Elk Konnected Hand out at County Commissioners meeting on 4/25

[Bullwinkle]

       Ross, I would say that your admirer  is one of those youngsters with not much to do. Too bad some of that time isn't spent becoming informed, but instead spent trying to put someone down to build themselves up. An age old problem some have. At least our friend back east researches her answers for the most part, even though being set in her ways. 

[Ross]

       Ross, I would say that your admirer  is one of those youngsters with not much to do. Too bad some of that time isn't spent becoming informed, but instead spent trying to put someone down to build themselves up. An age old problem some have. At least our friend back east researches her answers for the most part, even though being set in her ways. 

i think you are most likely very right Bullwinkle but it's kind of fun communicating with both of them.
I don't mind them calling me names, I'm sure it relieves a lot of pressure for lack of understanding.

I know I can be an ass, but can't we all be one at some time pr another.

I was a sailor for 10 years and recieved many, many, many insults and called many, many many names. It was like a traditional thing in the old time Navy and if you could not handle it you got ground into the dirt. These people don;t have the talent of a sailor in action back then. Practically every other word out of an old time sailor was a swear word. Old salts were the best.

I hope you have a great night Bullwinkle.

[Ross]

I've tried to discuss leadership on this thread because I have only seen three real leaders in
Elk County and they knowwho they are. Two of them were one was voted out and another quit.
You do not command or demand leadership, you earn it just as you earn respect. I earned ny stripes
in the military through hard work, I earned my respect as a leader of men through harder work.
Anyway here is an excellent that explains what leadership is:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dov Seidman
I write about how to inspire principled performance and leadership.

LEADERSHIP 5/20/2015

Want To Do Big Things?
Make Yourself Small

How do you define a leader?

It's a question I've been asking myself for years now and one I try to ask the CEOs, business owners and managers I come into contact with. (Notice I didn't say leaders I come in contact with. A title doesn't automatically confer leadership. Too often, it's a quality we take for granted, assuming that authority comes with a position.)

Type "leader definition" into Google and the result is what seems like a simple answer: "a person who leads or commands a group, organization or country." Merriam-Webster has a similar solution: "A person who has commanding authority or influence."

What's the common thread between these standard definitions? Commanding, a word with synonyms like imposing or controlling. In the commonly-held point of view, it seems like a leader is someone who makes his or her desires into reality by exerting force over others.

But is that true?

Most of us seem to associate the word "leader" with stereotypical personality traits such as charisma, dynamism, self-motivation and forcefulness.  There's nothing wrong with any of these characteristics in and of themselves. Most successful leaders I have met exemplify some if not all of them. But just because these are the commonly thought of features, does that make them the best or definitive ones?
Most of us seem to associate the word "leader" with stereotypical personality traits such as charisma, dynamism, self-motivation and forcefulness.  There's nothing wrong with any of these characteristics in and of themselves. Most successful leaders I have met exemplify some if not all of them. But just because these are the commonly thought of features, does that make them the best or definitive ones?

Between technological interconnection and social pressure, the world has been reshaped faster than we have yet been able to reshape ourselves. It has become deeply, irreversibly, interdependent. To adapt appropriately, we need to reconsider how we think about leaders and leadership. Today, there is a less obvious characteristic that is growing more important and consequential than it's ever been before.

Humility.

The way we normally use the word, humility tends to suggest passivity. Humble people lower themselves to the will of others. They get passed by or stepped on. While this seems antithetical to our earlier definitions, neither one is true. Humility isn't a weakness. Humility is the heart of great leadership.

Humility comes from the Latin word "humus" meaning "ground, soil or earth." It is literally the condition of being grounded, of being "down to earth." It expresses being in touch with the soil, of a deep connection to the fundamental source of life, animation and growth. Far from diminishing one's authority, humility enlarges it.

Humility enables moral authority—"power through people"— in the form of values-based, inspirational leadership. It takes humility to realize that ideals and shared values are greater and more enduring than any individual, especially the leader formally in charge.

There's still a tremendous need in both business and the world for power and authority. In fact, it's hard to imagine working in a world without any power or authority. The challenge is this: formal command-based authority is losing its potency. It's disappearing and dissipating, becoming so incorporeal that it cannot be hoarded any longer. Today's power must be harnessed and channeled. As the vacuum left by formal authority grows, the possibility and necessity for moral authority becomes even more pressing. We need new attributes for a new type of power. We need humble leaders, because humility is the cornerstone of moral authority.

