays within the system. Moving the SAU to Village West (as was mentioned during the meeting) means an outflow of real money.

And for those of you who are complaining that "hey, we rejected the Warrant last year, and this year the budgeted cost is higher!".  Well, decisions have consequences, and those that did not want that Article to pass are now having all of us pay the piper even more.  Decisions have consequences, and hindsight now says you made the wrong one in stirring up a no vote.

I echo Doug's position and actually demand more - what IS the official teachers' union stance on this?  Are they willing to make it public?

OFFER: I'm offering an invite for the teachers' union leadership to come on Meet The New Press and layout, publicly, their stance on the SAU move.  And the SAU Budget!  And the wind down of the staffing levels!

For the record - right NOW, I support the SAU move.  And the SAU Budget. And the staffing decline. And the CBA for the teachers.

For right now.

I do not speak for the Budget Committee or the other members.  I will say that I know what my vote for Recommending / Not Recommending will be after the SAU Deliberative Session if changes are made to the SAU Budget relative to the SAU move or the staffing cuts other than what the Budget Committee has done.

But more later...

Posted by Skip at 08:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This past Saturday on MTNP radio, Doug unloaded on the Selectmen, questioning what exactly they based their original "yes" vote on the ridiculously expensive $500K-plus energy retrofit upon, and the teachers that continue to push-- through the use of breathless, weepy mothers-- for the restoration of the assistant principal & guidance counselor positions [and money]. Even though he originally voted "yes" on the contract while on the budget committee, it was based on the context of a reduced budget. Given that the teachers remain unwilling to compromise, or take a public stand as a union supporting the school board and administration, well... just listen:

No Compromise, NO CONTRACT! End of discussion. Doug doesn't care if this isn't EVERY teacher-- it's up to their union comrades to set their misguided brethren straight. In the absence of such reasonability and level-headedness, there is no reason to say yes to such a generous contract...

Posted by Doug at 05:00 PM | Permalink

As we enjoy the lazy days of summer in Gilford, the department heads are getting ready to submit their budgets. With no apparent direction from the town’s leaders, such as spending increase limitations issued by Meredith leaders, one wonders what kind of a budget we might see. Last year the budget season was relatively uneventful because the selectmen and School Board presented lean budgets to fund the town’s needs. With prices rising for just about everything in sight, this year could be a big challenge. Not to mention the rumors I’ve heard that some, if not all, of the deleted “outside” agencies are looking to get their fingers back into the taxpayer’s pockets. What might we see from the “free’ library building that is being accepted with known moisture problems? With funding approved for football, will we hear a similar request from the long waiting hockey team? The school board should be commended for returning a sizable amount of money back to the taxpayer. This money could go a long way to offsetting the upcoming hefty increases in heating oil and other rising expenses. Will this unspent money be requested by the Meadows committee that still plans on even though a growing majority of Gilford residents would prefer to see sports fields developed at the High School where it makes the most sense?

Clearly, the upcoming budget season for Gilford is going to be interesting. I’m hoping that the campaign speeches from the newly elected officials were more than just words of political convenience. The newly elected Selectman believed that he could find ways to increase revenues to offset spending and nearly all the Budget Committee winners ran on “conservative” platforms. Hopefully, all will be mindful of the taxpayer’s desire to fund a limited number of “outside” agencies. This can only be viewed as an obvious message that the people need tax relief.

Posted by Terry S. at 08:23 PM | Permalink

It's always for the teachers union children!

Most peoples' reactions to the word "teacher" is the kindly school marm (apologies to the other gender) smiling broadly at her little charges, apple on the desk (at least, that's my reaction).  For the individual teacher, for the most part, it works.

However, teachers unions, it's a different story.  No longer is it an individual face that a parent interacts with during parent - teacher conferences.  Now, it is one of the largest unions in the country and they do like to throw their weight around.  Perhaps others in town may not know, but the overall budget of the NEA is $345 million dollars.  Of that amount, the national organization will spend up to 1/3 of that on political stuff (e.g., ballot initiatives, media, et al).  The average compensation per NEA employee is around $196, 000 for over 560 people - not bad for "it's for the children".  And your tax money is the fuel for this salary structure.

And then this in the Citizen from a couple of weeks ago (Citizen, 7/17/08) concerning the Laconia School District:

Schedule spurs dispute with LEA

Article Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008

As students prepare for this fall's implementation of a new block scheduling program at Laconia High School, the district's teachers union is urging the state Labor Board to squash the plan until school district negotiators are willing to bargain over the changes proposed in it.

