Granby01033

This is a follow up to the next post down. I cross-posted and was frontpaged on Blue Mass Group. The comments led me to write what follows. I've yet to see any evidence that suggests the South Hadley High School administration addressed bullying effectively.

High school students can and do commit suicide in spite of school intervention. Schools, however, have a legal and ethical duty to do as much as they can to prevent it. It is becoming increasingly clear that South Hadley failed to do so.

Reporting on a forum yesterday, The Daily Hampshire Gazette [subscription required] South Hadley refers to witnesses who say that bullying has had a problem for years. (Let me preface this excerpt by saying that bullying is a professional, not a personal, issue for me. I’ve met my cousin’s son Matt Bail, but we are not close. He’s also the only witness quoted).

Stories unfolded of students being pushed in the hallways, kicked in the knees, punched in the chest, slammed to the floor and written on with marker. Parents blamed school monitors and parents who have raised "monsters" for "not doing their jobs." Several speakers noted they have kept their children away from South Hadley schools because of their own horrific experiences. "I was a middle class kid, I was not athletic, I was not the smartest kid on the block and I got punished for it," said Matthew Bail, a 1995 graduate of South Hadley High School. Now a Belchertown resident, Bail said he watched his best friend get beaten up because bullies said he was gay. They broke his friend's arm and busted Bail's ribs, he said. "I graduated in '95; that happened in '92," he said. "Where are we now?" The early to mid-90’s was a transitional time in education.

 A lot of sensitivity training was taking place. Concerns about sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and diversity led to a lot of workshops. Aside from addressing the law, workshops sensitized us to issues. Concerns about bullying have been discussed in professional journals for years. A quick search of Kappan, a journal that glosses educational research for educators, turns up 5 articles between 1997 and 2004. A search of Educational Leadership, another popularizing educational magazine, turned up 96 hits on bullying, most from this decade. South Hadley was behind the curve. As a progressive, I support community involvement, but the issue of bullying in schools requires leadership and school action. Too many times I’ve seen weak local governments and institutions invite community members to participate only to pass more than half the buck to them. The idea of South Hadley convening a task force leads me to wonder if this has been the school system’s approach to bullying.

The Gazette also reports that “national bullying expert Barbara Coloroso… delivered a full-day workshop on bullying prevention and intervention in September, which only 35 parents and community members attended.” It’s great to involve parents, but it would be interesting to know what action plan the school system instituted in September. Children have a constitutional right to attend school. Educators have a legal obligation to preserve these rights. The Commonwealth recognized the issue in 2005 forming the Safe Schools Initiative. Documents on the attorney general’s site give an idea of what schools should have in place.

Mark

 In the last 10 years, my high school has had one suicide. It was the worst experience I've had in the last 17 years of teaching. A ethnic Italian with a close circle of friends and relatives, Franco's death had emotional ripples throughout the community. The morning after his death I looked on as his normally happy, boisterous friends, kids who played soccer with him, kids who grew up with him, sat in my classroom and cried or just sat in a daze of grief.  There wasn't much I could do.

Thankfully, my school has a plans for such emergencies. We had learned of Franco's death at an emergency faculty meeting that afternoon. Emergency messages on purple paper are handed out by an administrator or guidance counselor. The purple tells us there's an emergency, but not something to share with students. School ended with an emergency faculty meeting. We were told that the blue team, a group formed to deal with unexpected deaths and other problems that present a psychological threat to the school community, had been convened. They would meet before school the next day, and we would have another emergency faculty meeting before classes started. We received a list of students who were likely to be strongly affected by Franco's death. We were asked to keep a close eye on our students for any signs of trouble or upset in our students and email their names to the office. My contribution to the list was Chris, a student who almost started a fight when he said people who commit suicide are selfish. One of Franco's friends took exception. I was able to talk to him and tell him the reason Chris had made the statement was that his grandfather had committed suicide.

Our administration called in a suicide expert. We were told to discourage vigils, which they tend to romanticize suicide and encourage kids who might already be considering taking their own lives. After the suicide, our first goal was make sure that no other suicides resulted. Our second goal was to take care of the school community. We signed up for times to be at the wake to support our students as they came to pay their respects. In short, we supported our kids. We were there for them. We kept a track of them.

