| Subtopic | Msgs | Last Updated | |
| PS21 Vision Colloquia, National Education Leaders Speak | - | |
| Local School FAQs | - | |
| Unofficial CH-UH Public Education Information | - |
| Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 06:48 pm Allen, The view is quite prevalent. It is constructivist, or "fuzzy" math instruction and is endorsed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, despite having been condemned in a letter to the Secretary of Education signed by 200 of the nation's top mathematicians, including several Field Prize winners. Parents all over the country are fighting this move INCLUDING in CHUH. Years ago, during a presentation to an LOWV committee of which you were a member, I spoke of the CHUH district's adoption of "Everyday Math" - a math curriculum rejected by the state education departments of CA and TX (the most populous two states and the most conservative AND most liberal states) I mentioned how mathematically literate parents, people I worked with at Picker - physicists, engineers, mathematicians, who had kids in CHUH were spending hours every night RE-teaching their kids math, how some of them had approached math teachers, asking for copies of the previously used textbooks, only to be told they had all been confiscated from the school buildings by the administration, apparently because the contract for purchasing this abomination stipulated that it had to be used EXCLUSIVELY. I pointed out that it rejected standard algorithms, like long division, and stressed use of calculators and students "inventing" their own knowledge in a system where getting the right answer was less important than the collaborativity of the process. One lady on the committee defended this curriculum, claiming to be a math teacher. Well, I've run it past my aunt, a lady who, at the age of 81, still has private and public schools begging her to teach their AP Calculus program, and she said it's garbage. The same goes for a friend of mine who is defending her dual doctoral dissertation in science education and biology. I pointed out that this is one of the most expensive curricula available, and that such are the frivolous flights of fancy that happen when school districts are given too much financial largesse. Need I say "I told you so?" This is where all that money goes. Question from a third grader's constructivist *MATH* test: "Five little birds were in a nest, and three flew away; how do you think the ones that flew away felt?" This is what happens when people just blindly endorse levies over and over again, without ever questioning the wisdom of the philosopher kings on the school board.
| |
| Monday, December 12, 2005 - 10:16 pm The view in paragraph 2 below is frightening for American education. Can anyone shed light on the prevalance of this view? =========== Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:35:45 -0700 Subject: Re: [RUME] RUME: Tough Love for Colleges I am not as concerned about national tests as I am concerned about who is going to create the test and the content of these tests. For the last several years there appears to be a movement which no longer cherishes mathematics of computations in favor of "better understanding" of how math works. A good example of this can be found by reading Leinwand's, "Sensible Mathematics: A guide for school leaders " published in 2000 by Heinemann press. Leinwand points out that (page 48): "policy makers, parents, and test developers need to give educators permission to skip textbook pages that no longer serve a useful purposes. Among these skills that should be relegated to the bath water are (I will begin to paraphrase) paper and pencil multiplication problems involving two or more digits, larger division problems and any fraction that does not have 2,4, 8, 3, 6, 5 or 10 in the denominator." In reading Leinwand's text, one can visualize the scope of the problem between developing an understanding of math and the automation of mathematical concepts. I have recently been informed that a school district was changing its educational philosophy along the lines of Leinwand. Included in the change was to increase the students understanding of the processes of math and to find time for this by ignoring the automation of the process. While I am discussing this at the k-12 level, if one reads the work of Silver, they will realize that leaving too many process at the controlled level at some point the mind will fail to complete the task, even though the mind understands each process when attempted in isolation. We see this at the university level whenever a calculus instructor complains about a students college algebra or trig skills getting in the way learning calculus. It appears that the efforts to produce a gentler k-12 curriculum focusing on process and reducing the need to automate the skills began in the mid 1980s. Within the time period between the mid 1980's and today, we have seen a significant decrease in the number of math majors while we have seen the total number of college graduates increase. Alberto explains this problem when he states below "Why slave away four years on math and science when you can get some other degree much easier, or better, just go find something to sink your teeth into, and forget education?" This is an easy answer that is easy to digest. However, could not a theory be supported that the decline in math majors is due to an effort not to build sufficient automation of skills. By not building these skills, students soon find themselves unsuccessful in math and thus begin to look around at other majors where they might be successful. Both theories are plausible. Alberto, also points out that the market conditions are a great indicator of our success. He points out many reasons why he feels we have been successful based on his evaluation of the market place. However, he also points out that Intel and Microsoft has just announced a significant investment in India. (Others such as Cisco are also investing in India) In consideration of this India is receiving Billions of dollars which we could use, because they are willing to supply the manpower that we are not willing to supply. Hence the market place is speaking, but are we listening. We can do better. It appears that our views are entrenched in the feeling that we are doing good while the market place is leaving. It doesn't appear that we will wake up in time. Maybe we need a national test, but only if it provides the impetus to improve what we are doing and successfully increases the numbers of people obtaining degrees that are important to our society. And with this I would be very concerned about the content of such a test.
| |
| Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 04:27 pm This is not a new theme, but the evidence for the problem only gets greater. America has to wake up or accept a lesser comfort in life and leadership in the world. It takes roughly a generation to turn the trend of technology weakness around. Start sooner or have your children pay the price. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 15:54:51 -0500 From: fyi@aip.org Subject: FYI #172: National Summit on Competitiveness FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 172: December 9, 2005 National Summit on Competitiveness "The National Summit on Competitiveness has one fundamental and urgent message: if trends in U.S. research and education continue, our nation will squander its economic leadership, and the result will be a lower standard of living for the American people." So began a six-page Statement released on December 6 at a half-day meeting in Washington of 63 senior-level officials from high technology corporations, government, academia, and associations. "The National Summit on Competitiveness: Investing in U.S. Innovation" was instigated by House Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) at the urging of Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI). At a Capitol Hill briefing on May 12, Wolf was joined by several of his colleagues and senior association officials to highlight a provision that had been inserted in a supplemental appropriations bill stating: "the Secretary of Commerce shall convene a national conference on science, technology, trade and manufacturing." Wolf explained, "our hope is that the conference will bring together the nation's best and brightest to help develop a blueprint for the future of American science and innovation. It also will look at where there has been slippage and why, and what needs to be done to reverse the trend" (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/080.html .) There were public and private sessions at Tuesday's summit. The 90-minute public session was convened by John Engler, President of the National Association of Manufacturers, who set the tone for this session. He cited previous reports highlighting problems in America's competitive position and recommended policy actions. Engler outlined his concerns about shortages in the future science and engineering workforce. Pointing to science and technology advancements in India and China, Engler told Summit participants that "The United States of America is in a race." Engler's views were supported by other speakers during the plenary session. The purpose of the Summit was not to produce a new report, but to call attention to previously issued reports. The Statement released that day outlined three major Tasks and implementation steps, which are as follows: "Task One: Revitalize Fundamental Research - "Increase the federal investment in long-term basic research by 10 percent a year over the next seven years with focused attention to the physical sciences, engineering, and mathematics. - "Allocate at least 8 percent of the budgets of federal research agencies to discretionary funding focused on catalyzing high-risk, high-payoff research." "Task Two: Expand the Innovation Pool in the United States - "By 2015, double the number of bachelor's degrees awarded annually to U.S. students in science, math, and engineering, and increase the number of those students who become K-12 science and math teachers. - "Reform U.S. immigration policies to enable the education and employment of individuals from around the world with the knowledge and skills in science, engineering, technology, and mathematics to boost the competitive advantage of the United States. - "Provide incentives for the creation of public-private partnerships to encourage U.S. students at all levels to pursue studies and/or careers in science, math, technology, and engineering." "Task Three: Lead the World in the Development and Deployment of Advanced Technologies - "Provide focused and sustained funding to address national technology challenges in areas that will ensure national security and continued U.S. economic leadership, including nanotechnology, high-performance computing, and energy technologies." Following the plenary session which ended at 11:30, the Summit participants went to various breakout sessions with several cabinet secretaries that were closed to the public. A press conference was held from 2:30 until 3:00, at which point the Summit adjourned. The full text of the Summit's Statement and its participants can be found at http://usinnovation.org/ One of the major objectives of this Summit was to convey to the Bush Administration the wide-spread concern there is about America's future competitiveness. The extent to which this objective was met will be indicated by President Bush's FY 2007 budget request for science and technology programs that will be sent to Congress in early February. ############### Richard M. Jones Media and Government Relations Division The American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org http://www.aip.org/gov (301) 209-3094 ##END##########
| |