"We wrote to them three times in three separate letters from mid-February through the end of March (asking them) to bargain with us ... they refused to do it," said Dick Coggon, a consultant to the Laconia Education Association and the union's co-grievance chair.

So, is this an expression of "it's for the children", or "it's for the union"?  I keep hearing that teachers only wish is to do what is in the best interest of children's education; here's an example where management believes that for this to happen, a change has to happen.  If one is to believe the first expression, why is not the union agreeing and try to put its best foot forward for those children?

Because it becomes quite obvious it is not for the children.....it is about who has the power.  Nothing more, and nothing less.

[snip]

An unfair labor practice challenge filed against the Laconia School District by the Laconia Education Association (LEA) concerning the new "block" schedule was brought before a state hearings officer on July 15 and that individual's recommendation will be forwarded to the state Public Employee Labor Relations Board for its review.

Teachers' union leaders say the decision on the matter is expected to come in mid-August.

On April 24 the LEA filed an unfair labor practice against the school district for allegedly refusing to bargain over a block schedule change will increase the number of classes students can take each year to bolster the graduation credit requirement.

On the same day the union filed a formal grievance with the school district on its implementation of a block schedule it contends violates three sections of the collective bargaining agreement.

Teachers union officials say the new block scheduling requires them to teach more classes and argue items relating to wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment are all a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.

Under the former schedule teachers taught five classes throughout an entire year. The new block system has them teaching three classes in two semesters, totaling six. There has been debate over whether the change produces more teaching hours with students based on the length of classes and free periods...

There is often the mantra from the teachers that they want to be treated as "professionals".  Well, there seems to be a few things missing, as in "not getting the concept":

• In general, teachers make about the same wage when translated to an hourly basis as most other professionals. 
• Professionals who are salaried are generally are expected to "get the job done" - the work load may require more hours and / or effort than normal.  I've worked a 30 hour week a few times.  More often, is been 60 - 100 hours in a week. Professionals know that this will happen from time to time.  Whining about having to do more (above and beyond the normal grumbling the rest of us do) when needed doesn't help your cause, as you'll still be in school about the same amount of time. 
  
• And yes, we all put in unpaid overtime, so don't start in with me - you'll lose that battle from the get-go.
  
• If you really feel that way, that you want to be treated like other professionals, why the heck are you staying in a union?  Professionals in the private sector, whose salaries you covet, go to the highest bidder / employer - that's what capitalism is and rewards.  None of this wanting white collar wages and acting in a blue collar style.
  

Can't have it both ways.But the NEA does try as it shows in the Wall Street Journal editorial:

Teachers' unions are expert at presenting the interests of their members and of public school students as one and the same. Which is why it's always illuminating to see how the nation's largest teachers' union, the National Education Association, spends its political money.

Each year, NEA members pay into a "Ballot Measure/Legislative Crises Fund" that allows the union to spend tens of millions of dollars on all manner of state and national political issues. Mike Antonucci of the Education Intelligence Agency [Note: the unions hate this guy, but he is seldom proved wrong  -Skip], a longtime union watchdog, has tracked this fund's spending. In the 2007-08 fiscal year, not surprisingly, the NEA spent $2.3 million -- on top of $1 million spent the previous fiscal year -- fighting a school voucher referendum in Utah.

How many textbooks would $3.3 million dollars buy?  How many new classrooms could be built and equiped?  Man, that would be a lot of classroom materials, wouldn't it?

But other expenditures reveal this national NEA cash -- which is separate from PAC contributions that must adhere to federal campaign-finance laws -- as a fund for various and sundry left-wing political causes. Mr. Antonucci reports that during the current fiscal year the NEA sent the Hawaii State Teachers Association $20,000 to conduct polling on a state constitutional convention. It sent the Massachusetts Teachers Association $60,000 to oppose a state income-tax repeal. And it sent the Florida Education Association $200,000 to oppose property-tax cuts in the Sunshine State.

In other words, the NEA actively lobbies to keep your taxes high!  Why?  Simple - more taxes generally means either higher salaries or more bodies to belong to the union.  And then the cycle positively feeds back on itself.

That's one reason why trying to protect Jane and Joe Six-Pack's income can get so difficult - so many special interests, teachers among them, clamoring for a bigger slice of the pie - your pie.

Expect more of the same going forward in a state near you. "Unlike most previous years," writes Mr. Antonucci, "NEA finished 2007-08 with a surplus of nearly $5.9 million, which means the union will enter the 2008-09 school year with almost $20 million available to spend."