It is this kind of action and leadership that also discourages bullying in our school. Bullying, of course, happens in every school, and mine is no exception. But our administration, our school resource officer, and our teachers deal with it. If something happens over the weekend, we learn about it. Kids get called into the office before something happens at school. This is simply maintaining good discipline. A well-run schools knows its kids, knows what's going on in their lives, and helps them through it. To this end, our administration and guidance counselors (and perhaps our special education teachers, I'm not sure) meet once a week to discuss at-risk students.

Our principal and school also survey students once a year. Students are asked about bullying, how safe they feel, where they don't feel safe, and if they feel connected to an adult in the building. Every year we consider the statistics at a faculty meeting and talk about what we can do or do better. Perhaps the most effective action we take as teachers is to be present in the hallway during passing time when bullying is apt to take place. We also interact with kids when they are in the hallway. We make ourselves a presence in their lives.

I wince when I read about South Hadley's handling of the bullying of Phoebe Prince and her suicide. Phoebe was on the school's radar as having some adjustment issues. It's possible that she showed no signs of suicide; it's also possible that someone missed the signs. Considering the way the school system has handled the situation, I'm guessing that the high school blew it.

Bullying has evidently been a problem at South Hadley High School for a couple of years. The administration either knew or should have known this. Their response now is to create a task force. Maybe the school will finally get its act together. This stuff isn't rocket science. It isn't easy, but a good administration working with a school resource officer can keep track of social networking sites (law enforcement can get special access). Complaints about electronic bullying could and should have been investigated. The school should have an up-to-date policy on bullying. It should have been administered.

The  Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander by Barbara Coloroso lists 3 traits of bullying:

1.   Imbalance of power. The bully has more power. He or she is older, bigger, stronger, more verbally adept, higher upon the social ladder, of a different race, or of the opposite sex. Kids can engage in mean and hateful behavior, but without a power differential, there is not bullying.

2.   Intent to harm. Bullying is malicious. The bully intends to inflict emotional and/or physical pain, expects the action to hurt, and takes pleasure in witnessing the hurt.

3.   Threat of further aggression. Both bully and bullied know that it will occur again. It is not meant as a one time event.

If bullying escalates, and newspaper reporting suggest that in Phoebe's case it did, a fourth element is added.

4. Terror. Systematic violence and threats are used to intimidate and maintain dominance in order to create terror in the heart of the target.

If South Hadley High School decides that the solution to bullying is to exhort students to come forward and just say no to bullying, the student body is doomed to more of the same. There is no alternative to a coherent set of policies, which all public schools have (and I'm willing to bet they're almost identical), and effective supervision of students. Low intensity bullying will exist for a long time to come (I don't like the word always); however, an effective school will prevent what it can, punish what it can't, and take care of our kids.

There's nothing left to do but congratulate Scott Brown on a well-run campaign and well-earned earned victory. It's unlikely he'll make decisions I agree with, but give credit where it's due.

At this point, I'm more interested in the why's than anything else, and since I can't do anything to change the Republican Party, I'm focusing on what the Democrats screwed up.  I've cross-posted this at Blue Mass Group, which has a large Democratic readership.

First, congratulations to Scott Brown. At the very least, he did something Martha Coakley proved unable to do: mount a political campaign. It may be hard to do well, but running a campaign is not rocket science. The overriding principle of campaigning is always bring your A-game, always campaign. Promote the candidate, promote the party agenda.

Other basic principles:

1. Define yourself positively.

Epic fail. Even now it's hard to say who Martha Coakley is. A 60th vote on health care? Someone who would have been accountable to us? (We expect that from all of our elected officials). A senator who will work hard for us as she did as attorney general? (What is it an AG actually does)? Someone who put sex predators behind bars? (Crime fighting is so 20th century). The gaffe about Curt Shilling, the vacation that took up 16% of the campaign season, and an emergency fundraising trip to Washington last week (Where the hell was the DSC on this? Couldn’t someone else have gone besides the candidate?), all of this suggests a campaign woefully ignorant of public perceptions.

Many people who voted for Brown have no idea who he is. I've heard him called a gentleman and a moderate. But he defined himself successfully. Driving a truck plays big out here in the sticks.

2.  Define your opponent negatively.

By the time the Coakley campaign started negative campaigning, it was too late. She was desperate and it showed. Negative campaigning should have begun in the second week of the campaign with the some sort of publicity on Brown's King Philip's episode. Instead of Coakley saying it, a surrogate could have brought up the issue somewhere, then she could have scolded him/her for it. Let that story move through the news cycle and then confront Brown on his badly written amendment favoring reproductive rights for rapists at a debate.

There are more negative issues that could be used, but the opposition research, which the DSC should already have on file, came too late.