| Monday, September 12, 2005 - 11:21 pm I favor this view below. It develps the points better than I could. Could anyone give the Intelligent Design counter arguments ot these? Allen ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:14:46 -0400 From: fyi@aip.org Subject: FYI #131: Holt on Intelligent Design FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 131: September 12, 2005 Holt, Scientific Societies Oppose Teaching Intelligent Design as Science "When the tenets of critical thinking and scientific investigation are weakened in our classrooms, we are weakening our nation." - Rep. Rush Holt Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), a physicist, spoke out this month against teaching intelligent design as science in the nation's classrooms. "A scientifically literate nation would not permit intelligent design to be presented and treated as a scientific theory," Holt wrote in an article appearing on the Internet. "Public school science classes are not the place to teach concepts that cannot be backed up by evidence and tested experimentally," he added. Holt's article followed comments by President George Bush on August 1, in answer to a reporter's question about whether both evolution and intelligent design should be taught in public schools. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. Recalling his response as Texas governor to the question of teaching creationism, he said he "felt like both sides ought to be properly taught...so people can understand what the debate is about." John Marburger, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, who has repeatedly stated that intelligent design is not a scientific concept, said in an interview with the New York Times that Bush meant intelligent design could be addressed as part of the "social context" of science. Two Member Societies of the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society (APS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU), issued responses to Bush's remarks. APS President Marvin Cohen stated that "only scientifically validated theories, such as evolution, should be taught in the nation's science classes" (see http://www.aps.org/media/pressreleases/080405.cfm for the complete APS response). AGU Executive Director Fred Spilhaus declared that "ideas that are based on faith, including 'intelligent design,' operate in a different sphere and should not be confused with science" (see http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0528.html for the complete AGU response). Holt's article, entitled "Intelligent Design: It's Not Even Wrong," originally appeared in the September 8 "Talking Points Memo" Internet blog, and can be found at http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/8/183216/1039/. Selected portions of the article follow: "As a research scientist and a member of the House Education Committee, I was appalled when President Bush signaled his support for the teaching of 'intelligent design' alongside evolution in public K-12 science classes. Though I respect and consistently protect the rights of persons of faith and the curricula of religious schools, public school science classes are not the place to teach concepts that cannot be backed up by evidence and tested experimentally. "Science, by definition, is a method of learning about the physical universe by asking questions in a way that they can be answered empirically and verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer is testable by looking at physical evidence and by allowing other people to repeat and replicate one's test, then it is not science. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study. Intelligent design offers no way to investigate design scientifically. Intelligent design explains complicated phenomena of the natural world by involving a designer. This way of thinking says things behave the way they do because God makes them behave that way. This treads not into science but into the realm of faith. A prominent physicist, W. Pauli, used to say about such a theory 'It is not even wrong'. There is no testable hypothesis or prediction for intelligent design. "It is irresponsible for President Bush to cast intelligent design - a repackaged version of creationism - as the 'other side' of the evolution 'debate.' Creationists and others who denigrate the concept of evolution call it a theory, with a dismissive tone. They say that, as a theory, it is up for debate. Sure, evolution is a theory, just as gravitation is a theory. The mechanisms of evolution are indeed up for debate, just as the details of gravitation and its mathematical relationship with other forces of nature are up for debate. Some people once believed that we are held on the ground by invisible angels above us beating their wings and pushing us against the earth. If angels always adjusted their beating wings to exert force that diminished as the square of the distance between attracting bodies, it would be just like our idea of gravitation. The existence of those angels, undetected by any measurements, would not be the subject of science. Such an idea of gravity is 'not even wrong'. It is beyond the realm of science. So, too, is intelligent design. "Colloquially, a theory is an idea. Scientifically, a theory is an accepted synthesis of a large body of knowledge, consisting of well-tested hypotheses, laws, and scientific facts, which concurrently describe and connect natural phenomena. There are actually very few theories in science, including atomic theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, and the theory of the standard model of particle physics. Without the ability to test the hypotheses of intelligent design, it cannot be considered a theory in the scientific sense. "So who cares? What difference does it make if schools spend time on unscientific ideas? This raises the role of science education in the United States. A scientifically literate nation would not permit intelligent design to be presented and treated as a scientific theory. Science education is necessary for all students, especially for those who are not going to become professional scientists. We must not lose the important American characteristic - hard, practical thinking. "Traditionally, Americans are a faithful people. Most say they are guided by their faith in their God. Also, Americans are an intellectually lively people. Our forbearers did not lapse into lazy thinking. Sometimes it has been called Yankee ingenuity or good old American know-how. Whatever you call it, it has been a source of our prosperity and quality of life. Throughout our history, every farmer, every business owner, every manufacturer, continuously has been thinking how things work and how to make them better. Americans have thought like scientists. Not just those in lab coats, but many Americans, even most Americans. We must not allow this American intellectual habit to be replaced with wishful thinking or lazy thinking. Intelligent design is lazy thinking." "Our weakened state of science and mathematics education reverberates throughout national and even global issues, and this should be the focus of our school systems rather than a 'debate' that only diverts attention away from the challenges at hand. The United States must prepare for the changing global economy through fundamental scientific research fueling technological innovation. When the tenets of critical thinking and scientific investigation are weakened in our classrooms, we are weakening our nation. That is why I think the President's off-hand comment about intelligent design as the other side of the debate over evolution is such a great disservice to Americans." ############### Audrey T. Leath Media and Government Relations Division The American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org www.aip.org/gov (301) 209-3094 ##END##########
| |
| Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 01:29 pm While I'm sure the American Institute of Physics is a fine, upstanding institution, it's not located in our community, nor is the vast majority of its membership. Now, Allen Wilkinson, resident, taxpayer, STAKEHOLDER, strikes me as an intelligent, articulate, and thoughtful person, so I find myself wondering, what's his OWN take on this issue, and what are his OWN reasons for that, and how might he express this to us in his OWN words? What kind of community is the Heights if the best public discourse available is the cut and paste parroting of the agitprop of out of town institutional bodies? I keep coming back here every month looking for something interesting.
| |
| Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 11:08 pm ---------- Forwarded message ---------- I am one who believes Intelligent Design is not science but rather philosophy and religion and fair content for social studies. Science has a process by which it understands the world, faith or the divine are not part of that process by definition. One can question whether the scientific method is what they want to use. Evidence and logic and calculation have accomplished a lot. Science has a place in human endeavor. Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:42:13 -0400 From: fyi@aip.org Subject: FYI #70: AAPT on Evolution Teaching FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 70: May 18, 2005 AAPT Statement on the Teaching of Evolution and Cosmology Threats to the teaching of high-quality, peer-reviewed science continue to arise in school districts around the country. "Although the controversy focuses primarily on biology," National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts warned Academy members earlier this year that "some who challenge the teaching of evolution in our nation's schools have also focused their sights on the earth and physical sciences" (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/049.html). The American Institute of Physics (AIP) and many of its Member Societies have been active in monitoring this issue and, in some instances, taking actions to defend the teaching of high-quality science in science classrooms. To address efforts "to weaken and even to eliminate significant portions of evolution and cosmology" from state and local educational objectives, the Executive Board of the American Association of Physics Teachers, an AIP Member Society, recently adopted a statement on the teaching of evolution and cosmology. The text of the April 24 statement follows: "AAPT Statement on the Teaching of Evolution and Cosmology "The Executive Board of the American Association of Physics Teachers is dismayed at organized actions to weaken and even to eliminate significant portions of evolution and cosmology from the educational objectives of states and school districts. "Evolution and cosmology represent two of the unifying concepts of modern science. There are few scientific theories more firmly supported by observations than these: Biological evolution has occurred and new species have arisen over time, life on Earth originated more than a billion years ago, and most stars are at least several billion years old. Overwhelming evidence comes from diverse sources - the structure and function of DNA, geological analysis of rocks, paleontological studies of fossils, telescopic observations of distant stars and galaxies - and no serious scientist questions these claims. We do our children a grave disservice if we remove from their education an exposure to firm scientific evidence supporting principles that significantly shape our understanding of the world in which we live. "No scientific theory, no matter how strongly supported by available evidence, is final and unchallengeable; any good theory is always exposed to the possibility of being modified or even overthrown by new evidence. That is at the very heart of the process of science. However, biological and cosmological evolution are theories as strongly supported and interwoven into the fabric of science as any other essential underpinnings of modern science and technology. To deny children exposure to the evidence in support of biological and cosmological evolution is akin to allowing them to believe that atoms do not exist or that the Sun goes around the Earth. "We believe in teaching that science is a process that examines all of the evidence relevant to an issue and tests alternative hypotheses. For this reason, we do not endorse teaching the "evidence against evolution," because currently no such scientific evidence exists. Nor can we condone teaching "scientific creationism," "intelligent design," or other non-scientific viewpoints as valid scientific theories. These beliefs ignore the important connections among empirical data and fail to provide testable hypotheses. They should not be a part of the science curriculum. "School boards, teachers, parents, and lawmakers have a responsibility to ensure that all children receive a good education in science. The American Association of Physics Teachers opposes all efforts to require or promote teaching creationism or any other non-scientific viewpoints in a science course. AAPT supports the National Science Education Standards, which incorporate the process of science and well-established scientific theories including cosmological and biological evolution. "This statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the American Association of Physics Teachers on April 24, 2005." In cooperation with many of its Member Societies, AIP continues to track attempts around the country to dilute the science taught in science classrooms. In some instances, AIP and several Member Societies have initiated such responses as writing letters to school boards and state and local officials, encouraging individual scientists to testify at hearings, issuing news alerts, and encouraging other grassroots initiatives. ############### Audrey T. Leath Media and Government Relations Division The American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org www.aip.org/gov (301) 209-3094 ##END########## If you no longer wish to receive this content alert for each issue, please send a blank e-mail to fyi-signoff-request@listserv.aip.org.