It's a shame the NEA doesn't spend as much money and effort trying to improve lousy schools as it does trying to keep taxes high.

Oh, another thing - professionals generally do what their bosses say, instead of always retreating to a union steward when business conditions change.  Or, they move on to greener hills.

And that's why school vouchers are so unappealing to the NEA and the AFT - it threatens their power when parents can use the power of capitalism and consumer choice to send their kids where they think it best.

Every child deserves a publicly funded education.

Posted by Skip at 05:03 PM | Permalink

To those that claim the newest fad to hit NH in education, the International Baccalaureate Programme, is all about education, I say look at the facts. This posting, by a writer who is in FAVOR of IB, glowingly reports of its main raison d'etre:

The IB combines high academic standards with a powerful humanist purpose. Its mission statement speaks of developing “inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect.”

"But Doug--It'll also help our kids be more competititve when it comes to getting into college. Sure, maybe they teach peace and all that, but surely it's a small piece of the overall programme." Maybe you think so, but that's not how the cheerleader/blogger views it:

Because the IB’s mission is centered on changing the world, it is constantly learning and changing itself.

See? And you thought your kids were going to school to learn readin', writin', and 'rithmetic...

Posted by Doug at 11:00 AM | Permalink

We had Ann Marie Banfield on Meet The New Press this past weekend as we talked about the International Baccalaurate program (promo here and podcast here).  Her specialty seems to be the types of math instruction going on in our schools systems.  We have invited her to submit guest posts over at Granite - her first post at GraniteGrok is here.  And reproduced below.

The question it raises is "what's the standard"?  What should our children be learning by the end of Grade 1, Grade 2,....Senior in High School?   

It is our understanding that the District is starting the process of defining those standards as they are starting to get ready for "Follow The Child" initiatives that Dr. DiMinico wishes to implement in the Gilford School system.

Wouldn't it be great to see what those standards are on their website, not only the final ones but the "draft" ones as well?  Our tax monies pay for it - our kids live it.  Why not make it easier for the community to see them too?

Remember the Gilford NECAP scores...and here.

Ann Marie's post: 

by Ann Marie Banfield

The state Superintendent of the Georgia schools contacted parents to give them the news that the math scores from the state proficiency exam proved to be dismal.  The Superintendent decided to release the news to help prepare parents for this grim news.

What I find interesting is that Georgia has pretty good math standards.  According to the prestigious Fordham  Foundation, GA received a "B" after the experts analyzed GA math standards.  Compare this to the "F" assigned to the NH math standards.

Now what if the NH students were required to meet higher math standards as GA, or Massachusetts which was given an "A"?  How well would our students perform? 

The GA news is reporting that 40% of the eighth graders would have to be held back based on their failing grades.  Would our students be able to pass the same test?  This is a dilemma for parents in NH.  NH has set the bar so low, that parents cannot rely on state exams to give them a clear idea of whether or not their child is proficient in mathematics. 

With the bar set so low in NH, and with students in NH are having difficulty passing the state exam, just think if that bar was raised to the level of other states who've decided that math proficiency is important.  Why is it, parents must rely upon outside tutoring services, private schools or choose to home-school in order to get a decent education in this state? 

While reading comments at the Union Leader web site where the headline reads: NECAP Math Scores Fall Short, I found the following comment revealing:

"I am a Junior and I took the NECAP this year. I was home schooled until high school, so I come from a different background than other students. I was the only student at my school to get all 4s on the test. It really was not a hard test, it just tested basic concepts which should be learned at a young age, and apparently were not taught in public schools. I think this test shows the holes in early education, because it is not just testing information we should have recently acquired like most high school tests do."

This comment was posted by a home-schooled student who avoided the pitfalls of the NH public school system.

With all the resources and the well educated parents living in this state, it still surprises me that there is no organized effort to raise the bar.

Ann Marie lives in Bedford and is a well-informed parent concerned about the kind of math being taught in many of today's schools-- what she calls "fuzzy math"... She recently appeared on MTNP radio to discuss the subject. Click here to listen.

Posted by Skip at 10:36 PM | Permalink

The Laconia Citizen (pg 1, 6-8) reported on results of the No Child Left Behind for schools here in the Lakes Region:

Gilford School District: No schools in the “need of improvement” category but students at the elementary, middle and high schools levels failed to achieve AYP in math this year. The middle school was also cited for failing to reach reading goals.

A trifecta!

I saw an analogy the other day - it goes something like this:

In order to pass a swimming test, the kids had to swim the length of the pool.  Whose fault would it be if half the kids drowned in the attempt - the kids, or the teacher? 