3. Have a narrative to give your agenda coherence.

This failure doesn't belong to Coakley alone. If she had a narrative, it was "vote for me, I'm the next Democrat in line." The Democrat Party in general lacks a compelling narrative to unite its various positions. The New Deal gave us the narrative of the federal government (protagonist) battling against unemployment and big business (antagonists) using government programs. Movement conservatives, with the help of a Thermidorian reaction against the left, successfully destroyed the effectiveness of this narrative.

Brown's narratives ranged from ridiculous--lower taxes equals jobs--to sublime--the masterful commercial with Brown and JFK. Yes, that amused political sophisticates like us but (incidentally, our vote doesn't count any more than anyone else's) it neutralized the Kennedy issue defining Brown as the real heir to the dynasty. Brown's campaign was a good one, much better than Kerry Healey's.

As a Democrat, I feel a lot like a pre-2004 Red Sox. Dedicated to and disgusted by my team. Martha Coakley may be 2010's Bill Buckner, but the Democratic Party at the state and national level is the crappy management that allowed her to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Yeah, they were all suprised. More's the pity. The simple rule is to treat every election as a real contest.

A part of the Democratic base, I'm screwed. Believing in much of the party's watered down platform and stuck with the Democrats inability to carry it out. It’s a matter of whether or not the Democrats are capable of getting it and once they get it are able to do something about it.

Mark

Over the last month, I've been trying to decide whether I was taking a much needed break from blogging or warming up to close it all down. I blog quite a bit at Blue Mass Group,  mostly on education policy.

As an elected official, I have more inside information on town goings on, but less authority to post what's going on. Issues and events come across the select board desk, issues I'd love to cover as a blogger, but as an elected official, and one-third of a group, I can't discuss them. 

For the past few years, I've spent anywhere from 1-3 hours a day blogging. As a selectman, I don't have the time for that. The fall is a particularly busy time for me at school, and the selectboard office has more balls in the air than are easily juggled.

My pal Emre Evren and I took a long hike with our dogs yesterday. We discussed producing a sort of video magazine to show on Channel 15. It would include segments on Granby history, citizens, civics, and issues. Look for something this spring.

Meanwhile, I'll be working up to regular blogging in the next few weeks. My first post will probably be on Tuesday's senatorial election. At this point, there's no reason to advocate for a candidate. A vote for Martha Coakley is a vote for a Democratic majority; a vote for Scott Brown is a vote to break the Democrats' 60 vote majority. It's that simple. The extra-political effects of the election is more interesting to me.

Mark

The filibuster--the 60 vote requirement to shut off debate--isn't in the Constitution. It isn't in the Declaration of Independence. Or the Bill of Rights. It's a rule the Senate itself has adopted.  The filibuster rule allows some measure of power to the minority party in the Senate, allowing it to block appointments and legislation. It's a recipe for inaction.

In 2005, Democratic senators threatened to filibuster the judicial nominees of The Worst President Ever. Republican senators countered with the threat of the nuclear option, which would essentially rule the filibuster out of order. The Gang of Fourteen, a group of allegedly sensible senators, got together and came up with a "compromise" which resulted in the President nominating whomever he saw fit and the Democrats not bothering to oppose it.  The compromise, of course, wasn't really a compromise, it was a gambit. Instead of losing the filibuster, which they really couldn't use without the GOP's consent, Democrats decided to keep the rule and accept Republican nominees.

When it comes to political fights, today's Democrats are generally clueless. If they had given the issue deeper consideration, they might have figured out that it was worth calling the GOP's bluff and even risk the loss of the filibuster. After all, what's the point of preserving a weapon you can't use? The point is a gridlock that takes a supermajority to break. And in a time, where the only the compromise with the Republicans is doing what they want, what's the point of preserving the rule?

He Who Must Be Read worries that the Senate filibuster is making the United States ungovernable:

Some people will say that it has always been this way, and that we’ve managed so far. But it wasn’t always like this. Yes, there were filibusters in the past — most notably by segregationists trying to block civil rights legislation. But the modern system, in which the minority party uses the threat of a filibuster to block every bill it doesn’t like, is a recent creation.

The political scientist Barbara Sinclair has done the math. In the 1960s, she finds, “extended-debate-related problems” — threatened or actual filibusters — affected only 8 percent of major legislation. By the 1980s, that had risen to 27 percent. But after Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006 and Republicans found themselves in the minority, it soared to 70 percent.

