Although I didn’t see all of it, I did manage to catch somewhat random parts. The interesting thing about the debate was the interesting ideas that were brought out (plus one extremely important observation). I think this was a reflection of having the non-DemRepub candidates on stage and talking.

1) Em Peyton’s thoughts on the problems in our current banking system and possible solution really do deserve consideration – there really could be something there. Her concept regarding a state bank making loans and paying the interest to the state has merit enough to be taken seriously.

2) Cris Ericson’s idea about funding qualified teachers who want to run a small home school type curriculum is doable at an instant and would result in instant cash savings with delivery of a high quality education. As I remember Cris said up to 6 kids/young adults per such program. Much of the legal framework is already in existence ((link to Title 16: Education, Chapter 3: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, 16 V.S.A. § 166b. Home study program here).

3) Peter Shumlin made an observation that rarely gets into public debates regarding economic issues and educational issues: a successful economy is likely to draw in more families resulting in what may be dramatic changes in our school age population. We’re so used to being beat with that drumbeat of a continuing reduction in school age population – but change the circumstances and the numbers really do change!

Policing the Politicians … in which Mr. Totten does a bang up job of connecting a series of dots.

And no, that isn’t a rhetorical question. The answer is not as plain as one would think.

There is a push to literally do away with our local schools coming from our Governor’s office, the state General Assembly and the state Board of Education. YOUR school boards are trying like hell to tell you about this, but few, particularly the general community, seem to be listening.

So where do I find this “pro-put Montpelier directly in charge of everything regarding education” movement? Act 153; the “Challenges for Change” drive to force arbitrary commissioner of Education defined budget cuts onto the schools; and the acceptance of the Common Core Curriculum by the state board of education.

I think the most pernicious of the big three is Act 153 (link), a bill that moves a substantial amount of the local boards’ authorities up to the supervisory union level BY MANDATE!. Negotiations with the teachers’ union will no longer be subject to approval by the local boards – moved up to the supervisory union; curriculum will no longer fall under local board review – moved up to the supervisory union. Staff hiring and firing will no longer be handled by the local boards – moved up to the supervisory union. That’s not an exhaustive list: even school busing can now be taken away from the local board by the supervisory union.

A school board’s greatest policy document is the budget and how it allocates financial resources. Spending decisions such as salary and benefits and curriculum and busing and more all directly impact the fiscal document folks across Vermont are used to voting on every spring: their local school budget. The budget, more than anything else, provides the community’s guidance to the school board and, more than anything else, reflects the policy priorities of the local school board.

Supervisory union budgets are not subject to approval by any community local or otherwise – these budgets are fait accompli – period. And the SU boards do not reflect the relative financial contribution to the supervisory union pot of gold.

The above two paragraphs display what is so pernicious about Act 153: the law pretends to provide a choice in consolidation by holding out the promise of monetary bribes carrots; but the law goes on to say quite clearly “[Doesn’t matter if you want to consolidate, however, because your local boards are going to become nothing more than student hearing committees anyway.]”

And the publicity has gone to the pretensions of voluntary action in the new law.

“Challenges for Change” budget cuts and acceptance of the Common Core Curriculum are the state Department of Education’s kick in the local school district groin. In the first instance we at the local level are told to cut back even further than has been done REGARDLESS our local circumstances, and in the second instance we are told our local budgets will have to absorb extra costs involved with the soon to be implemented, brand spanking shiny new, latest and greatest set of standardized instruction and testing regimes (aka Common Core Curriculum).

Nice.

It’s good to see push back on at least some of this as evidenced by the local boards from the member districts of the Southwest Vermont Supervisory Union:

The letter, signed by the chairperson from each school board in Southwest Vermont Supervisory Union, accuses Act 146, or Challenges for Change, of using “our youth’s education as a political football,” and passing the responsibility onto local districts because the legislature is “seemingly unable to make tough decisions.”

(Boards express budget frustration in letter, Bennington Banner, 10/04/10)

Recently the Williamstown school board passed a resolution stating in part ‘Regarding your proposed “Challenges for Change” 2012 school budget cuts of which the Williamstown School District has been directed to find $125,409: We, the Williamstown School District board of directors, decline to participate.’ (You can read the whole letter in this GMD post, What the Williamstown school board had to say ….)

I hope folks are paying attention to all this because the eradication of the local school district has become (not “is becoming”) a reality that has the full backing of the politicians in Montpelier.

Just a few weeks earlier, former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards — an old-line conservative and current critic of Tea Party Republicanism — had commented at The Atlantic that Obama appeared to be shying away from idealism in foreign policy and embracing his “inner Kissinger.”