| |
| Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 07:24 pm Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:27:04 -0500 From: fyi@aip.org Subject: FYI #32: U.S. S&T Leadership FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 32: March 17, 2005 America's S&T Leadership At Risk, Group Warns "For more than half a century, the United States has led the world in scientific discovery and innovation.... However, in today's rapidly evolving competitive world, the United States can no longer take its supremacy for granted. Nations from Europe to Eastern Asia are on a fast track to pass the United States in scientific excellence and technological innovation." - Task Force on the Future of American Innovation "The United States still leads the world in research and discovery, but our advantage is rapidly eroding, and our global competitors may soon overtake us." That is the conclusion of a report by the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation. The task force, according to Council on Competitiveness President Deborah Wince-Smith, is a coalition of high-tech companies, business associations, higher education groups, and scientific organizations (including the American Physical Society, an AIP Member Society). These organizations joined together to draw attention to "troubling trends" in U.S. science and technology, with a particular focus on basic research in the physical sciences and engineering. At a February 16 press briefing, members of the task force released a brief report that compiles a series of indicators to make the case that the U.S. dominance in S&T is in danger, and "it is essential that we act now." The coalition is urging action now, Wince-Smith explained, because tight federal and state budgets are forcing policymakers to look for ways to prioritize, and basic research "lacks a vocal constituency." Task Force members drew attention to trends that threaten the U.S.'s status as the leader in S&T. Other nations are using the U.S. higher education system as a model, and are working hard to catch up, said Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities. The U.S. can expect to see the supply of foreign students to its universities "dwindle," warned Intel CEO Craig Barrett. Diana Hicks, Chair of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Public Policy, said we are "entering a new regime" in which the U.S. has been surpassed by Europe as the largest producer of new knowledge, and many Asian countries are rapidly catching up. "We don't enjoy [leadership] status by divine right," said National Association of Manufacturers President John Engler, and "it has never been more in doubt whether we will keep that status." It is of note that, although the report highlights threats to America's S&T leadership, the speakers agreed on the importance of global exchange and cooperation in basic science, which Hasselmo called "absolutely essential to our scholarly enterprise." The fact that U.S. R&D investment in the physical sciences is not keeping up with the GDP is "cause for concern," said APS President Marvin Cohen, and Hasselmo remarked that "the weakening federal commitment to the physical sciences and engineering has not gone unnoticed.... We are here today to ask for a renewed commitment to these ideals." Members of Congress and others must be convinced, Engler added, "that when it comes to setting priorities, research investment has to be at the top of the list." Barrett noted that the long-term nature of the trends made for a "creeping crisis," and was "not something that the American psyche responds well to." Asked where the money should come from, the speakers had a number of personal opinions ranging from reforming the legal system to reducing medical errors to realigning job training programs. "There's a lot of money out there," Wince-Smith said; "it's how it's being used." The 16-page report, "The Knowledge Economy: Is the United States Losing Its Competitive Edge?," is available at http://www.futureofinnovation.org. Subtitled "Benchmarks of Our Innovation Future," it lists a series of benchmarks, or "signs of trouble," that show the U.S. losing ground in a number of areas important for science and technology: education, the science and engineering (S&E) workforce, scientific knowledge, innovation, investment, and high-tech economic output. Some of those benchmarks are summarized below: EDUCATION: Other countries are awarding undergraduate S&E degrees more frequently than the U.S. The U.S.'s share of worldwide undergraduate S&E degrees awarded annually has dropped, and its share of S&E doctoral degrees awarded annually is smaller than those of both Asia and Europe. The proportion of U.S. citizens in S&E graduate studies within the U.S. is declining. WORKFORCE: Asian students are less likely to study in the U.S. and more likely to pursue PhDs in their own countries than in the past. Since 1980, the number of S&E positions in the U.S. has grown much more rapidly than the number of S&E degrees earned by U.S. citizens. Retirements from the U.S. S&E field are rapidly increasing, as is global competition in the S&E labor market; in the mid-1990s, OECD (Organisation for Economic Development) countries increased their number of S&E research jobs by almost twice the U.S. increase. KNOWLEDGE CREATION: The U.S output of S&E papers was surpassed by Western Europe in the mid-1990s, and Asia's share is growing rapidly. From 1988-2001, the U.S. increased its number of published S&E articles by 13%, compared to Western Europe's increase of 59%. East Asian countries, although still publishing fewer articles than the U.S., increased their output by 492%. U.S. patent applications from a number of Asian countries combined grew by 759% from 1989-2001. The U.S. share of worldwide citations shrank from 52% of the worldwide total in 1992 to 44% in 2001. R&D INVESTMENT: In the late 1990s, China, South Korea, and Taiwan increased their gross R&D investments by nearly 140%, while the U.S. investment grew by 34%. Private sector R&D investment in the U.S. now exceeds federal investment, but 71% of private sector investment is for development rather than basic research. As a percentage of GDP, U.S. physical sciences funding "has been in a thirty year decline." Between 1995-2001, China doubled the percentage of its GDP invested in R&D, and intends to increase the percentage devoted to basic research by more than 200% over the next decade. Over the same period, Japanese and European businesses increased their R&D spending, while U.S. businesses decreased theirs. HIGH-TECH ECONOMY: The U.S. share of worldwide high-tech exports "has been in a 20-year decline." In 2003, China was the largest recipient of foreign direct investment, while investment in U.S. businesses is dropping. Even though the U.S. high-tech industry output doubled between 1989-2001, many Asian countries' high-tech industry grew faster; China's high-tech output "shot up more than 8-fold, from $30 billion to $257 billion." The report also cites several benchmarks for specific sectors, including nanotechnology, information technology, energy, aerospace, and biotechnology. ############### Audrey T. Leath Media and Government Relations Division The American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org http://www.aip.org/gov (301) 209-3094 ##END##########
| |
| Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 11:18 am Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:42:24 -0500 From: fyi@aip.org Subject: FYI #159: U.S. Students in Science and Math FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 159: December 17, 2004 Mixed Results for U.S. Students in International Comparisons The results of the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) were released on December 14, 2004. U.S. students continue to score significantly above the international averages in both math and science. The results suggest that U.S. eighth-graders have made strides in both subjects over the last eight years, but that U.S. fourth-graders' performance has stagnated. In another international comparison, U.S. 15-year-olds did not measure up to the international average in mathematics literacy and problem-solving skills. The TIMSS assessments are carried out by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) (http://www.iea.nl/iea/hq/), and the first assessment was conducted in 1995. Follow-up studies are conducted every four years, providing an ongoing source of international comparison. The 2003 assessment tested fourth- and eighth-graders in mathematics and science. More than 360,000 students in 49 countries participated in the 2003 study. Students from Singapore outperformed students from all other countries in both math and science, at both grade levels. EIGHTH-GRADE RESULTS: Forty-five countries participated in the assessments at the eighth-grade level. The results indicate that U.S. eighth-graders scored better in both science and math than in previous assessments. Gains in math occurred primarily between 1995 and 1999, with the greatest gains in science occurring between 1999 and 2003. The results also suggest that, since 1995, U.S. eighth-graders have improved their performance in science and math relative to eighth-graders in the other participating countries. In science, U.S. eighth-graders were outperformed by eighth-grade students in the following eight countries: Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong SAR, Estonia, Japan, Hungary, and Netherlands. In math, U.S. eighth-graders were outperformed by their peers in 14 countries: Singapore, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong SAR, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Belgium, Netherlands, Estonia, Hungary, Malaysia, Latvia, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, and Australia. Internationally, at the eighth-grade level, gender differences were negligible in math. In science, boys in most countries scored significantly higher than girls, although girls on the whole showed greater improvement since the last TIMSS assessment. Boys generally performed better in physics and earth science, while girls generally scored higher in life science. FOURTH-GRADE RESULTS: Twenty-five countries participated in the fourth-grade assessments. There was no significant change in either the science or math performance of U.S. fourth-graders between 1995 and 2003, and the data indicate that their scores in 2003 were lower than in 1995 relative to students in other participating countries. In science, U.S. fourth-graders were outperformed by their peers in five countries: Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Hong Kong SAR, and England. In math, fourth-graders from the U.S. were outperformed by their peers in 11 countries: Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Belgium, Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, Russian Federation, England, and Hungary. Internationally, gender differences among students at the fourth-grade level were negligible in both science and math. OTHER FACTORS: The 2003 assessment also found that, in almost all countries, higher parental education levels were associated with higher student achievement. In general, high student achievement was also positively associated with speaking the language of the test at home, the number of books in the home, computer use, school safety, and low numbers of economically-disadvantaged students in a school. PROGRAM FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ASSESSMENT Another international comparison of students showed U.S. 15-year-olds performing below the international average of participating countries in an assessment of mathematical literacy and problem-solving. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is organized under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (see http://www.oecd.org/home/). Students from both OECD and non-OECD nations participated in the PISA study, which assesses reading literacy, math literacy, science literacy, and skills such as problem-solving every three years. One or more subject areas are chosen each time for in-depth measurement, with mathematics literacy and problem-solving targeted in the 2003 assessment. The 2003 PISA results were released on December 6. Of the 41 nations that participated in this assessment, U.S. 15-year-olds were outperformed by students in 23 other nations in math literacy, and by students in 25 other nations in problem-solving. Students from the U.S. scored below the average for OECD countries on each component of math literacy (space and shape, change and relationships, quantity, and uncertainty). They performed at the OECD average in reading literacy and below the OECD average in science literacy. In math literacy, boys outperformed girls in the U.S. and in two-thirds of the participating nations. However, there was no significant gender difference in problem-solving. "The PISA results are a blinking warning light," Education Secretary Rod Paige said in a press release. "It's more evidence that high standards and accountability for results are a good idea for all schools at all grade levels." Highlights of the TIMSS and PISA studies are available at http://nces.ed.gov. ############### Audrey T. Leath Media and Government Relations Division The American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org http://www.aip.org/gov (301) 209-3094 ##END##########
| |
| Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 06:25 pm It's the same old story. Automatic, merit-blind increases of 2-3 times the inflation rate, every year.