Some conservatives argue that the Senate’s rules didn’t stop former President George W. Bush from getting things done. But this is misleading, on two levels.

First, Bush-era Democrats weren’t nearly as determined to frustrate the majority party, at any cost, as Obama-era Republicans. Certainly, Democrats never did anything like what Republicans did last week: G.O.P. senators held up spending for the Defense Department — which was on the verge of running out of money — in an attempt to delay action on health care.

More important, however, Mr. Bush was a buy-now-pay-later president. He pushed through big tax cuts, but never tried to pass spending cuts to make up for the revenue loss. He rushed the nation into war, but never asked Congress to pay for it. He added an expensive drug benefit to Medicare, but left it completely unfunded. Yes, he had legislative victories; but he didn’t show that Congress can make hard choices and act responsibly, because he never asked it to.

So now that hard choices must be made, how can we reform the Senate to make such choices possible?

We need fundamental financial reform. We need to deal with climate change. We need to deal with our long-run budget deficit. What are the chances that we can do all that — or, I’m tempted to say, any of it — if doing anything requires 60 votes in a deeply polarized Senate?

The Democrats should have accepted the GOP's gambit and allowed them to end the filibuster with the nuclear option. If they do so now, they'll be accused of the hyper-partisanship that Republicans embrace now. Still it's worth consideration.

--Mb

Until Diana's allergies became a problem, Sharon and I always had a fresh cut Christmas tree from Stoney Hill Tree Farm. The Republican reports:

GRANBY - Now that Thanksgiving has passed, the Murphy family's Stoneyhill Tree Farm on West State Street has begun its weekend sales of Christmas trees.

The family has sold trees on its 13-acre farm since 1995, handing out bow saws so people can select and cut their own Christmas trees. If people are elderly or disabled, the Murphys will cut trees for them.

"It's nice to meet the different people," Robert A. Murphy, the family patriarch, said during a recent interview at the farm. "People are usually in a very good mood. It is Christmas time and they are getting their tree."

Murphy has everyone in his immediate family working on the operation, from his wife, Erin E., to his children, Emily E., 24; Sarah E., 21; Nathan R., 17; and Hannah E., 12.

"It's fun," Sarah said. "It's kind of like a tradition. It is something the whole family can work on together."

--Mb

Granby residents living in South Hadley’s Fire District #2 are understandably frustrated with paying for both Granby and South Hadley for emergency services. Once upon a time, the amount of money paid to South Hadley was small. Now, however, Granby residents pay South Hadley anywhere from $300 to $800 year for these services. On top of this, these residents pay the Town of Granby $60-70 a year for Granby’s emergency services. There are historical reasons for this I'll go into in another post.

On Tuesday, the select board met with many of these Granby residents. One question they asked us is if we could abate their Granby taxes. Unfortunately, we can’t. If it were legal, we would definitely consider it. Unfortunately, it's not.

Town finances, including property assessment and tax abatement, are governed by state laws. Regardless of the unfairness, we have to operate within the law, according to which, the taxpayer may apply for an abatement only for the following reasons:

• Overvaluation–The taxpayer disagrees with the assessors’ appraisal of the fair cash value of the property or believes the valuation reflects a data or other error.
• Disproportionate assessment–The taxpayer believes that the property is valued at a higher percentage of fair cash value than other properties due to an intentional, discriminatory assessment policy.
•  Misclassification of real property–The taxpayer believes the property is not properly classified and the community has multiple tax rates, e.g., the property should be classified as residential, not commercial, and be taxed at the lower residential rate.
• Statutory exemption–The taxpayer believes an exemption applies based on the ownership or use of the property.

The issue faced by Fire District #2's residents does not fall under any of these criteria. Abatements by Granby, therefore, are out of the question.

We are working on other alternatives to relieve this situation.

 See Chapter 6, 2.1.2, of this Department of Revenue Presentation

In the last couple of weeks, there have been some good comments on my posts. By good, I mean thoughtful, not necessarily in agreement with me. Some people assume that because I publish my opinions, I must think I'm always right. No one, including me, is alway right.

I am critical of the Republican Party, but I'm not against thoughtful Republicans, a scarce commodity in the national GOP these days.  Recent commenters are good examples of folks who are center or center-right, but thoughtful. They are people worth reading. Whether they agree with me or not.

Mark

"A lot of this is UniCare basically administering the rules based on our customer, in this case the Group Insurance Commission."                      