“Obama’s ‘Kissinger’ revealed itself first,” Edwards wrote, “when his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton went to China and declared that bringing up the unpleasantness of Chinese human rights violations would serve no useful purpose. … One cannot know whether the soft line taken toward China, Sudan, Russia, and other violators of human liberties will in the end dominate Mr. Obama’s foreign policy decisions. But neither can the early signs be ignored. For the moment, it appears, Henry Kissinger is back.”

(Activist berates White House, Clinton for honoring ‘war criminal’ Kissinger, RawStory, 09/30/10)

How’s that “hopey-changey” thing workin’ out? Oh no … that’s not all folks.

In a stunning alliance between Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans, Senate Democratic leadership quietly agreed Wednesday evening to block President Barack Obama from making recess appointments while senators return home to campaign for midterm elections, according to a Congressional newspaper.

(Democrats agree to block Obama nominees, RawStory, 09/30/10)

And yes, there’s more for the weasel welch regarding his alliance with the reactionary, radical, right wing racists in the weasel’s assault on ACORN – based entirely on proven lies that to this day the weasel welch stands by:

[reactionary, radical, right wing racist] activist James O’Keefe, best known for his heavily-edited videos of employees at the anti-poverty ACORN, is now alleged to have planned to turn the same tactics on news network CNN.

The plans, however, blew up in his face when the executive director of his Project Veritas tipped off CNN correspondent Abbie Boudreau before O’Keefe could lure her onto what CNN describes as “a boat filled with sexually explicit props” and record her reaction to his “sexually suggestive comments.”

(Fake ACORN pimp’s group cans executive director over failed CNN sting, RawStory, 09/29/10)

I still can’t rate posts any more because kestrel has “authority” and didn’t like that I wouldn’t have his opinion.

so now I can’t rate comments?

Seems community rating is good as long as you rate things in the appropriate manner. Beginning to feel like redstate around here.

We know some things:

1) VERMONT LAW CONSIDERS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY TO BE A VIOLENT CRIME! (this way to all the evidence that a stale loaf of bread would need) Perhaps Dubie would be aware of how specific Act 157 was if he’d been present at his $60,000 per year part time tax payer funded job more often.

2) Peter Shumlin talks about “transitioning” non-violent offenders back into society in a manner that will reduce recidivism and thus the huge expense of locking someone up behind bars. Shumlin has stated at various debates that he wasn’t talking about early releases – just when someone leaves the prison; and the word “transition” implies nothing else.

The following has been “cut ‘n pasted” from Peter Shumlin’s Vision for Vermont (gentle hint to Peter – you WANT folks to be able to cut and paste from this – make it easier than that pdf):

A Frightening and Expensive Trend

The second largest area of growth in our state budget behind health care is corrections. Vermont has the distinction of locking up more non-­-violent offenders per capita than any other state in the country. 69% of our women prisoners and 45% of our male prisoners are non-­-violent offenders. They are often locked up for nothing more than writing bad checks or having nowhere else to go (on any given day, out of our entire corrections population, 150 individuals are incarcerated simply for a lack of appropriate housing. Many more are there for mental health challenges.)

What’s the connection between early education and our non-­-violent offenders? Roughly 90% percent had difficultly learning to read (most still do) and have drug and alcohol related addictions. If we are to meaningfully address the skyrocketing costs of corrections and social services programs and improve educational outcomes we need to make meaningful investments in early childhood programs.

Instead of putting non-­-violent offenders in jail we need to stop the problems before they begin. It is not only the right thing to do, it makes economic sense. Early education is a key component in this kind of prevention. Early education helps reduce the achievement gap and equals the playing field so that all children can start school ready to learn rather than behind before they even begin.

As Governor, I will integrate these non-­-violent offenders back into society and ensure that the community mental health, substance abuse, life skill training, affordable housing through VHCB and adult education services are in place to allow these Vermonters to become successful and productive members of society. The cost savings achieved would help fund Vermont’s universal pre-k education system. With each non-violent inmate costing the state’s taxpayers $51,000 annually, we will begin to bend the cost curve and provide resources where they belong – in early education.

Transitioning Vermont’s 780 non-­-violent offenders to become productive members of society, will save $40 million annually. Educating Vermont’s 8,138 three and four year olds who are currently not receiving early education would cost $33 million. We need to begin to aggressively address this problem.

( – promoted by odum)

(A) “Nonviolent felony” means a felony offense which is not a listed

crime as defined in 13 V.S.A. § 5301(7) or an offense involving sexual

exploitation of children in violation of chapter 64 of Title 13.

(B) “Nonviolent misdemeanor” means a misdemeanor offense which

is not a listed crime as defined in 13 V.S.A. § 5301(7) or an offense involving

sexual exploitation of children in violation of chapter 64 of Title 13 or

13 V.S.A. § 1030.

(Act 157 as passed by the Vermont General Assembly.)