Again, I know kids can skew the results - but all the time?  And across the whole span of grades?   At what time do we stop blaming the kids? 

Posted by Skip at 08:58 PM | Permalink

Are they willing to embrace change?  From the Education Intelligence Agency:

Unions Poke Holes in $125,000 Teacher Plan. So a proposed New York City charter school will pay all classroom teachers $125,000, plus a possible bonus for performance, and will pay for it by eliminating some support positions and passing those duties on to teachers.

I'm skeptical, but it's a bold idea, and that's supposed to be why we have charters. What surprises me is the raft of union people who are also skeptical.

In the charter, the principal will make less than the teachers. This, according to the head of New York City's principals' union, will lead to "anarchy and chaos." United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten must have been taken off guard by the New York Times, because she actually gave a candid explanation for her hesitation: the charter isn't unionized.

UFT hasn't gotten teachers a $125,000 salary after 47 years of trying. A non-union charter schools opens with that, with no negotiations required.

We have two UFT charter schools, with regular contract salaries and all the union protections and benefits a teacher could want. And we have The Equity Project charter school, with $125,000 salaries and without those protections and benefits. Let's see which one prospective New York City charter school teachers prefer.

No, I'm not advocating that salary for Gilford (at least until the numbers can be run).  But look at the audacity of it - a startup situation, large cash for the risk, throwing off the rules, and a chance to do it (perhaps) your way.  Get this:

...the principal will make less than the teachers...

In the private world, the producers get the cash.  It is not unknown for top sales folks to earn more than the owner of the company.  Why not?  If they are bringing in the cash, they should get it and a smart owner knows it. 

Why should it be different in the education industry? 

It should be interesting to see what happens.... 

Posted by Skip at 08:55 AM | Permalink

Doug,

I am a little surprised by the Budget Committee's recent 180 on endorsing the $22,500 for Football in the upcoming school budget.  Can you explain why the committee has now supported this?  What's changed?

We are told that the costs will be offset by fundraised revenues.

Just remember-- these are the same people that said football would never cost the taxpayers a dime!

At least there is one more chance at saving football from the clutches of the government system--JUST VOTE NO on voting day!

Posted by Doug at 07:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | 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)

Continue reading "Cost per Pupil, District" »

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)

Continue reading "Cost Per Pupil, High School" »

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)

Continue reading "Cost Per Pupil, Middle School" »

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)

Continue reading "Cost Per Pupil, Elementary School" »

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)!

Continue reading "AYP Comparison - Gilford vs NH" »

Posted by Skip at 03:40 PM | Permalink | 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!).

Continue reading "A deeper look at the numbers - AYP" »

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

It looks like Gilford's system is working!  The dreaded NCLB yearly reports came out and the summary report on the Elementary, Middle School, and High School came out alright. I think parents out to look at the summary reports for the schools (here) and review for themselves how they believe each school is working with respect to their expectations and how they think that the school is meeting their childrens' needs.

However, at the district and school levels, Gilford did do better than some of the surrounding areas.

Districts in need of improvement:

• Alton
• Gilmanton
• Laconia 
• Winnisquam Regional

However, I'd be remiss if I didn't say that I noticed how many kids in each were below Proficient with respect to skill levels.  As a lay person, I take the word "proficient" to mean "meets minimum standards".  Now, I am open to be corrected by those that know more than I with respect to the technical definition of proficient, but it still tells me more work is to be done.  That said, the percentage of kids below Proficient is troubling.

I would also be remiss, since I posted about WRSD here and here, if I didn't mention the article in the Daily Sun about WRSD.

You know, if I was buying a product that I could not get anywhere else but the quality was not up to my standards, and I was going to be charged more for it, I'd be a tad ticked.  In effect, that seems to be what almost happened to taxpayers of of the Winnisquam SAU.

Private sector?  The vast majority of the time time, the mantra is improved quality at lower cost.  Or lose the job as consumers can go elsewhere. And routinely, one puts in the time needed to get the job done whether you own the business or you work for the business.  You have to keep your skills up (sometimes by the employer and a lot of times not) or find yourself replaced.  That's the effect of globalization - there is no choice.

That's why this rubbed me the wrong way.  From the Daily Sun:

Continue reading "Schools get their report cards - Gilford passes" »

Posted by Skip at 08:13 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Boy, I go away for vacation for a few days and the paper is just full of news of the School Board.  From the Citizen (8/15):

As the summer ends and the start of the 2008 budget season is set to begin, many of the Gilford School District's employee contracts have been signed following a unanimous vote of the School Board.