 --Tony Felts, spokesman for Unicare

Hannah Coler is an Amherst native and UMass student. She was diagnosed with diffuse sclerodoma. Because the disease, which hardens the skin, and eventually the internal organs, is progressing rapidly in her case, Coler's doctors think she should "participate in the Scleroderma: Cyclophosphamide or Transplantation, or SCOT, trial." Unicare, Coler's father's insurer, however, and Group Insurance Commission (GIC) to which it belongs, say NO.

The Daily Hampshire Gazette reports:

The SCOT trial patients take one of two treatment routes: either high doses of the chemotherapy drug Cytoxan or a stem cell transplant. The trial compares the results of the two for mortality and organ damage.

UniCare officials, in three separate letters, wrote that the SCOT trial is not a covered benefit.... The insurance company considers the SCOT trial experimental, says it's not medically necessary, and maintains that it lacks evidence of effectiveness. The Colers received a denial letter from UniCare stating, in part, "The fact that a physician ordered it or that this treatment has been tried after others have failed does not make it medically necessary." Tony Felts, a spokesman for UniCare, said health plans often contain exclusions for coverage pertaining to medical trials. "A lot of this is UniCare basically administering the rules based on our customer, in this case the Group Insurance Commission," Felts said.

In a sad twist of fate, Coler's father had switched from Blue Cross Blue Shield to UniCare so the family could see doctors outside of network. Other providers available to Coler include Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cignet, and Uniform Medical would have provided coverage for the SCOT trial. When the Colers appealed Unicare's decision, the GIC sided with the insurer.

GIC Executive Director Dolores Mitchell wrote, in a Nov. 12 letter, "I regret that the appeals committee decision could not be more favorable to you and Ms. Coler, but the language provided on the SCOT trials Web site establishes that this trial is investigational and that the treatments provided are not standard medical treatment for systemic scleroderma." Andrew Coler disagrees. "The SCOT study is the only proven, and most effective, treatment," Coler said. "It's got a very good track record, and it's documented that people have made a full recovery."

From a soulless, cost-benefit point of view, I don't know if the experimental treatment requested by 21 year-old Hannah Coler and her doctor is worth it. I'm not an ethicist or an insurance company. I am a parent, however, and if there were a $300,000 treatment that gave my daughter a chance at life, I'd want it. Cost-benefit analysis be damned.

As case of Hannah Coler demonstrates, rationing is alive and well and living in the private sector. It's even endorsed by our quasi-independent representatives at the GIC. Rationing health care is already part of the insurance game and the stakes are life and death.  

You can donate to the Help Hannah Coler Medical Fund here.

Mark

School condition and functionality can influence student learning, either positively or negatively [or not at all].

The National Academies Press published a Review and Assessment of the Health and Productivity Benefits of Green Schools: An Interim Report (2006). The review was the study of the Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment (BICE), which represents the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council.

Interestingly, but not necessarily suprising, school condition influences student achievement. BICE draws that conclusion from reviewing existing studies on school buildings.

Finance Committee member, MHC professor, and economist Jim Hartley read this post and was kind enough to send me a chapter from the Handbook of the Economics of Education. Reading Jim's comments and the chapter reminded me that I shouldn't hang up my admittedly undeveloped experience reading research. Finding effects of anything on student learning and achievement is a difficult proposition at best.

I have yet to check out the studies referred to by the National Academies, studies which Jim says are particularly limited. Suffice it to say, you shouldn't throw away your salt shaker when reading these conclusions.

The body of available research is suggestive of an association between the condition of a school building and student achievement. All of the studies analyzed by the committee found that student test scores improved as the physical condition of school buildings improved. The degree of improvement of students’ test scores varied across the studies, but in all cases students in buildings in better condition scored higher than students in buildings in poor condition.

Although most school buildings start out meeting current codes, standards, and functional design, over time physical conditions deteriorate if building components and systems are not properly operated and maintained or repaired in a timely manner.

--Mb

As much as I really, really disliked The Worst President Ever, I don't remember being hateful. Generally speaking, I'm not hateful. But my identity isn't so closely tied to my political beliefs that the inevitable threat to the latter endangers the former. Who I am is certainly reflected in my politics, but I don't freak out when I don't get my way.

The last 8 years really sucked, but I don't know any progressives who thought the Second Coming was at hand. That may not have been the case for the Far Left during the Vietnam War. Radicals sided with the North Vietnamese, and believed revolution was imminent. Things have changed since then. In spite of what Rush and Glenn say, the Far Left is pretty hard to find these days.