In his groundbreaking study of the role of humility in leadership, leadership guru Jim Collins writes about Darwin E. Smith, the CEO of Kimberly-Clark from 1971 to 1991. Like Superman's alter-ego Clark Kent, Smith was known as shy, "mild-mannered" and unpretentious. He even doubted his own qualifications when he was elevated to CEO from the position of in-house lawyer. Throughout his tenure, he avoided personal publicity like a plague.


And yet, he was determined and fearless when it came to making difficult decisions and seeing them through. According to Collins, great leaders succeed "through a paradoxical combination of personal humility plus professional will."

Smith and his team determined that the company's traditional profit center, its manufacturing mills and coated paper products, were in a bad market with weak competitors. He sold all of the mills and reinvested the proceeds into the consumer paper business, which was then dominated by world-class competitors, Procter & Gamble and Scott Paper. Fast forward 25 years and Kimberly-Clark outperformed P&G in six of the eight product categories in which they competed.

Collins found that the very best leaders, with the very best results, are consistently modest. Eleven out of eleven of the companies that transitioned from "good to great" in his 1965-1995 study of 1435 Fortune 500 businesses, had leaders with the strong trait of humility. When discussing the accomplishments of their companies, these CEOs downplayed their own role and highlighted the contributions of the executives around them.

In the ten years since Collins' study appeared, the world has become even more hyper-connected and interdependent.  Power is no longer exercised over people but through them. With leaders and the led increasingly standing on level ground, great leaders avoid autocratic behavior and instead, look to those around them as the engines of innovation and change. Today, humility isn't just a nice thing to have, it's necessary to thrive as a leader.

In a recent article in the Harvard Business Review about a study evaluating the key attributes executives desired in their CEOs, humility was the first trait listed. Highly regarded CEOs were six times more likely to be described as humble as their less well-regarded peers. Unfortunately, only one in four of the CEOs in the study were described by their executives as humble.

In another study by Catalyst, a nonprofit organization that expands opportunities for women in business, a global survey of 1,500 workers revealed that when employees perceived altruism and selfless behavior in managers, they were more likely to "feel included" in work.  The more included workers felt, the more innovative they were in their jobs, suggesting new ideas, and "going beyond the call of duty" to meet workplace objectives.

Humility is the opposite of weakness. When a leader is willingly vulnerable and exposes his or her humanity, they create a culture in which employees willingly contribute their own humanity, offering up capacities for collaboration, communication and passion.

By contrast, leaders with outsized egos and grandiose visions may be productive in the short term, but they almost inevitably ignore the advice of their followers, even when they're driving their companies straight off a cliff.  The famously egotistical Al Dunlap ran Scott Paper for 19 months, overlapping with Smith's long tenure at Kimberly-Clark. Dunlap's decisions slashed Scott Paper into a shadow of its former self, before he eventually sold off the company to Smith. Arrogant, egotistical leaders lack listening skills, empathy, and cannot embrace the collaboration and mentorship of the next generation of leaders. Despite their forcefulness, they're missing the attributes of a great, humble, leader.


Humility is all about your disposition and stance. A humble person can still have a swagger. He or she can still celebrate victory. Humbleness does not mean false modesty.  It means a more inclusive approach to leadership.


How can leaders start down this more productive road, relinquishing formal "do it because I'm the boss" authority for the moral authority of a humble leader?

Perform a Moral Audit: Ask yourself what you stand for and why you get out of bed every morning. If those answers don't line up with you and your employees' daily activities, you need to do the deep work of aligning your behaviors with your values. When gaps are exposed, real leaders go to the "values gym", developing and strengthening muscles like empathy, resiliency, consistency, courage and rigor about the truth. After Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini read Capital in the 21st Century by economist Thomas Picketty, which critiques the current direction of corporate America, he enlisted his leadership team to engage in a conversation about the role of business and capitalism in today's world. Inspired, they realigned around a more inclusive approach to business for Aetna—"to bring everyone along, not just a few." As a bold first step in this direction, they raised the minimum wage for all employees to $16. For them, it wasn't just the right thing to do, it was an exercise in moral authority stemming from a rigorous examination of their stated values alignment to their day-to-day business practices.
Extend Trust: Old school leaders expected others to earn their trust, inspecting each action with suspicion and spreading discontent with every fault found. Today, great leaders extend trust to inspire better collaboration, commitment and innovation among employees and other business partners. By extending trust and allowing others to take the right sorts of risks, you inspire them to discover new and better ideas instead of mindlessly clinging to conventional practices. Pret A Manger, the London-based restaurant chain, has done exactly this by abandoning "loyalty programs". Instead of a standardized system that rewards repeat customers with free coffee, Pret has put that power and its trust into the hands of its employees. By allowing employees to decide who to give coffee or snacks to on their own, Pret A Manger's program gives workers a greater sense of ownership and responsibility in their interactions. The customers are their customers and the company's success is their success. As result, 28 percent of customers now get something for free when they visit a Pret A Manger, and the brand's success is only growing.
Make Yourself Small: Leaders need to move beyond conventional motivation and coercion methods like carrots and sticks. Relying on rules and policies and formal authority as your source of power won't work if you want your company to thrive. You should recognize that the source of your authority is the people who work with you. Rather than trying to coerce respect or performance out of your employees, inspire them with your own behavior and commitment to collaboration. A humble leader is present and involved, but able to contract and create an emotional atmosphere where others can contribute. Humble leaders trust others to expand and provide great performances. When the late Nelson Mandela became the President of South Africa, despite being a universal symbol of the country's transition out of Apartheid, he did not make the moment about himself. It was not about his imprisonment, his revenge, his triumph, but instead about the communal transition from decades of institutional race based segregation to a new inclusive future for the entire country. Mandela saw that his real challenge was not to be the hope, but to inspire hope in others. Mandela made himself small so that the South African people could do something big.
Henry David Thoreau once said that, "Humility, like darkness reveals the heavenly lights." Humble leaders contract, make themselves small, and give others the chance to rise to the occasion. By letting your people shine, you engender an inspired and enlisted workforce, committed to a collective mission that promotes greater success for your company as a whole.