| |
| Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 08:22 pm Hey, was anyone else disappointed in the results of the teachers contract talks? The contract went down to the wire and still achieved only a very grudging agreement to pick up some of the cost of health insurance in the second year. That in the contest of 3%, 2.6% and 3% raises over the three years. I don't begrudge teachers anything they earn, and I'm willing to stipulate that every single one of them is talented, creative and energetic, but the problem is that we can't afford them. You have to figure that on top of the overall raise, many of them are also getting annual step raises, or raises for having increased their education. Are they overpaid? Who can say? What we can say is that we don't have the money to pay them what they ask anymore. Bear in mind that administrators' pay scales are targeted to come in above most of the teachers. It's time for a change in the whole structure of the contract, maybe bringing up the bottom, but cutting off the top for taxpayers' benefit. Granted, the teachers won't agree to this, but facing massive community nonsupport might bring them around, perhaps after several years without a contract. Cleveland Heights might break new ground in labor regulation just by winning the right to demand concessions on the grounds of lacking money. Personnel costs are by far the biggest part of the district budget. Controlling them is going to require some really nasty work, but there's no other alternative.
| |
| Friday, July 30, 2004 - 09:33 pm Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:31:49 -0400 From: fyi@aip.org Subject: FYI #103: S&E Workforce FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 103: July 28, 2004 Point-Counterpoint: Status of U.S. Science and Engineering Workforce A recurring theme in S&T policy discussions has been the status of the scientific and engineering workforce in America. There has been and continues to be concern about whether or not the United States is training enough scientists and engineers for the future economy. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers and five other engineering societies, in conjunction with the Congressional Research and Development Caucus, sponsored a well-attended briefing on July 15 featuring three speakers with a range of views on whether the U.S. is training a large enough S&T workforce for the future. Opening the briefing were caucus co-chairs Judy Biggert (R-IL) and Rush Holt (D-NJ). This caucus has 33 members representing the full spectrum of political ideology. The briefing was the latest in a series of caucus events on S&T topics such as the hydrogen economy, defense S&T, and advanced health technologies. Congressional caucuses give Members of Congress who may not sit on a relevant committee the opportunity to be active in an issue area. Caucuses also highlight the importance of a particular issue. Further information on this caucus is at www.researchcaucus.org Biggert, Holt and Michael Reischman of ASME set the stage for the speakers, with Reischman neatly summarizing the issue by asking if there is "a real gap or not?" Biggert, the chair of the House Science Subcommittee on Energy, spoke of the continuing concern there has been about the replacement of retiring members of the current S&T workforce. Also of concern are the many foreign-born S&T graduates of U.S. institutions who, while once remaining in America, are now returning home. The future S&T workforce question is an important one, she said, with "everything on the line," including our nation's economy, living standard, and security. Holt's remarks seconded Biggert's comments. He explained that the international ranking of the United States with citizens 18-26 years old educated in S&T fields has dropped considerably in the last 25 years. Decisions now being made by middle grade students will have important ramifications on the future S&T workforce, he said. This is not a clearly defined issue, Holt added, alluding to a recent American Institute of Physics review of a National Science Board statement (see http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0704/070413.cfm .) Michael P. Crosby is the Executive Officer for the National Science Board. The board issued a statement warning that "the nation's economic welfare and security are at stake" because of the declining number of Americans who are being trained to become scientists and engineers, while the number of jobs requiring such training grows (http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/087.html.) Crosby used a series of visuals to illustrate why the board drew this conclusion, citing "concern over the long term" about global competition, U.S. reliance on foreign researchers, impending S&T workforce retirements, and the lack of bachelor degree candidates in the sciences. Regarding U.S. dependence on foreign researchers, Cosby stated it is "not going to serve our nation well" to depend on them, and that the United States must "grow our own." A major obstacle to increasing the number of science and engineering graduates are the very high opportunity costs in obtaining an advanced degree. Crosby closed by saying that "the board concludes there is no immediate crisis . . . [but] the long term trends are disturbing." Presenting a different view was Michael S. Teitelbaum, a demographer at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Teitelbaum began by saying that the claim about an impending S&T workforce shortage has been made for almost two decades, noting the NSF's previous prominent role in advancing this position. Asking if the current pronouncement is "deja vu, all over again," he characterized the shortfall claims as lacking analytical rigor. Teitelbaum contends that overall S&E labor markets are "slack," science "career prospects deteriorating," and engineering careers "unstable." "If anything, data points to surpluses," he said. "No one can forecast the S&E scene in 2012," he exclaimed. Further attention should be given to not only supply, but also to demand for these positions. Teitelbaum also described the high opportunity costs involved in establishing a science or engineering career, giving as an example the required 9-12 year post-baccalaureate education /apprenticeship process for bioscientists. The third speaker was John A. Brighton, Assistant Director for Engineering at the NSF. Brighton urged that science and engineering be viewed as distinct disciplines (rather than lumping them together as is customary), saying that they are as distinct as railroads and highways are as forms of transportation. Brighton explained that "engineering enrollments are unstable" and difficult to predict. He advocated that future engineers be educated more broadly, and called for engineering schools to rethink their programs. Specialization in one engineering field, he said, makes an individual less marketable in non-academic positions. Highlighting one troublesome problem, Brighton called for more research to determine why students switch out of engineering majors. The Congressional Research Caucus has posted the materials presented at the briefing at the following site: http://www.researchcaucus.org/schedule/04July15/default.asp ############### Richard M. Jones Media and Government Relations Division The American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org http://www.aip.org/gov (301) 209-3094 ##END##########
| |
| Friday, November 07, 2003 - 05:25 pm Please add something to this conversation. This is open space for anyone. Nothing is quashed unless contributors quash themsleves.
| |
| Thursday, November 06, 2003 - 09:44 pm Is this forum still being used? Or has discussion of the issues surrounding the recent levy campaign been quashed? More discussion, rather than less, will help get accurate information out to the constituency.
| |
| Monday, November 03, 2003 - 10:55 pm Dr. Susan Tave Zelman Ohio State Superintendent of Schools The Future Of Public Education In Ohio Tuesday, November 11, 2004 Temple Tifereth-Israel 26000 Shaker Blvd. 7:00 PM doors open 6:30 PM http://www.ncjwcleveland.org
| |
| Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 10:04 pm You Are Invited to a Public Forum on School Governance – October 14, 2003 Reaching Heights, the Cleveland Heights-University Heights Public Schools Foundation, will host a public forum, Governing Our Public Schools 7 p.m., Tuesday, October 14 at Forest Hill Church Fellowship Hall 3031 Monticello Boulevard in Cleveland Heights The public is invited to this free event that is co-sponsored by The League of Women Voters – Cuyahoga Regional Area, CH-UH Chapter. A panel of experts on school governance will discuss: · The roles and responsibilities of boards of education, · how effective boards operate, and · the skills that make an effective school board member. The program is designed to increase pubic understanding of this important public body and how the community can contribute to its success. The panel discussion will be moderated by Steven Minter, retired president of The Cleveland Foundation and newly appointed Executive-In-Residence at Cleveland State University. Panelists include: · John Brandt, executive director, Ohio School Boards Association; · Dr. Ronald J. Fowler, former president, Akron Board of Education, and · Barbara Greene, principal, Common Good Consulting, and founding president, Summit Education Initiative At the end of the guided dialogue, the panel will respond to written questions submitted by the audience.