The Far Right, on the other hand, sees an existential threat in President Obama. He's the end of the world. He wants to raise our taxes, take away our guns, spread the homosexual agenda. He's the Anti-Christ. There are two responses to fear--fight or flight--and it's not hard to see the fear beneath the fighting. 

The wingnuts have turned to the Bible, that fount of wisdom and ignorance, to once again demonstrate their anger and fear. Their new slogan is “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8.” Chapter 8 seems innocuous enough: "Let his days be few; and let another take his office." But verse is surrounded by vitriol that would seem (like wearing a gun to a Presidential rally) to threaten Obama's life:

9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.

11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.

12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.

The art of arguing with the Bible is selecting the right lines, and Obama's opponents skip over the part that may be more informative when applied to the President's opponents:

2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.

3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause.

4 For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer.

5 And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.

6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.

7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.

I can't seem to get the video embedded into my post. The link, however, works. Susan Slater is an accomplished local artist and member of the Granby Cultural Arts Council.

Susan Slater Gets Ambush Make Over

Mark

Average Americans are split on whether the economic stimulus as a waste of money (you can't touch it, you can't see it, right?),  but the New York Times reports that economists are reaching a consensus that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was worth the effort. Without it, we'd be in worse shape.

In interviews, a broad range of economists said the White House and Congress were right to structure the package as a mix of tax cuts and spending, rather than just tax cuts as Republicans prefer or just spending as many Democrats do. And it is fortuitous, many say, that the money gets doled out over two years — longer for major construction — considering the probable length of the “jobless recovery” under way as wary employers hold off on new hiring.

But there are criticisms, mainly that the Obama team relied last winter on overly optimistic economic assumptions and oversold the job-creating benefits of the stimulus package.

Optimistic assumptions in turn contributed to producing a package that if anything is too small, analysts say. “The economy was weaker than we thought at the time, so maybe in retrospect we could have used a little bit more and little bit more front-loaded,” said Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, another financial analysis group, in St. Louis.

While some conservatives remain as skeptical as ever that big increases in government spending give the economy a jolt that is worth the cost, Martin Feldstein, a conservative Harvard economist who served in the Reagan administration, said the problem with the package was that some of its tax cuts and spending programs were of a variety that did little to spur the economy.

“There should have been more direct federal spending that would have added to aggregate demand,” he said. “Temporary tax cuts and one-time transfers to seniors were largely saved and didn’t stimulate spending.”

Even the $787 billion price tag overstates the plan’s stimulus value given changes made in Congress, economists say. Nearly a tenth of the package, $70 billion, comes from a provision adjusting the alternative minimum tax so it does not hit middle-income taxpayers this year. That routine fix, which would do nothing to stimulate the economy, was added in part to seek Republican votes. But to keep the package’s overall cost down, provisions that would stimulate the economy — like aid to revenue-starved states and infrastructure projects — got less as a result.

--Mb

November 28
1 PM

Alumni Basketball Game

A new generation is taking the reins of Granby's Alumni Basketball Game. Gabe Pula, always a participant, did much of the recruiting and publicity this year. Not only is the game a lot of fun for the players, it's a good time for the audience as well.

I've got pictures from the 2007 game here. Do a search and you'll find more posts with more pictures. I should be there this year taking pictures again and maybe we'll be able to lay down some video for Channel 15. My pal Emre Evren and his daughter Annabel are rumored to be singing the national anthem.

Mark

For not the first time, Gov. Deval Patrick took the state legislature to task. The house had  refused to extend its formal session to complete Patrick's pet education bill. 

Patrick reminds me a little of a substitute teacher, trying to assert an authority he's really doesn't have. And the state legislature, like an unruly class, tends to ignore him until he gets strident. Then they start to laugh at him.

I haven't been paying attention to state politics long enough to know whether every one of our governors gets the same treatment. I don't know enough about other states to know if the same dynamic plays out there. (New York may be an extreme case).

The State House News Service plays out the dynamics this week:

"It's my hope," the governor said, "that the members will realize that their rules are of their own making, that they have it within their power to work a couple more days or, frankly, as long as it takes, to get this work done."

Little rankles like a work ethic charge, or being told as a legislator you've neglected your "moral obligation," as Patrick put it Thursday. And it came on the heels of the governor getting in Bob DeLeo's grill on Wednesday, visiting a charter school hard up against the speaker's district as he urged the House to pass the education bill, a choice of venue that DeLeo - unsolicited - later in the day said sounded "fascinating."