Humility is a sign of deep personal strength, self-possession and resolve. It takes a strong person to let others take the reins and trust them to do what is right. When leading by example creates a culture that inspires engagement, you are no longer just leading employees. You are a leader among a team of leaders, working together to accomplish much more than any one individual with a title could ever hope for.

Read at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/dovseidman/2015/05/20/want-to-do-big-things-make-yourself-small/?utm_campaign=Forbes&utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_channel=Leadership&linkId=14380705

[Ross]

SOMETHING iNTERESTING in my personal opinion.
Sounds a lot like "Like Mindedness and Followers"

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

Groupthink
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.
Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making, and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".

Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

Groupthink is a construct of social psychology but has an extensive reach, and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political science, management, and organizational theory,[1] as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.[2][3]

Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of conservatives versus liberals,[4] or the solitary nature of introverts.[5] However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate group decision-making, and thus is perhaps better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the individual members of the group.

Most of the initial research on groupthink was conducted by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University.[6] Janis published an influential book in 1972, which was revised in 1982.[7][8] Later studies have evaluated and reformulated his groupthink model.[9][10]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

On the same page
Irving Janis 

I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context, groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of group pressures.[6]:43

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

[Ross]

I do believe this would make a great deal of sense for Elk County.
I believe Elk County Commissioners could require this to make voting a lot fairer.
Let's get the system modernized, bring it into the Twentith Century.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Supreme Court to consider redefining 'one-person, one-vote' principle

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 6:02 p.m. EDT May 26, 2015

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to define what it meant by "one person, one vote" a half century ago.

The justices will consider a challenge brought by two rural voters in Texas who claim their state Senate ballots carry less weight than those cast in urban areas with large numbers of non-citizens ineligible to vote.

Under the current system in nearly all states, state legislative districts are drawn with roughly equal populations. The standard dates back to decisions made by the Supreme Court in the early 1960s.

If the justices change the standard from total population to legal voters, illegal and some legal immigrants would not be counted, along with children and most prisoners who have committed felonies. That would equalize the power of each vote but result in districts of unequal population.

Read more at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/26/supreme-court-voting-rights/27800607/

[Ross]

Received this in an e-mail and wanted to share it with you.
If you have what it takes to read a long story.

So sad but so true.
Spend, Spend, Spend
Beg, Beg, Beg
Where have the morals gone.
Belatedly Goodbye My America !
My heart is broken. Ross

WHY HILLARY WILL WIN IN 2016
Please take a moment to digest this provocative article by a Jewish Rabbi from Teaneck , N.J. It is far and away the most succinct and thoughtful
explanation on of how our nation is changing . The article appeared in The Israel National News, and is directed to Jewish readership. 70% of American Jews vote as Democrats. The Rabbi has some interesting comments in that regard.   
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo - for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted.
But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle. Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.
That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues - of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.
Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss leader" or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who - courtesy of Obama - receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentives looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.
The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which "47% of the people" start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money - "free stuff" - from the government.
Almost half of the population has no skin in the game - they don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese.
They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else's expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.
It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds . People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.
That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters - the clear majority - are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"  Truer words were never spoken.
Obama could get away with saying that "Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules" - without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the "rich should pay their fair share" - without ever defining what a "fair share" is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to "fend for themselves" - without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.
Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions - in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.
Obama also knows that the electorate has changed - that whites will soon be a minority in America (they're already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America . Obama is part of that different America , knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.
Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his "negative ads" were simple facts, never personal abuse - facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil's bargain of making unsustainable promises.
It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan - people of substance, depth and ideas - to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy - of class warfare - never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated - with his record and his vision of America , in which free stuff seduces voters - it is hard to envision any change in the future.
The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy - those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe - is paved.
For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel . They voted to secure Obama's future at America 's expense and at Israel 's expense - in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin.
A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon - and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality.
But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline.
Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.
The "Occupy" riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead - years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.
If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back."