| |
| Friday, September 05, 2003 - 10:16 am This forum is open to the public LEAGUE FORUM ON COMMUNITY/CHARTER SCHOOLS September 24, 2003 A forum on community/charter schools, sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Metropolitan Columbus, will be held Wednesday, September 24 at the Clintonville Woman’s Club, 3951 North High Street, Columbus. Because this topic is of such great interest to League members and other citizens across the state, LWVO has arranged for the forum to be covered by Ohio Government Telecommunications, which can make the program available for rebroadcast by local community access channels. See below for background on community schools and information about the panelists. If you would like to attend the forum in person, call the Metro League at (614) 863-9345 (e-mail lwvcols@iwaynet.net). Tickets must be purchased prior to the 24th at $17 per person. Dinner, which is included in the cost of the ticket, will be served at 6:15 p.m., with the program to follow at 7 p.m. If you would like to view the forum on television locally, you should take the following steps: 1) Contact your local PEG (Public/Educational/Government) Access channel RIGHT NOW and encourage them to receive OGT’s programming feed. Use the attached list (in Excel) to find the PEG station closest to you. If your area is not listed, try calling your local PBS station, another local TV station, your cable company, or city hall and ask for the number of the closest PEG/community access station. Call now—don’t wait until the week of September 24 to call the station if you want to get on its programming schedule and make sure it can connect to OGT. Local stations should know that this timely program on an issue of statewide importance should be broadcast locally so that viewers can educate themselves about the topic. Encourage fellow League members and other interested parties to call, too. 2) Inform your local station that OGT will broadcast the forum on Thursday, September 25 (the day after it is held) at 11:00 a.m. and again at 1:00 p.m. The length of the program is likely to be about 1.5 hours. 3) Most PEG stations will know where to go from there. Local PEG stations that are unfamiliar with how or where to receive the OGT Statehouse feed should contact their local PBS affiliates to receive the programming. The OGT feed is distributed to all Ohio PBS affiliates, so feel free to encourage your local PBS station to run the program as well. (Be aware, though, that it is more likely to be picked up by PEG than PBS.) Stations unable to access the OGT feed through their PBS affiliates, but still interested in airing the forum, should contact Jackie Shafer directly to arrange for taped copies. Any questions or inquiries can be referred to Jackie at OGT: (614) 728-4183 or jshafer@ogtv.org. 4) Follow up with the station to find out when the program will air, and then get the word out to your members and the community so that they can watch. The more calls the PEG station receives, the more likely it is to broadcast the program. Remember to thank the station for being responsive to such community requests. BACKGROUND Ohio is one of 37 states which approved the formation of community charter schools as of fiscal year 2001. Community schools were established by the 122nd General Assembly, and while the legislation has been revised many times, it should be noted that community schools are exempt from some state laws and administrative rules required of traditional public schools. Community schools are defined as independent, state-funded, nonprofit, nonsectarian public schools which operate according to a contract negotiated between the governing authority of the school and a sponsor. The governing authority is the nonprofit board or a “public benefit” corporation which starts the particular school. Eleven community schools have closed since 1999. Ohio has had an average of 132 community schools operating at a time. In January of 2003, 33,000 students were attending community schools at a cost of $197 million. The LWV-MC panel discussion will include: 1) Steve Burigana, Executive Director of the Office of Community Schools, Ohio Department of Education, will be asked to provide an overview of the law, discuss requirements of community schools vs. public schools and how they are held accountable. 2) Jeff Forster, Principal of the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) Community School, will be asked to discuss the education programs offered through their unique features, the workings of his school and their performance record. 3) Tom Mooney, President of Ohio Federation of Teachers, will be asked about the Coalition for Public Education and the lawsuit; community school funding and his view of community schools’ effect on traditional public schools. Moderator for the discussion will be John Fortney, anchor of ONN, the Ohio News Network. The League of Women Voters extends its thanks to Ohio Government Telecommunications and to Ohio News Network for helping to broadcast this issue of statewide import beyond Columbus.
| |
| Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 11:22 am Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:15:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: FYI #59: Math/Science Education Partnerships (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:41:45 -0400 From: fyi@aip.org Subject: FYI #59: Math/Science Education Partnerships FYI The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 59: April 30, 2003 Higher Funding Sought for Math & Science Partnerships As reported in FYI #55, the American Institute of Physics and seven of its Member Societies have joined over 50 organizations, under the auspices of the K-12 Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education Coalition, to urge greater FY 2004 funding for the Education Department's Math and Science Partnerships. In a parallel effort initiated by Reps. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), Rush Holt (D-NJ), and Judy Biggert (R-IL), almost 40 House members signed a similar letter to key appropriators in the House. While the Education Department's Partnership program was authorized at a level of $450 million in the "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)," it only received $12.5 million in FY 2002, with the same amount requested for fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Congress increased its funding to $100.4 million in FY 2003, just above the threshold to enable funding to be distributed to every state. The efforts described above now seek to increase the funding to $200 million in FY 2004, as continued progress toward full funding of $450 million by FY 2007, the year that NCLB requires schools to begin science assessments. Both letters also support the National Science Foundation's Math and Science Partnership program, which received $127 million in FY 2003, and for which $200 million has been requested for FY 2004. The difference between the NSF and Education Department Partnership programs is spelled out in the Holt, Ehlers, Biggert letter. Below is selected text from the April 28 K-12 STEM Education Coalition letter to House and Senate appropriators. Signatories include AIP and six of its Member Societies: the Acoustical Society of America, the American Association of Physics Teachers, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, the American Astronomical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Physical Society, and the Optical Society of America. This letter is followed by the Holt, Ehlers, Biggert letter. K-12 STEM EDUCATION COALITION LETTER: "We are very grateful for your support of the U.S. Department of Education's (ED) Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program in the FY 2003 appropriations. Funding this program at $100 million transformed this initiative into a competitive, state-based program. Your leadership has set in motion a process that will lead to urgently needed professional development programs to ensure that our children are taught by highly qualified mathematics and science teachers. "MSPs are designed to bring together all relevant stakeholders, including university or college engineering, mathematics or science departments, businesses, the state education agency and a local high-need school to address specific local needs. The program provides flexibility, allowing the partnerships to: Recruit, train and mentor new math and science teachers; Develop summer institutes and distance learning to provide ongoing professional development opportunities; Bring teachers together with scientists, mathematicians and engineers to enhance subject matter knowledge and teaching skills; Develop more rigorous curricula, aligned with challenging state and local standards, and consistent with post secondary expectations; Effectively integrate technology into the classroom; and Design programs to encourage young women and underrepresented minorities to pursue science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) careers. "Improving the teaching and learning of mathematics and science will require a significant investment in teacher training. We believe it is necessary to provide reliable resources to these implementation systems. We urge you and your committee to commit to fully fund the MSPs by the time science assessments are required in the FY 2007. To that end, we urge you to provide $200 million in FY 2004. "The National Science Foundation (NSF) has also launched a complementary Math and Science Partnership program, which we support, that seeks to develop ideal models and best practices via a competitive grant process. Yet, not every state will benefit from this program. The ED program is needed so that every state can develop the infrastructure to implement these best practices." "We urge you to support our nation's K-12 mathematics and science education by progressively funding the Department of Education's Math and Science Partnership program to reach the authorized level of $450 million by FY 2007. Thank you for considering our request." Selections from the April 11 Holt, Ehlers, Biggert letter to House appropriators follows: HOLT, EHLERS, BIGGERT LETTER: "As you consider your priorities for the fiscal year 2004 appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, we encourage you to increase funding for the Math and Science Partnership program at the Department of Education to $200 million. "We are very grateful for your support of $100 million for this program in the fiscal year 2003 budget. This is an important step toward fully funding the authorized amount of $450 million by the 2007-2008 school year, when science testing will also be required. An appropriation of $200 million in fiscal year 2004 will help ensure we reach this goal." "The National Science Foundation (NSF) has also launched a complementary Math and Science Partnerships program. Through a competitive grant procedure, the NSF initiative is designed to develop model partnerships and best practices to improve science and math education. The ED partnerships would focus on implementing and scaling up the models and best practices identified by the NSF. However, since it is a competitive program, the NSF program will not provide every state with targeted funds for math and science professional development. In contrast, the ED partnerships -- if funded over $100 million - would provide much-needed funding to every state through formula grants. "By creating the Math and Science Partnership program as part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Congress affirmed the critical importance of improving math and science at all grade levels.... We urge you to continue to improve our nation's K-12 math and science education by increasing funding for the Department of Education's Math and Science Partnership program." ############### Audrey T. Leath Media and Government Relations Division The American Institute of Physics fyi@aip.org (301) 209-3094 ##END##########
| |
| Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 03:24 pm Recent year budgets have grown, I doubt by a calculated $5 million step. My experience is that you have to get pretty intimate with the budgets over several years to find specific cases to question. I encourage more routine citizen vigilence there if we want to improve budgeting. The budgets are public record and can be requested from the Board. I have put older budgets on the web at http://chuh.net/aw as a volunteer. But have been too short of time the last year. I do not believe they publish this on the web themselves. Asking for such will always increase the chances of such publishing in the future. It is surprising how labor intensive that web publication is for the District. It is not willful information constraint. It is more of a lack of cost-effective information technology management infrastructure and the start-up labor to make that job easy long-term. Such infrastructure change costs have been postponed. I have ideas that would make the start-up less painful. But that's another story  . The next 2003-04 budget doesn't solidify until June, just before the next FY starts July 1. There may be drafts that Scott Gainer (Treasurer) can give out. I can not speak with inside knowledge. But current and the next school year budgets have to balance with existing revenue or a just passed levy. New levy revenue starts in January of the year following any levy passage. Januaries are in the middle of a school year. General employment commitments start by the beginning of the school year (late August this year). Teacher commitments for next year have to be made early May by contract. So the logic is a district can not commit money now if sufficient money to carry on is not there for next Spring (existing or just passed levy). A real wild card this year is that all the District's labor contracts are up the end of this school year. The District can not certify/sign a contract (new state law) if it does not have existing revenue for the life of the contract (3 or 4 years in our case). So any growth in cost in the new contracts has to be funded from existing revenue or a just passed levy. The debate boils down to no increase in salaries or benefits or a reduction in employee count in order to stay within current revenue. The former is unlikely in the working and health benefits cost world of today. There may be modest middle ground options in the labor negotiations, but negotiations are barely beginning and are behind closed doors. To add to this, the State's new budget for the next two years calls out less revenue for all schools. So for CHUH the total revenue declines without a new levy. I assume you know about the fact that school levys are capped at the calculated revenue from them at the date of passage. The millage of school levys is discounted over time to offset any increased assessed valuation. New development is the only place for new revenue without a new levy. That is why growing suburbs don't tax as hard. They get revenue growth from new development in substantial chunks. CHUH had that good fortune in the first half of the 20th century. Other small cuts in non-employee areas might be found by careful scrutiny of budgets over the years. Bottom line is new revenue or fewer employees in FY2003-04 and thereafter.