The education bill that cleared the Senate Monday allows new charter schools, more aggressive intervention into flunking schools, and creates a new class of schools with added administrative and curriculum flexibility. The governor likes it, and wants it hurried through on time for state access to up to $250 million in federal education grants. He also likes his budget-balancing bill, which closes an estimated $600 million gash in the budget, and doesn't like the Legislature's version, which protects the Quinn Bill and restores funding he vetoed for the courts and probation departments.

The week's unwritten story was that DeLeo basically came out Wednesday and embraced the education bill over doubts from some Democrats, a backdoor win for the governor that in the long run should be a much larger story than the six-week delay the speaker imposed - rightfully, said his members, who got the bill Wednesday as the clock on formal sessions for 2009 wound down.

The charge of leaving work with work still to be done also stung since it was lobbed at the tail end of an autumn that was promised by the speaker to be "busy," but which culminated Wednesday night with lawmakers sending Patrick only one significant piece of legislation: an act turning a pair of dog tracks into off-track betting parlors. A day later, the big guy got a budget remedy that he said came nowhere close to bringing the fiscal year into balance. Then the haymakers commenced. "The vulnerable populations we're trying to protect - they don't get to look the other way … It's their services at stake," Patrick said, knowing right where to plant it.

It's a contact sport.

"How does it make me feel inside? Sad," said one senior legislative Democrat, tongue in cheek. "It just makes me feel sad."

For DeLeo, it was a bit of a regime-shaping week. The governor gave him the opportunity to change his game, and the speaker responded. The speaker's uncharacteristically sour response, via a spokesman: "Governor Patrick's comments seem to be more about political necessity than 'moral obligation.' Speaker DeLeo's obligation is to the Commonwealth's schoolchildren - not Governor Patrick's political calendar."

--Mb

Someone calling himself Coach Boagy left a very thoughtful comment. In my younger, more intense days, I would have taken him on right away. In my low-intensity, posting present, I'm inclined to let it stand. You should read it. Although I disagree with his take on increasing the deficit, it deserves to be read.

I'm hoping to take a big hike tomorrow: from Old Crank Road up on Taylor Street to Dufresne's Park. Cody B. will love it, and I can't get that lost.

I'm still unenthusiastic about the news these days. President Obama is almost fully bogged down in the muck that The Worst Presidency Ever made out of our country. He's stuck with two wars. A huge deficit. An economy that needs stimulation. People that need jobs. A controversial health care bill. Now he's beginning to own everything.

On the state level, I'm wondering who listens to Gov. Patrick. It's usually not the state legislature. It's not usually Massachusetts voters.

We had a fire alarm at school today. Eight minutes before school let out. I didn't hang around afterwards to see if a kid pulled it or it was some malfunction. I must be growing up.

Mark

Hemingway wrote about it. Chris Waddell climbed it.

When he was a kid, Chris Waddell an amazing athlete. Just amazing. Versatile. Skilled. Gifted. As an adult, he's a paraplegic and handsome enough to have been named to one of People Magazine's annual lists of Most Beautiful People.

A lot of people, not to mention athletes, would struggled from able-bodied to disabled. Chris, however, seemed to consider the transition as just another obstacle to overcome. A year after he wrecked his back in a skiing accident, he returned to the slopes on a monoski. Soon after that, he went on to set a record for medaling in the Paralympics. His has been a remarkable career.

His latest achievement: climbing Mount Kilimanjaro--that's right, all 20,000 feet of Mount Kilimanjaro--with a sort of four-wheel cycle. "Named Bomba, a one-of-a-kind, 4-wheel handcycle propelled entirely be arm power. The unique handcycle steers 2 ways, via traditional hand bars and through a special pedal that sits under the chest. The One-Off provides impressive traction and control with wheels capable of maneuvering over foot-tall obstacles," says Chris's website One Revolution.

Chris was named won of the World's 50 Most Beautiful People

As a teenager, I babysat Chris and his brother Matt (an endeavor, to say the least) and umpired Chris's Little League games (one of the worst moments of my life came in a game Chris played).  I'm glad to have known him then and proud of his Granby roots.

Sandra Constantine has a nice article on Chris's mountain-climbing:

Waddell started the nonprofit One Revolution Foundation to draw attention to the capabilities of handicapped people.

“I felt my reach was never great enough,” Waddell said during a recent telephone interview from his home in Park City, Utah.

Ascending Mount Kilimanjaro is something people can identify with more than two disabled athletes competing against each other, he explained.