Meeting minutes from the June 22 School Board off-site retreat reveal that Superintendent Paul DeMinico and Chair Sue Allen had been authorized by a motion from board member Paul Blandford and seconded by Kurt Webber, "to place staff under contract during the summer months."

While staff contracts do not fall within the purview of the budget committee, some committee members nevertheless were upset about the contract process.

"I'd rather have them do the contracts after they present their budget proposal [to the budget committee]," said Doug Lambert. "I find it to be just another means our elected School Board uses to avoid the limelight."

Superintendent Paul DeMinico explained that many of the contracts awarded were for district teaching positions. There was, however, a one-year administrative contract that Allen and DeMinico entered into on behalf of the School Board.

And that Admin contract was for who?  And what is it costing the taxpayers?

[snip]

Last summer, the School Board renewed almost all of the administrative contracts, including DeMinico's five-year, $125,000-per-year contract without bringing it to a regular meeting.

This is my problem with how business is done - The BudComm does not negotiate individual contracts, that is true.  However, some of these contracts do put the taxpayers on the hook for a considerable sum of money...such as the good Dr. DeMinico.  Over the lifetime of the contract, a round number three quarters of a million dollars.

No, the BudComm does not set policy, but it is responsible to the citizens for oversight of the monies spent on their behalf to run the Town.  It is hard to have that oversight when contracts are discussed, drawn up, signed and completed, when the BudComm is not in session.  So when School Board complains that "the BudComm is haggling and hassling over nickel and dimes", remember that when most of their budget has deliberately been locked up in contracts (which by state statute prevents BudComms statewide from reviewing contracts that are in force) before the budget season starts.

After all, the School Board could, if they so desired, work with the BudComm on these issues.

With regard to the criticism of the process, DeMinico pointed out that the budget committee has no say in district employee contracts, as the committee's authority rests with the bottom-line budget figures. He added that most of the contracts had already been budgeted so they would not cause an overexpenditure of the already-short default budget that is $140,000 less than the School Board had recommended.

"Traditionally, the budget committee has not been involved with the ratification of these things," explained DeMinico.

 

Lambert said that much of this concern came out of the way in which the School Board had entered into the five-year contract with DeMinico. Others on the committee, including the chair, expressed similar concerns. Their objections had less to do with the dollar amount of the contract than with the lack of publicity given to the transaction.

"The School Board could simply choose to do the contracts at another time," Lambert said.

"It sort of ties your hands, because more and more of the budget is fixed," said Budget Committee Chair Dick Hickok, explaining that the underlying problem is committing to spending through contractual obligations that his committee has not seen.

[snip]

However, he said, something along the lines of a contract committee that would review the contracts throughout town might be a good idea.

Hickok said a Gilford citizen had made that suggestion, pointing out that other towns have similar committees.

Lambert, who recently was re- elected to serve a three-year term on the budget committee, said he is in favor of such a committee, which might be formed as a subcommittee of the full budget committee.

Lambert said that, at the very least, he hopes that, in the future, the contracts and the process behind them, are completed in a more open process.

This would be a good thing to have, and I would be in favor of this.

Allen did not return a call seeking comment on the issue.

And why am I not surprised?

A move by the town could affect the process. The Gilford Board of Selectmen recently discussed changing the town's fiscal year from a calendar-year schedule to one running from July 1 through June 30. That would put both the town and school on the same budget cycle and might allow the budget committee to discuss pending contracts before the money is committed.

Hickok said such a move would be beneficial for all involved.

This could be a good thing for the taxpayers..... 

Posted by Skip at 08:53 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 02:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Terry S. at 01:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 11:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Q: How do you know a Gilford [politician] [bureaucrat] [special-interest water carrier] is being untruthful?

A: When they tell us that their [insert scheme du-jour here] "won't EVER cost the taxpayers a dime."

...Thomlinson, the chairman of the School Board, stressed that the funding for football amounted to 0.08 percent of the high school budget. He said that the board considered drafting a warrant article, but reached a "concensus decision" that because the sum was relatively small and offset by other revenues as a warrant article could be confusing to voters.

Tomlinson said the reason the School Board chose to include the program in its budget is because members felt a warrant article might be confusing for taxpayers who already must vote on a number of warrant articles, explaining that they might inadvertently vote against the measure.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, comes the next FREE GIFT: A BRAND NEW LIBRARY!