The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

[Ross]

Book of the Month

The Smartest Kids in the World
and How They Got That Way,
Amanda Ripley, Simon and Schuster.

Perhaps the most "fundamental theme" that unites the three countries studied in this book is that "everyone — kids, parents, and teachers — saw getting an education as a serious quest, more important than sports or self-esteem."

Read the article at:
http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/educate/may15/book-of-the-month.html

[Ross]

The West Elk Board of Education has adopted
6 goals
with the first being
"Facilities"
and the second being
"Kids First".

Business and Information Technology Teacher

Apply Now
Company:   Kansasteachingjobs
Location:   Howard, KS
Date Posted:   May 29, 2015
Source:   KansasTeachingJobs
Business and

Information Technology Teacher Job Title:
Business and

Information Technology Teacher Job Description:
Due to a late resignation West Elk is seeking a licensed Business teacher.  The previous teacher has developed a comprehensive program that includes working with Microsoft, being involved in the state FBLA program and participation in regional and state competitions.  The successful candidate will find the schedule and student interest to be rewarding.West Elk USD 282 Job Salary (if available): West Elk has a competitive salary schedule. Placement on the schedule will be based on degrees/college hours achieved as well as ALL prior years of accredited teaching experience. Job Benefits (if available): West Elk will pay a single fringe BC/BS benefit. If the candidate prefers one of the family plans, the Board will pay the single fringe plus $50/month toward the premium cost. Job Bonus (if available): There is an $1,100 supplemental for sponsoring the Future Business Leaders of America program.

MooreContact Email:
mooreb@westelk.us

Contact Phone:
6203742113Employer InformationEmployer Name &

Website:
West Elk USD 282
- westelk.us

Employer Description:
  West Elk USD 282 is located in Howard, Kansas and serves students from preschool through school completion. West Elk serves approximately 320 students residing primarily in Elk, Chautauqua, and Greenwood Counties. The Elk County area is home to abundant wildlife and many recreational activities.  Over 86% of our students meet or exceed Math and Reading standards on Kansas Assessments. The West Elk Board of Education has adopted 6 goals with the first being "Facilities" and the second being "Kids First".

Employer Address:
1201 S. Highway 99, P.O. Box 607Howard, Kansasgo back


http://www.simplyhired.com/job/business-and-information-technology-teacher-job/kansasteachingjobs/zotyhxwwnk?cid=chvyzxajxprzadrpaeejlrisqlgtrgrq

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The West Elk Board of Education has adopted 6 goals
with the first being "Facilities"
and the second being "Kids First".

Do you see anything wrong with this statement?

How can kids first apply if they ar second to facilities?

Why is it facilities are first?

Shouldn't Education come first?

But if a person were to pay a little attention Sporting Facilities comes first.
The last bond issue that failed was mainly for a second gymnasium which was established at a
Board of Education meeting following the failure of that bond issue.  The President of the School Board
Education made that quite clear with his angered response of " I guess my kids will have to grow up
with out having the pleasure of ever playing in a brand new gymnasium".

And the fact of gladly paying ten times the price of crowning the football field so they could have a more professional football field.

And the fact of putting in automated sprinkler systems on ball fields.

And a great deal of expense for tearing out part of the buildings roof and rebuilding it to support an extremly large and extremely heavy air conditioner for the gymnasium. A very expensive undertaking for sports and for a section of building that has never required air conditioning for the last 30 years. 30 years being a guess as to how old the building is.

The so called leaders appear to have the idea (from the fictional movie) "Build It and They will Come", to cure the ever declining population of Elk County. "Build It and They will Come". not hardly follks, not hardly!

So yes, I can see where  "Facilities"  comes first!

Sporting  "Facilities" first that is!

Sporting  "Facilities" first before taxpayers and voters concerns ! Like good little socialists spend, spend, spend !

Sporting  "Facilities" first before actual education!