He trained for two years to make the ascent of Mount Kilimanjaro, which is considered a “walkable” mountain. Ascending it does not require the use of crampons, which are climbing irons used on the feet to climb on ice and snow.

The training was more of a mental effort than a physical one, the 41-year-old athlete said. To prepare, he made trips to mountains in America’s west, including Crested Butte in Colorado. The preparation was grueling.

“I put in a lot of time, a lot of sweat and a lot of pain,” Waddell said.

Waddell, who said he does not have a spiritual or religious practice, credits the support of friends and family for his accomplishments.

After he had his skiing accident, Waddell said he came to a crossroads and decided not to let his disability interfere with what he wanted to accomplish in life.

“It is not a matter of what happens to us. It’s a matter of what we do with it,” Waddell said.

His trip up Kilimanjaro started at the gate, where hikers register in Moishi. The trek of about 25 miles up the mountain took six days. Coming down took only a day and a half.

--Mb

At ELHS, we work hard to prevent to prevent bullying. Teachers are required to stand in the hallway during passing time. Complaints are seriously considered and dealt with. We administer a yearly survey to gauge the degree of bullying that is happening. We really work on it. I don't think the same can be said for the amateur hour known as New Leadership Charter School whose 10 year-old student hanged himself when faced with a serious degree of bullying. (So much for character education).

Although bullying can be dealt with, it's impossible to eliminate. I remember one semester, for example, there was a girl in my class who was being bullied by a group of girls. I happened to be team teaching that year, so there were two of us in the classroom. Student were in their seats or in groups and well-supervised, but the bullying still occured in my classroom. I didn't know about it, until one day when I was talking with the assistant principal about the girl's situation. I told him I didn't think the girl was being bullied in my class. He said yeah, it had. I said it had to have occured when the kids were moving into groups. He said, yeah. As my 30 students were moving around the room, one of the bullies whispered some choice language in the girls ear. I couldn't see it or catch it.

There will always be times or places when kids can be bullied. We do our best to protect them, but it will happen. The best we can do is maintain a positive climate and make sure that kids have adults they can feel comfortable talking to . The rules against bullying are written into every student handbook in the state, and all students sign off on them. It's standard operating procedure.

Rules are not a garauntee of enforcement, however, and the question of the day is, whether the state legislature can improve the bully situation by making a law mandating reporting of school bullying incidents to the state. I'm skeptical of the idea. I'm also skeptical of legislation based on traumatic events. I'm sure it gives legislators the warm fuzzies to pass a law about something bad. The question is whether or not  the law will be effective. If it does no harm, it's okay with me, I guess.

The Globe reports:

After years of delays, the Legislature appears poised to crack down on bullying among schoolchildren, with hearings beginning this week on nearly a dozen bills that would force local schools to respond more aggressively to instances of cruelty among students.

Similar bills have, in the past, failed repeatedly - even as the number of states with bullying-prevention statutes has grown to 37. But now a broad group of supporters, led by the Anti-Defamation League, are giving the effort the momentum it may need to finally push a measure through to passage.

The advocates are focusing their attention on a bill, sponsored by Representative John Rogers, a Democrat, that would require school districts to report bullying incidents and any discipline imposed to the state. The bill, one of those to be taken up at a hearing Tuesday, has the support of such groups as the Massachusetts Teachers Association, Microsoft Corp., and the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association....

While many schools have adopted policies to address bullying, the quality and enforcement of the policies vary greatly, advocates said. The state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education does not have any formal guidelines on bullying policies, but recommends prevention programs upon request, said JC Considine, a spokesman.

The legislation gaining momentum at the State House would require the state to develop a model policy for local schools, which would be required to address both traditional bullying and cyberbullying - cruelty by computer.

Local schools also would have to document all cases of harassment, discrimination, intimidation, and bullying, and report on the resulting discipline. All incidents would then be reported to state education regulators, who would compile an annual report for the Legislature and periodically review each school’s policies and level of enforcement.

The stringent reporting requirements are raising concerns among some educators, because they say there is sometimes a fine line between bullying and innocuous teasing. “There is so much area for administrative confusion around the issue,’’ said Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. “We want to make sure we can curb bullying in a way that is reasonable and effective.’’

Often the point of teasing is to be humorous, while bullying is an ongoing problem in which the intent is to hurt or have power over someone, said Elizabeth Englander, director of the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center at Bridgewater State College, which trains school staff on bullying-prevention tactics. The legislation would require annual training of school employees.