Posted by Doug at 09:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

• Town default budget
• Other unfinished town budget business
• Unveiling of school budget

Posted by Doug at 01:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

-Sat 11/11 at 10:00AM at the memorial location* for the general public

Posted by Doug at 05:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

“It really gives us a road map of the child's academic standing. Therefore the teacher is able to plan the instruction for the student.” 

Posted by Doug at 08:23 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

To the Editor, GilfordGrok.com,

Gilford needs to cut taxes and cap salaries! It’s no wonder why our taxes are out of control. The recent September 22, Daily Sun article says it all. 23 of 39 comparable positions are in the top four out of 32 similar towns. My research of several comparable schools in the area shows that we have the highest pay scale. This is climbing higher with some of the highest pay raises, and among the best health care plans, in the latest three year contract. Even after the previous three year 8% annual increase. The actions of the school board in June is appalling. To extend the Superintendents, high priced, five year contract. This , after we voted against even having one in 1998. Didn’t we leave the old SAU to save money? Now we have created our own over paid bureaucracy. The decades long rhetoric about staying competitive is a farce. All towns use when bargaining for higher pay. Gilford used it even while already being at the top. We are now the "Bench Mark". As when I went to Gilford quite some years ago, many teachers complain to the students about their low pay. It was as disgraceful then as it is now. One senior class teacher recently offered extra credit to his 18 year old students to vote for the new contract.

.

  Go to www.greatschools.net under "research and compare" for other information the school board probably doesn’t want taxpayers to see. Our middle and high school has the lowest student to full time equivalent (teacher) FTE in the area. Combine this with being the highest paid, and Gilford's teachers are probably the best compensated teachers and administrators in the state. Yet the test scores don’t come close to reflecting this. Of coarse the $uperintendent always has a smooth excuse for this. Is this good for our children to see the highest position in the system questioning the validity of the test that are given nation wide? Laconia recently eliminated several administrative positions. Gilford added a whole new middle school administration along with curriculum staff. With all of these additional top pay year round positions, one has to wonder about the necessity of them. It is generally the same number of students and teachers handled by two thirds of the current administration. Lets not overlook all the other unnecessarily added position. Why do we need a third nurse for the same number of students, still in only two buildings? Or did a top administrators family member need a position? Multi-tasking shouldn’t just be for us poor souls in the "private sector"!

.

  This attributes to why Gilford spends $30 + million a year, while other comparable sized towns spend $15-20 million. Throwing money at this doesn’t result in higher test scores, or better employees. We give merit raises to town employees, not for exceptional performance, but just for being on the payroll. Then we have a teacher who repeatedly assaults a 14 year old student in the school and in the school parking lot undetected, or was it just unreported? Do you really believe All the other, top paid professional, teachers were unaware of this predator? And we trust, and pay, these people to protect our children? Or is this a case of not wanting to "blow the whistle" on a fellow union employee? Lets not forget this teacher is the son of the aforementioned mentioned top administrator. These are two perfect examples of why many companies in the "private sector", prohibit employing relatives. As in the church scandal, the safety of our children is being compromised for the sake of not wanting to be overlooked for promotions and, or, bad publicity.

.
Jim Cookman
Overwhelmed Gilford Taxpayer

Posted by Doug at 07:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Our School District Superintendent, Dr. DeMinico, has written yet another missive trying to downplay the use of standardized testing in school systems. It can be seen here at the Laconia Citizen (registration required), Laconia Daily Sun (not online), or at the Gilford Steamer (paid subscription).

High Stakes Testing: Are We Leaving Student-Learning Behind? 

Dr. DeMinico starts off with hypothesis:

Who could argue with the altruistic goal that public schools are places where all students should be successful? And how does our recent focus on high-stakes tests, mandated by No Child Left Behind (NCLB), advance that goal?

These two ideas, i.e. the success for all students and high stakes testing, in today's ongoing dialogue about public education, may well be in conflict. In anticipation of the reauthorization of NCLB, herein are several thoughts to consider.

My take on this is that only those of a liberal bent and from within the insulated walls of the educational establishment would consider these two items diametrically opposed.  Here, the straw man is set up, to be later knocked over.

This is not the first time that he has advanced the notion that standardized testing is not the best to consider, but we will address that later.

Does the Test Assess What Students Are Actually Learning in Schools?

Students from generally higher social-economic status (SES) communities tend to score at higher levels on standardize tests, such as the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) than students who come from lower SES communities. This notion is consistently supported by research of the past several decades, and is reflected in the recent NECAP test results in New Hampshire. Just look online at the New Hampshire Department of Education website and compare higher SES cities and towns such as Amherst, Hanover and Bedford, with those of lower SES, such as Claremont, Pittsfield and Franklin. This is neither coincidental nor unique to New Hampshire as we see similar results nationally.