Date Signed by the Governor:  June 3, 2010

Effective Date:  Sec. 18 is effective on April 1, 2011. Secs. 17, 19, 20, 21, and 22 are effective on passage (June 3, 2010, the date on which the governor signed the bill). All other sections [including the part defining non-violent offenders] take effect on July 1, 2010.

(Act 157 summary as provided by Vermont legislature)

And what is this Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 64: SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN??

§ 2821 Definitions

§ 2822 Use of a child in a sexual performance

§ 2823 Consenting to a sexual performance

§ 2824 Promoting a recording of sexual conduct

§ 2825 Penalties

§ 2826 Evidence of age

§ 2827 Possession of child pornography

§ 2828 Luring a child

(Chapter 64: SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN)

So let me repeat one more time … this time it is only for Brian Dubie and nobody else:

VERMONT LAW CONSIDERS CHILD PORNOGRAPHERS TO BE VIOLENT OFFENDERS!

Get it?

‘Outraged’ Sears critical of Dubie ads, Bennington Banner, 09/23/10.

Let me repeat that: “Vermont law considers child pornographers to be violent offenders, however.”

Once more – for emphasis and Dubie:

“Vermont law considers child pornographers to be violent offenders, however.”

(NOTE: I am a member of this board)

As accepted by the Williamstow School District school board on 09/14/10

To: Armando Vilaseca

Commissioner, VT Dept. of Ed.

Regarding your proposed “Challenges for Change” 2012 school budget cuts of which the Williamstown School District has been directed to find $125,409: We, the Williamstown School District board of directors, decline to participate.

It is our findings that:

1) In setting the targeted reduction for the Williamstown School District, the commissioner of education failed to take into account “other unique circumstances that affect education spending” in direct violation of Act 146, Section E-2(c)(5).

2) State law Title 16, § 428 gives authority to “vote such sums of money as [the school district] deems necessary for the support of schools” only to the voters of said school district.

3) Local school boards have real control over a limited number of areas regarding school spending: transportation, educational enrichment programs such as the arts, extra-curricular programs such as theatre and sports and, to a much lesser degree, personnel.

4) State law demands a young adult or child under the age of 16 attend a state approved school or be home schooled in a manner meeting state mandated requirements.

5) It is impracticable or impossible to expect a large number of parents to home school their children due to personal capabilities or the economic need to have multiple wage earners in a single household resulting in no stay at home adult.

6) State law by way of the above mentioned statute leaves it up to the local community to determine how local needs can best be met regarding transportation to and from state mandated schooling.

7) Williamstown is a working community spread over a large area where, either due to economics or the need to commute to work, daily transportation of children to school by their parents or neighbors is difficult at best and often impossible.

8) In the budget for fiscal year 2010-2011, the Williamstown School District board of directors has reduced finances for and thus availability of school busing.

9) Educational enrichment programs are a fundamental and vital part of the physical, emotional and intellectual growth of many, many children and young adults including their ability to meet or exceed state mandated educational standards.

10) In the budget for fiscal year 2010-2011, the Williamstown School District board of directors has reduced finances for and thus programming availability of library, art, music and other educational enrichment programs.

11) Extra-curricular programs are a fundamental and vital part of the physical, emotional and intellectual growth of many, many children and young adults including their ability to meet or exceed state mandated educational standards.

12) In the budget for fiscal year 2010-2011, the Williamstown School District board of directors has reduced finances for and thus programming availability of pre-varsity level sports programs.

13) The statewide ratio of students to adults in Vermont’s public schools is approximately 4.5 to 1, but in the Williamstown School District this ratio is about 5.6 students to 1 adult.

14) It would be the height of irresponsibility to attempt to find over $100,000 in staff reductions as Williamstown is just now coming out of the state watch regarding failure to make adequate yearly progress on the NECAP standardized testing regime.

15) The Williamstown School District is currently dealing with approximately $565,000 in debt directly attributable to past deficits; and this is resulting in a $179,000 deficit driven debt payment during fiscal year 2010-2011, a minimum of $179,000 during fiscal 2011-2012, and additional amounts will be required in following years.

16) The Williamstown School District will be financially unable to meet its obligations to regular education and special needs children and adults as prescribed by law and/or regulation if the proposed cuts are enforced.

17) Reducing the Williamstown School District budget by $125,000 will result in irreparable harm to the children and young adults attending Williamstown’s schools, the Williamstown community as a whole and the public education system in general.

18) Title 16, § 428(2) States “[The school board of a school district, in addition to other duties and authority specifically assigned by law:] May take any action, which is required for the sound administration of the school district.”

19) Each member of the Williamstown School District board of directors signed an oath stating that we “solemnly swear to execute the office (duty or trust) of School Director to the best of [our] judgement and abilities, according to law.”   We would be violating that oath if we were to attempt to execute budget reductions of $125,000 for the fiscal budget year of 2011-2012.