Why do I say that?  Because the money could have been used for the extra class rooms the Board had on the last Bond Issue! They could have produced those class rooms right inside the building by adding a few inside walls dividing a few class rooms into two class rooms. Their hired Architects told them the rooms were luxurious and a simple dividing wall could do the job. But it's Sports "Facilities" first, right?


They have removed the large sign in front of the school for posting events.

All the sign needed was a little maintenance from the maintenance crew we pay for doing maintenance.
Perhaps a new piece of plywood for the back of it and a gallon of paint was all it needed!

They talked about replacing it with one of them big fancy computerized digital monitors, so it is my guess rather than have maintenance do some minor repairs, get rid of it and buy a new big fancy computerized digital monitors to put on the highway. Got to have one to post public notices, mainly sports notices. It ain't nothing just taxpayer dollars for the cost of the unit and the cost of maintenance of the unit and the cost of electricity.

It ain't nothing-just someone else's money. What is important is education, not so much, but Number 1 is Sports "Facilities" first, right?

So they gotta buy one of them big fancy computerized digital monitors, "Build It And They Will Come".

Sports "Facilities" first.

[redcliffsw]

Sports was important to the tryants in the the former communist countries like USSR and East Germany.  Government sponsors just about anything nowdays as tyrants usually do.  Most people have a favorite government school sports team.  How about KU vs KSU?  Now that's something big time to watch 'em spend money - and both schools are socialist/liberal. Quite enjoyable for both crowds, one team loses the game and the tyrants rejoice as there'll be another future game.  No problem. 

The government education spending has been increasing in America with no end in sight anywhere.  Stealing liberty.  Education is another tyrannical benefit for you. 

[Ross]

I am only posting a portion of this article about a Kansas Catholic School. The purpose to show how they view education and funding for it. And their recognition in the difference between want and need.

How to Educate a Kid on $10 a Day

By Jack Cashill


The teachers at Padre Pio are grateful, too. Salaries start at $21,000 a year and don't get much higher. Like Butler, they love their work. Their willingness to teach for so relatively little is one reason that Padre Pio is able to educate its 60-plus students, K-through-8, at roughly $3,650 a year. Tuition covers about half the cost. Fund-raising covers the rest.

The piano at Padre Pio costs about $47,000 or so less, but close to 100 percent of its students are proficient in math. The school has no pool, no gym, no cafeteria, no buses, no air conditioning. Parents bring the kids. The kids bring their lunches. They all wear uniforms. When it gets hot, everyone sweats a little. At recess, everyone goes outside and runs around. It is much like the grade school I attended—the building is of similar vintage—but there are about 40 fewer students per class.

I toured Padre Pio recently as part of the evaluation team in the school's accreditation process. In each class we entered, the students stood unprompted and greeted us in unison. In the eighth-grade class, I asked the students whether anyone could tell me when the American Civil War started.

I was moved to ask the question after watching a recent video shot at Texas Tech University in which student after student was stumped by the question, "Who won the Civil War?" Said one typical respondent, "Who was even in it?" At Padre Pio, a boy shot up his hand and said, "1861." Warning: Do not try this stunt at home. You will be disappointed.

The fifth-graders, I was told, were studying the Renaissance. I asked them who introduced the printing press to Europe. Every hand shot up. That, by Padre Pio standards, was a no-brainer.

In the second-grade classroom, one boy volunteered that he would soon be 8½ years old. Aware that Padre Pio kids still do multiplication tables, I then asked them how many months in 8½  years. Working together without pen or paper, the kids took less than 30 seconds to get the right answer. (Correct, 102!)

The kindergartners were practicing their phonics—say "new math" or "whole language" at Padre Pio, and you get your mouth washed out with soap. The kids move on to the first grade only after they learn how to read.

The eighth-graders have kindergarten buddies they look out for. The seventh-graders have first-grade buddies. The older kids learn responsibility and take their roles seriously. Whichever educator thought it would be a good idea to remove kids this age from their natural hierarchy and mix them into an overheated "middle school" bouillabaisse should be forced to translate Common Core manuals into Pig Latin.

And yes, Virginia, let me anticipate your objection, Padre Pio has had some great success with troubled kids. One reason why is that the school is blessedly free of "bullying." When kids start their days with prayers and a pledge of allegiance, they hold themselves to a higher standard.

The Padre Pio model may not be scalable, but the sentiment behind it should be. "It's a choice you make," Gary Butler reminds us. "You've got to be grateful."

http://www.ingrams.com/article/how-to-educate-a-kid-on-10-a-day/

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[/b]
[/color]

Can you recognize some Critical Thinking involved in the School Boards decision making process? Education first! And not keeping up with the Jonses ?