This is true, as those families that have valued education generally have higher incomes and therefore, tend to live in more expensive locations.  Further, they do tend to take more of an interest in their offspring's schooling, as it generally is a good indicator on how things will turn out later in for them, and all good parents want their children to do better than they have.  Frankly, I do not think that this comes as any surprise to anyone.

Such tests generally do not to measure the impact that quality instruction may have on student achievement. In this regard, teachers are hard-pressed to determine if it is their instruction that is advancing students toward proficiency on the test or if it is their students' SES.

Here's where my heartache begins to kick in.  Not more than four paragraphs into his article, he finally addresses what I noticed in his last article - he finally brings in the missing item - teachers.  Automatically, the premise is laid that ALL instruction is of "quality". 

I would submit that not all teachers are created, nor teach, equally well.  It remains to be seen whether or not the instruction is of "quality", as we have seen evidence of it not being such even here in the Lakes Region. Yes, I do believe that we do have some excellent teachers in the District - conversely, I bet we have some that aren't as well.  No, I'm not throwing stones, but I think it would be considered general knowledge, just as in any business, who are "good", who are "not as good", and who are "deadwood".

The other problem is that there seems to be no consensus as to what is quality curriculum and philosophies.  To the outsider, fads in educations seem to move at the same rate as modes of dress within teenager community.  Nor do we ever seem to see that any of these new ideas being rigorously examined, measured, and evaluated and brought before the public.

And while this article is not even addressing the issues within NH, it points out a serious lack of quality instruction - 40% of kids within Ohio that do go on to college require remedial assistance before starting the "real" college classes.  This alone would tend to make me think that the blame of an SES (social-economic status) may be over blown:

Of the thousands of freshmen entering Ohio colleges and universities this fall, it's a safe bet that more than one-third won't be completely ready for the next level of their education. In the most recent figures available (2003), 41 percent of newly minted Ohio high school graduates who went to Ohio public colleges enrolled in remedial math or reading courses during their freshman year.

Continue reading "High Stakes Obfuscation" »

Posted by Skip at 06:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Exercising the First    by Doug Lambert

Let’s join talking-dog Mr. Peabody and his pet boy Sherman on a trip to the past using the WABAC (pronounced “way back”) machine: Holding up a Citizen newspaper from 1998, the pet-boy exclaims, “Look, Mr. Peabody- this paper has an article written by Doug Lambert discussing the Gilford School Board’s reversal of a vote of the people! What’s that all about?”  Peabody nods and tells Sherman the story- Doug was on the original committee formed by a vote of the people at a special School District Meeting in July of 1997 that helped Gilford withdraw from a multi-town SAU, forming the present day single-school district SAU 73.

“It was quite revolutionary- the SAU Planning Committee, by unanimous vote, created an administrative structure to operate the Gilford School District without the use of a high-paid position of ‘superintendent.’ The voters, in March of 1998, approved the plan that called for an educational administrative organization- the ‘Administrative Cabinet”- and a ‘School Administrator’ with ‘strong executive ability.’ Additionally, the financial services would be contracted to the Town. Even the NH State Board of Education approved the plan, Sherman.”

 “Gee whiz, Mr. Peabody- what happened? What went wrong?” What went wrong was, after the vote at the annual School District Meeting, the school board decided that they had a better idea. Mr. Peabody tells Sherman to read from Doug Lambert’s 1998 piece about what the school board did to the plan: “Gone is the provision for contracted financial services from the town. Also missing is the ‘School Administrator.’ Instead, the Gilford School Board has hired a Superintendent and is now interviewing prospective Business Manager candidates and plans on hiring additional support staff beyond the Planning Committee recommendations.” Sherman stops. “The school board got away with this?” he asks. “They sure did,” replies Mr. Peabody. “Except for Doug and a few others, everyone remained silent when the school board thwarted the will of the voters.”

Sherman reads Doug’s parting words written December 17^th, 1998: “It really is too bad- instead of a forward thinking, sensible plan for Gilford, we are instead witnessing the birth of yet another empire.” He looks at Peabody, astounded by the accuracy of Doug’s prophesy. “He was exactly right, Mr. Peabody. It WAS the birth of a new empire!” The dog answers, “Precisely, my boy Sherman. Precisely!”