| |
| Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 11:05 am Does the CHUH Board of Education publish its proposed budgets anywhere on the internet? Their own site appears to be three years behind the times. I am very interested in seeing the 2002-2003 budget compared to the 2003-2004 budget. My interest is based on the Superintendant's claims that without an increase, his organization will have to cut some five million dollars from the budget. Was five million dollars added to the budget so he could make such a claim?
| |
| Tuesday, April 15, 2003 - 06:17 pm The CH-UH League of Women Voters has assembled Census Data and produced a video of personal interviews that will be presented April 29, 2003, 7:30 PM at the CH-UH Main Library, 2345 Lee Road. In the tradition of the League of Women Voters, this is about facts and challenges facing the schools. It is not about feeling good or feeling bad about our schools. 1970 data is compared to 2000 data. Please take a look at the flyer at: http://chuh.net/lwv/Awareness.Flyer.pdf View it with Acrobat reader. Pass it around.
| |
| Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 09:54 pm To find the CH-UH district and building proficiency performance trend plots 1995-96 through 2001-02 go to http://chuh.net/aw/#assessment Science and Math showed widespread decline. Wiley Middle School showed some notable upturns.
| |
| Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 08:01 am I have updated the http://chuh.net/aw/ web page of unofficial current and historical state and district data, from funding to achievement. There is a new link of note under "CH-UH Schools Links": http://tech.chhs.chuh.org/ It is a serious computer technology learning environment home page at Heights High.
| |
| Sunday, February 02, 2003 - 07:52 am The recent press on District Report Cards and the comparative Shaker/CH-UH performance motivated me to look at the 2000-01 school year results more completely. Here is a link to those results: http://chuh.net/aw/emis/CH-Shak.disag.html
| |
| Wednesday, January 15, 2003 - 09:01 am Never mind, I did misread it... That being said, it is impressive to see CH-UH school district almost at the bottom of the list for Cuyahoga county.
| |
| Tuesday, January 14, 2003 - 05:57 pm Am I correct in reading the new data from the State of Ohio shows that the CHUH school district actually dropped from Continous Improvement to Academic watch, with only 10 areas passed, down from 14? Is this what the highest taxed city in the state is paying for?
| |
| Tuesday, October 29, 2002 - 10:57 am Just happened to be watching Channel 21 last night and heard the school board speak about adding yet another levy issue on the May ballot. At what point is enough, enough? We are in the midst of an economic downturn...many of my business associates have gone under, or are out of work completly. Yet once again, the school board is asking for more money. The private sector has had to make significant cuts in recent years. I think it is about time the schools did the same.
| |
| Friday, September 20, 2002 - 10:02 pm Folks, I rigged up another feature so you can post to this Web Forum and/or post to the discus-ed email listserv by email. Paste all the text and Follow the directions below the ************ line to just email post to this Web Forum. To both post to this listserv and the Web Forum follow the directions below the ************ line and add: cc: discus-ed@chuh.net in your email. We welcome new subscribers to the discus-ed listserv. Anyone can subscribe to discus-ed@chuh.net by sending an email: To: discus-ed-request@chuh.net Subject: subscribe ************** Cut and paste all below this line ************************************** To post to the SUBJECT web forum by e-mail, please follow these directions: 1) forward this message To: speakeasy@chuh.net 2) Delete the [Your message here] placeholder below 3) Enter your message between the arrow lines 4) Send the message \/--\/--\/--\/--\/--\/--\/--\/--\/--\/--\/--\/ [Your message here] /\--/\--/\--/\--/\--/\--/\--/\--/\--/\--/\--/\ ******************************************************************* Use this link to go directly to the discussion: http://www.chuh.net/cgi-bin/show.pl?159/168 ******DO*NOT*MODIFY*THE*FOLLOWING*LINE****** \<==============>159<=>168<=>395<==============> ********DO*NOT*MODIFY*THE*ABOVE*LINE********
| |
| Sunday, August 25, 2002 - 02:26 pm Below CWRU's Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss, physics dept. chair, talks to the world on intelligent design and the Ohio curriculum debate. The article is from the August/September 2002 issue of the American Physical Society's "APS News". Redistribuiton is authorized. I am one who believes science is about testable predictions of nature. I like matters of faith and have my own. Faith has a role in human development. It's just not science. Politicization seems to confuse the matter as it does many other matters in education. The children lose while we adults politic. ==== Article follows ============ Odds Are Stacked When Science Tries To Debate Pseudoscience By Lawrence M. Krauss I vividly remember the first time I was hijacked on the radio. I had agreed to participate in a debate for a Florida radio program that specialized in alien visits and UFO sightings. My better judgment suggested that I should be wary. But I thought if I kept my focus purely on the physics challenges involved in space travel, I might be able to persuade some listeners to be skeptical of the claims that aliens were regularly visiting, abducting and experimenting with our fellow earthlings. I should have known better. After 45 minutes defending myself against the claim that I was close- minded, when I argued that science did in fact impose constraints on what is possible, and politely responding to demands that I must first scrupulously review all the specific claims of alien sightings before I could possibly have the temerity to make general statements about plausibility or implausibility, I felt that any uninformed listeners who might have been waiting to be swayed probably found themselves merely confused at the end of the show. In a debate that confronts the results of science with pseudoscience, from alien abductions and crop circles on one hand to the health benefits of weak magnetic fields or young earth creationism on the other, the odds are stacked against science. Part of the problem is uniquely American. We in the United States are constantly regaled by stories about the limitless possibilities open to those with know-how and a spirit of enterprise. Combine that with a public that perceives the limits of science as targets that are constantly being overcome, and the suggestion that anything is absolutely impossible seems like an affront. Indeed, modern technology has made the seemingly impossible almost ordinary. How often have I heard the cry from an audience, Yeah, but 300 years ago people would have said it would be impossible to fly! Although true, the problem with that assertion is that 300 years ago people did not know enough about the laws of physics to make the assertion, so the claim would have been improper. Had they made a simpler claim like, 300 years from now, if you drop this cannonball off the Tower of Pisa, it will fall down, they would have been right. Although it is probably true that there is far more that we do not know about nature than that we do know, we do know something! We know that balls, when dropped, fall down. We do know that Earth is round and not flat. We do know how electromagnetism works, and we do know that Earth is billions of years old, not thousands. We may not know how spacecraft of the future will be propelled, whether matter-antimatter drives will be built or even if time travel is possible. But we do know, absolutely, how much on-board fuel will be needed to speed up a substantial spacecraft to near the speed of light: an enormous amount, probably enough to power all of human civilization at the present time for perhaps a decade. As difficult as debating ultimate limits of the possible may be, there is another debate that is even harder to win. But it is a debate that may be even more important. It is a debate on the fairness of science. The reason for the difficulty is simple. Science is not fair. All ideas are not treated equally. Only those that have satisfied the test of experiment or can be tested by experiment have any currency. Beautiful ideas, elegant ideas and even sacrosanct notions are not immune from termination by the chilling knife edge of experimental data. In Ohio, a debate is raging over whether to teach intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. Intelligent design is based on the belief that life is too complicated to explain by natural causes alone and that some intelligence, ultimately some divine intelligence, must have created the original life forms on earth or guided their development. Proponents of that idea suggest that including it in the curriculum is simply a question of fairness. If a significant number of people do not believe that evolution provides an adequate explanation of the origin of species, they argue, then it is only fair to present both sides of the argument in a high school science class. But at least half of Americans polled in a recent survey by the National Science Foundation did not know that Earth orbits the Sun, and that it takes a year to do so. Does this mean we should teach that Earth is the center of the universe? Of course not. It merely means that we are not doing a very good job informing the public about physics. Science is not a democratic process. It does not proceed by majority rule and it does not accept notions that have already been disproven by experiment. Intelligent design makes assertions that cannot be tested by experiment. Those assertions that can be tested, say about blood clotting or the claimed irreducible complexity of various components of cells, seem to have thus far failed those tests. So intelligent design does not belong in a science class. End of story. Nevertheless, recently the Ohio State School Board felt it necessary to run a hearing on evolution vs. intelligent design in a debate format, with two proponents of evolution to face off against two advocates of intelligent design in Columbus. One might think that I would know better than to agree to participate in such a debate. But I did, because I felt the education of school children in Ohio was so important. Nevertheless, I tried to learn from my earlier mistakes. Merely having a debate inevitably suggests that each side has some credibility. As a result, opponents of the scientific method like creationists try very hard to appear in debates with scientists. Merely being on the same stage represents a victory! I made sure that I emphasized this intrinsic inequity in my opening remarks in Columbus, and it colored much of the subsequent discussion, as well as the later reporting of the event. I do not know whether it was sufficient to let listeners focus on whether there was really anything worth debating in the first place. But it at least allowed for that possibility. In the meantime, for those scientists who find themselves thrust in such public debates, I have found at least one useful tool. When debating UFO experts, ask them whether they believe in Young Earth Creationism. When debating young earth creationists, ask them whether they believe in alien UFO's. When they say no, ask why. Their answers will inevitably shed light on the weakness of their own positions. Of course, as has once happened to me, you might find yourself debating a UFO-believing creationist. But you can't win them all. My hope is that you can win at least some of the time. Lawrence M. Krauss is chairman of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University and the author of the bestselling book, The Physics of Star Trek. His most recent book, Atom: An Odyssey from the Big Bang to Life on Earth...and Beyond, was published in Spring 2001. This article first appeared on April 30, 2002, in the New York Times. Reprinted by permission of the author. ________________________________________________________________________________ Copyright 2002, The American Physical Society. The APS encourages the redistribution of the materials included in this newsletter provided that attribution to the source is noted and the materials are not truncated or changed.