If anybody still doubts my prediction of eight years ago, I’m afraid you’re wrong- it WAS the birth of a new empire- and a very expensive one indeed. Despite repeated attempts at annual School District Meetings to remove the funding for the administrative structure in order to implement the will of the voters as expressed in 1997, the $uperintendent position lives on. And now, thanks to the current Gilford School Board, the “empire” has been rendered impregnable. The chance of eliminating the position of “$uperintendent” has been effectively killed due to early-morning actions by the school board back in June...

At 7:38 a.m., June 26^th, the Gilford School Board convened. (Note: morning, not evening) After a “non-public session the approved minutes of the meeting state “On a motion by Sue Allen and a second by Margo Weeks, the board voted to accept the written evaluation of the superintendent as proposed by Derek Tomlinson. It was a unanimous vote. On a motion by Sue Allen and Margo Weeks, the board voted to approve the contract extension of the superintendent by unanimous vote.”

Big news right? The $uperintendent’s contract renewed for five years. Oh? You didn’t know about it? That’s because, until now, it evaded the usual publicity that would accompany such an event: “Superintendent Rehired for Five More Years! Citizens Rejoice!” Where were the headlines? Perhaps they don’t want us to know the details?

The contract goes from now till June 30^th, 2011. Aside from standard verbiage, a few key points struck me upon my reading. The first was the clause effectively denying the elimination of his job: “The SAU may relieve the Superintendent of his/her duties under the Agreement at any time, provided that the SAU continues to pay for the duration of the Agreement.” Also included: 25 vacation days- 50 max cumulative; 15 sick days- cumulative for a maximum of 120 days (totaling 170 days possible accumulated days for the end of the contract); additional personal leave time as needed, with the SAU chair’s approval; full max family health insurance; family Delta Dental Ins. Plan IV; life insurance 3 times annual salary; taxpayer-funded memberships: “one annual membership to one local civic organization, one state professional association, and one national professional organization”.

His salary for this year is the tenth-highest in NH: $120,123 with guaranteed COLA increases and an optional salary renegotiation for the last two years. Oh, and he gets an “additional benefit” too: “Following five years of employment with the SAU, the Superintendent shall be eligible for deferred compensation of one year of a 2-person Gilford SAU health insurance plan... for every year of service to the SAU,” with credit given for the two years worked prior to this contract. “Throughout the benefit period, the health insurance plan will be the plan used by the District and paid in full by the District.” Even after he’s gone, he will cost the hapless taxpayers!

Sweet deal, eh? Too bad they forgot to tell us when it happened back in June....

Doug Lambert’s column appears Thursdays in the Laconia Daily Sun. For more, visit online at www.granitegrok.com and www.gilfordgrok.com. Email:  doug@granitegrok.com

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

Updated 1: Moving it upward to be with other salary data      -Skip

==================================== 

Back before the town's Annual Meeting, I wondered how Gilford’s handsomely remunerated $uperintendent’s salary stood up in comparison to other school districts in NH. Not surprisingly, I discovered that he is right up there with the state’s highest paid. According to the “Salaries of Superintendents, Asst. Superintendents And Business Administrators 2005-2006” (the most recent data available) report from the NH Dept. of Education, the Gilford $uperintendent of Schools ranks as the tenth top paid in the state.

Below is a chart developed from that report and other available information. Keep in mind; these are LAST year’s numbers. Look at the districts shown and ask yourself why a small town like Gilford needs such a high paid person. It doesn’t make sense.

Continue reading "Gilford $uperintendent 10th Highest $$ in NH" »

Posted by Doug at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The Gilford School Board is planning on dedicating a memorial for Gilford High School graduates that lost their lives serving our country Students will be asked to help with the design as well as selecting an appropriate location for the memorial. Many on the board feel that involving students will be both beneficial for the students and the project as a whole. "I see this memorial as serving two purposes. Number one, of course, is honoring our fallen graduates. Number two, is building awareness among our students of the preciousness of life and of the sacrifices others have made for them and our nation," said GHS Principal Ken Wiswell.

.

School Board members have come up with a preliminary design for the memorial. While the design is far from ready and student input has yet to be given, there are already some problems with what some are proposing.

.

In a email to School Board members, Chairman Derek Tomlinson voiced concerns over a suggested graphic that depicts, amongst other military uniform items, a military weapon.

Tomlinson stated to School Board members heading up the memorial Margo Weeks and Kurt Webber, "I think you should seriously look at alternatives before we take this to the students."

Continue reading "Make love, not war! No guns at soldier memorial?!" »

Posted by Skip at 05:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)