| |
| Monday, August 05, 2002 - 09:11 pm Recent CH-UH District Financial Information: 2002-2003 school year State Funding Formula (SF-3) calculation for CH-UH: http://chuh.net/aw/SF-3/f2003-simulation-reports.chuh.html This is informative for how State aid is calculated. 1999-2006 CH-UH 8 year top level Income and Expenditure History and Projection: http://chuh.net/aw/SF-3/Forecast-043794-2002.html
| |
| Sunday, May 05, 2002 - 02:55 pm To Roxboro Parent- I have in my possession a copy of the entire unedited CHUH School Board response to the Petro audit. It should be on file at the Main Library.
| |
| Saturday, May 04, 2002 - 01:12 pm Readers, Since it seems folks have drifted over to posting petition notices etc. to the Diversity and Same Sex ... discussions, I decided to weed those items from the education forum. As an administrator they did strick me as a stretch for this group. Complain if this seems like unresonable editorial house-keeping. chuh.net has to find an equilibrium for tweaking the forums.
| |
| Monday, April 29, 2002 - 05:32 pm Copied from Aerospace Daily April 29, 2002 Rothenberg: The real tech transfer is taking place through universities TRUE TECH TRANSFER: The true mechanism through which American aerospace technology is being transferred overseas is our system of higher education, according to Joseph Rothenberg, former head of NASA's Office of Human Spaceflight. "I contend that [technology is] leaving the country through the education system," Rothenberg says. "There's a diminishing number of people graduating from universities ... in science and engineering who are staying in the country. There are a lot of international students ... and many of them now are returning to their home countries. We're educating our competitors." Less than five percent of American university graduates are going into aerospace, and if this trend isn't reversed, America will lose its "technological leadership" within 10 to 20 years, according to Rothenberg.
| |
| Friday, April 26, 2002 - 12:32 am Thanks Allen
| |
| Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 09:53 pm Rox Middle School Parent, To give a caveat up front  , I don't have any inside knowledge of the final Board of Ed. (BOE) response to the 1999 Petro audit. I do mumble to myself that there was no public closure to the citizen review of that audit. The CHUH.ORG website has some of the citizen panel's early thoughts. So here I can not detail the various BOE responses to specific audit recommendations. None-the-less the BOE did submit the legally required response to the State auditor. I think it was 6 months after the audit's release. A draft of that BOE response was on the CHUH.ORG website. The BOE's responses I saw were a mixed acceptance and rejection of the numerous savings recommended. I surmise the BOE wants to leave that audit as bygones. The most current and detailed financial reporting from the BOE is the Fiscal year ending 6/30/2001 "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report". This report is available in paper version upon request from the District Treasurer, Scott Gainer. It looks like a new medium for the BOE. There is a Petro audit letter in that Financial report. It basically approves the 2000-2001 year audit. It also refers to the complete State Auditor's report dated January 31, 2002 for further details. I do not have a copy of that. This is my level of knowledge, which probably doesn't fully address your question.
| |
| Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 05:15 pm Thanks Allen, What I am most interested in is how the district is addressing the issues concerning the top-heavy nature of administration compared to other districts. How do they plan to make better use of the money, so more of it is spent on instruction and building renovatios and less on tons of administration and staff positions?
| |
| Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 04:57 pm The National Assessment of Educational Progress under the US Dept. of Education has been tracking achievement in Science, Math, and Reading since about 1970. _ I do not have a first hand view of the consistency of the students sampled or the test questions. See the web links below to research that deeper. _ The achievement trends are flat or weakly rising for the three age groups tracked; 9, 13, and 17 year olds. There is only one exception to that. 17 year old science performance has shown a statistically significant decline. _ The simplest message from this data is that American education perfomance has been not better or worse over the last 30 years. What has changed is the American economy and its dependence on a larger fraction of critical thinking and life-long learning employees. Similarly our criticism of education effectiveness has risen over these 30 years. These three observations suggest criticism nationally comes from rising expectations rather than falling achievement. _ I applaud this rise of expectations. Our challenge is to enable our education system to rise to meet these expectations. _ Science Trends: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/science/trendsnational.asp _ Math Trends: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/trendsnational.asp _ Reading Trends: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/trendsnational.asp
| |
| Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 10:49 am Petro Issues Cleveland Heights-University Heights City Schools Performance Audit July 15, 1999 "http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/news_releases/1999/n19990715.htm" COLUMBUS - The Cleveland Heights-University Heights (CH-UH) City School District should attempt to improve its financial management while redirecting more funds toward instruction, said Auditor of State Jim Petro today in issuing a performance audit of the district. "The district has favorable academic performance among Ohio's urban districts, but it hasn't achieved a high level of fiscal accountability," said Petro. "This report can guide the district toward improved financial management and operational practices." Petro noted that CH-UH ranks higher in state academic standards than most of Ohio's 21 urban school systems, and that auditors found 78 commendable district business practices in operational areas such as several union contract provisions favorable to the district. CH-UH has historically enjoyed voter support and financial stability, maintaining the highest per pupil revenues ($9,853) and expenditures ($9,224) of any urban district (average $7,083 revenues and $7,113 expenditures). Yet the district projects that deficits as high as $7 million will begin appearing in 2001 without new revenues or spending reductions. Because CH-UH devotes a higher percentage of its funds to non-instructional expenses (46.4 percent) than most urban districts (average 42.4 percent), there is significant opportunity to reduce spending in non-instructional areas. The audit offers 194 recommendations to help CH-UH offset projected deficits and redirect a greater percentage of its funds toward instruction. Some key audit recommendations and commendations include: Financial management. Past financial practices such as overspending appropriations, poor budget monitoring and excessive transfers have hindered proper record keeping and board efforts to oversee financial matters. Current accounting practices and software cannot provide accurate financial information, preventing district managers from making informed decisions for daily operations. While CH-UH's interim treasurer is improving the financial management structure, it must continue implementing stronger controls to assure reliable information. Procurement. CH-UH makes a consistent effort to pursue lower prices for goods and services under various cooperative arrangements. Yet it needs to pursue greater use of competitive bidding, elimination of direct pays that circumvent encumbrances and other procurement revisions to assure best pricing and objective vendor selection. Staffing. Though staffing levels per 1,000 students (144) exceeded the urban district average by 13 percent, CH-UH maintains a lower percentage of teachers (49.5 percent) than most urban districts. It appears overstaffed in certain administrative positions, librarians, grounds keepers, clerical and custodial positions. Establishing staffing levels in these areas comparable to other urban districts and industry standards could save more than $2 million annually, which could be redirected toward instruction. Contract provisions. Many union contract provisions are favorable for the district, including a probationary work period for classified employees and flexibility to transfer teachers based on staffing needs. However, provisions such as a generous severance package for unused sick time (current $1.2 million liability); payment of classified employees' share of retirement contribution ($538,000 annual cost) and benefit packages that require no employee premium contributions ($5,191 annual cost per employee) are costly. It should negotiate to provide a better balance between employee benefits and costs to the district. Facilities. CH-UH has passed capital improvement levies since 1989, generating $2.5 million annually. While it has developed a commendable five-year capital plan prioritizing needs, it should link this plan to a capacity analysis and future enrollment projections. Current and projected enrollments suggest the district could immediately close one middle school ($680,000 annual savings). Custodial/maintenance overtime. CH-UH maintains some of the highest annual overtime costs among urban districts for custodians ($316,000) and tradesmen ($317,000). It should consider options such as establishing a substitute pool for custodians in lieu of offering overtime (up to $55,000 annual savings) and charging rental fees for use of district facilities (up to $32,000 annual savings). Transportation. Despite many effective contract provisions with its transportation employees, CH-UH has one of the higher regular transportation costs per student ($399) among urban districts. It should more effectively use technology to design routes to increase the number of students on buses ($33,000 annual savings for each bus reduced). The district will respond to the audit through an "economy and efficiency" plan it must file within six months to the state Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Director of the state office of Budget and Management for approval. Auditor of State Jim Petro conducts audits for 4,522 units of state and local government. Petro is committed to cutting costs and reducing fraud, waste and abuse. He has reduced staff by 10 percent, returned nearly $20 million to the state treasury and uncovered hundreds of millions in misspent public funds. Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District Performance Audit Fact Sheet Overview The Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District (CH-UH) has enjoyed a stable financial environment the past decade due to above average property values ($112,696 per pupil) and an effective millage (53.9) that is the second highest among all 611 Ohio school districts. Consequently, CH-UH has the highest per pupil revenues and expenditures of Ohio's 21 urban districts. The district has also achieved higher academic standards than most urban districts in Ohio, such as ninth grade proficiency test scores comparable to the state average of all Ohio districts. However, the district has projected a deficit of up to $7 million by June 2001, which could grow to $35 million by 2003 without changes in revenue or spending patterns. There appears to be opportunity to largely offset these deficits through spending reductions and operational improvements without negatively impacting education, as CH-UH's resources dedicated to direct instruction are four percent less than the urban district average. continued on the next post.........
| |
| Thursday, April 25, 2002 - 10:48 am The performance audit did note 78 effective and efficient business practices in its review of operations. However, it also offered 194 recommendations to help the district redirect a greater percentage of spending to direct instruction. Financial system commendations Medicaid billing. The district has a well-planned system to capture Medicaid reimbursements for services it provides students, as it received $313,000 in 1998. Improved information. The interim treasurer has markedly upgraded the quality and frequency of information provided to budget managers and the board. Purchasing coops. CH-UH makes consistent effort to pursue lower prices for goods and services under various cooperative arrangements. Recommendations Revise financial forecast. The district's five-year financial forecast may not properly incorporate spending requirements of recent education reform legislation, and should be revised to ensure an accurate outlook. Appropriation overspending. The district should stop overriding flags in the automated accounting systems to prevent overspending of appropriations and not process purchase orders which lack sufficient appropriation. Fund transfers. Funds have been improperly transferred between accounts on a regular basis, leaving little integrity in the adopted budget. It must ensure proper transfers. Enhancing board role. The board should consider options such as creating a finance committee and outside audit committee to enhance their role in the district's financial operations. Procurement revisions. Purchasing policies do not require quotes below $25,000 and "direct pay" purchases (18% of all checks issued in a tested month) violate policies. These and other practices need revision to ensure greater accountability. Human resources commendations HR department. CH-UH has one of the most effective human resource departments among urban districts, offering a variety of services ranging from extensive career counseling to mediation of employee conflicts. Certain contract provisions. Both the teacher and classified contracts contain favorable provisions for the district, including a probationary period for classified employees before they can receive benefits, the ability to place new employees on the salary schedule based on experience, and policies allowing the district to transfer teachers based on staffing needs rather than seniority. Recommendations Administrative, clerical, library staff reductions. Employee/student staffing ratios exceed the urban average by 13 percent, and the same analysis showed administrators exceeded the urban average by 15 percent. It could potentially reduce ten supervisory administrative positions to achieve the peer averages ($766,400 annual savings). Employing the same analysis, it could also reduce eight clerical positions ($207,000 savings) and two librarians ($131,537). Benefits. CH-UH's benefit costs per employee ($5,191) exceeds the urban average by 14%, due to factors such as a costly traditional plan and no employee premium contributions. It should consider options like requiring employee contributions on premiums (10% contribution saves $333,000 annually). Retirement issues. CH-UH's has a generous severance policy for payout of unused sick time (maximum 92 days), which presents a $1.2 million liability for eligible retirees. It could avoid up to $652,000 in payments by negotiating severance policies closer to state minimum requirements. Given its financial condition, it should also consider negotiating a reduction in the pickup of classified employees' contributions to their pension systems (up to $537,791 annual savings). Sick time/leave time. CH-UH spent more than $1.5 million on substitute costs in 1997-98, including an average 7.5 and 9.6 sick days for teachers and classified employees, respectively. It should more aggressively manage and monitor sick leave use through means such as sick leave abuse policies ($50,000 annual savings by reducing sick leave one average day). It should also review the amount of professional leave granted teachers (average 4.2 days) to ensure the benefits of this training outweigh the absence from class. Contract issues. Certain issues should be renegotiated, including re-opener clauses contingent on the actions of other districts and minimum staffing requirements. Facilities commendation Capital plan. CH-UH has a five-year capital plan prioritizing repair needs, and has funded this plan through passing permanent improvement levies generating $2.5 million annually. Recommendations Capacity analysis. CH-UH should link its capital plan to a capacity analysis and future enrollment projections. For example, it is projecting an enrollment decline which could reduce its space usage rate from 80 percent to 70 percent within 10 years. Current and projected enrollments suggest the district could immediately close one middle school ($680,000 annual savings). Staffing reductions. CH-UH custodians are responsible for 25 percent less area than higher performing urban districts, and could reduce up to 24 positions to achieve these averages ($793,000 annual savings). It should also consider contracting out grounds keeping duties and save up to $160,000 annually. Overtime. CH-UH maintains some of the highest annual overtime costs among urban districts for custodians ($316,000) and tradesmen ($317,000). It should consider options such as establishing a substitute pool for custodians in lieu of offering overtime (up to $55,000 annual savings) and charging rental fees for use of district facilities (up to $32,000 annual savings). Transportation commendations Preventive maintenance. The transportation department has a preventive maintenance program that thoroughly inspects vehicles every 3,500 miles. Contract provisions. CH-UH has effective contracts with bus drivers that save on overtime costs and restricts the domino effect of bumping route assignments when vacancies occur. Recommendations Increase bus capacity. CH-UH has higher regular transportation costs per student ($399) than the urban district average of $373, in part because of low bus capacity levels of 80 students per bus. It should increase capacity by more effectively using technology to design efficient routes ($33,000 annual savings for each bus reduced). Staff reduction. CH-UH has a relatively newer bus fleet (average age 4.5 years), though it has higher staffing levels among mechanics than three peer districts used in a comparison. It could reduce staffing to achieve these levels and save $49,000 annually. Technology utilization commendations Strategic plan. The district has a detailed, district-wide plan that is being used to guide its technology implementation efforts. Computers are available in specially designed classrooms, media centers and computer labs. Year 2000 efforts. CH-UH has taken many steps to address this problem and expects all major technology components to be compliant by the end of July 1999. Recommendations Chief information officer. Since the growth of technology has increased demands for both technical support and management, the district should formally consolidate responsibility for district-wide applications under a senior chief information officer reporting directly to the superintendent. Computer user analysis. CH-UH should analyze both the make up and skill level of its computer user population, as well as hardware and software. This could help determine the proper technical support staffing level and organizational structure. WHAT HAVE WE DONE TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES?
| |
| Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 11:04 pm CH-UH District Proficiency Trends from 1995-96 through 2000-01 school years are at: http://chuh.net/aw/ch-uh.unoff.ed.htm#assessment It also includes Cuyahoga County per District Expenditure Trends from 1998-99 through 2000-01 school years.
| |
| Monday, April 01, 2002 - 04:40 pm If taxpayers 1,2 and 3 dislike the taxes in cleveland hts so much, hey guys- MOVE! the taxes are must lower in Gallia county. Houses are cheaper, and your kids will give up all sports except football, basketball and baseball. There is no decent private school option, forget PC's in the classroom, forget the diverse expirience, forget specialized education programs to meet your child's individual needs, that means no AP classes, etc.......... No cultural expiriences, no arts, no no music, no major major sports teams, and no jobs. Sometimes is is better to pay a bit more in taxes and skpi the vacation, knowing there are quality things to do in town, than live where your child has almost no chance of better future. Maybe you could find a way to make your tax dollars work better for you and your children and spend less time complaining about the "injustice" you have to endure to live in a good community.
| |
| Friday, November 16, 2001 - 11:27 am Would you provide a URL for this info? The only financial info I can find on the chuh.org site, which is fairly poorly organized, is the 2001 budget. At just over 1 screen, it is too general to reveal anything. Thanks.
| |
| Friday, November 16, 2001 - 10:17 am To see more waste, check out the number of administrators and their salaries at the Board of Education.
| |
| Friday, October 26, 2001 - 04:21 pm How many tens of thousands of taxpayers money went into the silly, tandentious pr cant called "School Days"? Our new mortgage payment, thanks to the last levy, cost our kids a vacation.Government at its worst:arrogant, ruthless, unrespnsive.
| |
| Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 12:55 pm Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:11:47 -0500 From: NcesWebmaster@ed.gov Subject: Digest of Education Statistics, 2000 - Just Released! The Digest of Education Statistics, 2000 provides a compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of education from prekindergarten through graduate school. Topics in the Digest include: the number of schools and colleges; teachers; enrollments; graduates; educational attainment; finances; federal funds for education; employment and income of graduates; libraries; technology; and international comparisons. To download, view and print the Digest of Education Statistics, 2000 as a pdf file, please visit: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001034
|
| Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information. |