Elevated from the comments. Reader CSA writes:
Even when Bacon *does* show up, physically, he doesn't contribute much. Consider these excerpts from the minutes of the August 2006 KSBE meeting:
p. 18: Mrs. Waugh moved, with a second by Dr. Wagnon, that the Board include in its FY 2008 budget recommendation $24 million for the first year of a three year phase-in of universal all-day-K for those schools wanting to offer it. Chairman Abrams asked if the $24 million would be on top of the $149 million included in SB 549. She indicated it would. The motion failed on a vote of 5-4-1, with Dr. Abrams, Mrs. Morris, Mrs. Van Meter and Mr. Willard voting "no"and Mr. Bacon abstaining.
p. 18: Dr. Wagnon moved, with a second by Mrs. Rupe, that the Board increase the mentor teacher program by $1 million to fund the second year for new teachers. Dr. Wagnon noted that in light of the problems with teacher attrition, it would be a minimum amount for a proven program. Chairman Abrams asked if the $1 million would be on top of the $149 million included in SB 549. Dr. Wagnon indicated it would. The motion failed on a vote of 5-4-1, with Dr. Abrams, Mrs. Morris, Mrs. Van Meter and Mr. Willard voting "no"and Mr. Bacon abstaining.
p. 18: Mrs. Waugh moved to amend the motion to include $460,000 for Parents as teachers to add 1,000 children. Dr. Wagnon seconded the motion. The motion to amend failed on a vote of 5-4-1, with Dr. Abrams, Mrs. Morris, Mrs. Van Meter and Mr. Willard voting "no" and Mr. Bacon abstaining.
p. 18: Dr. Wagnon moved to amend the motion to increase the at-risk weighting by 1% to fund actual costs. Mrs. Waugh seconded the motion. Mr. Bacon asked if the money would be on top of the $149 million included in SB 549. Dr. Wagnon and Mrs. Waugh indicated it would. The motion to amend failed on a vote of 4-5-1, with Dr. Abrams, Mrs. Martin, Mrs. Morris, Mrs. Van Meter and Mr. Willard voting "no" and Mr. Bacon abstaining.
Bacon abstained on 4 of the 7 votes. Is this what he meant when he said months ago that he's promoting abstinence?
Don Weiss will do better.
- Log in to post comments
Re: Goldsteinian4's comment
Don Weiss is not a scientist.
(Full Disclosure: Don Weiss is my father. He had sent me a link to your Ruben's tube post because Andy Case (son of KU's Dr. Steven Case) and I built one in high school. Other than being the candidate's son, I am in no way affiliated with the campaign. My comments and opinions are my own. In other words, I'm not astroturfing.)
While Goldsteinian4's comment is correct that Don Weiss is not a scientist, that is not a prerequisite for the Board of Education. He is, more importantly, a lifelong student and educator. Aptly illustrating that are the three college degrees, one undergrad and two graduate, he has earned. That thirst for knowledge and understanding is something he has instilled in my brother and me. Something I hope he has the opportunity to do for the entire state. To me, limiting that quest to only science seems myopic. Science is important, but one of many studies important for the children of Kansas--equally important are mathematics, literature, music, history, civics, art, foreign languages, and physical education. The purpose of the Board of Education should be to help teachers ignite students' desire for learning, not extinguish it or direct it to a single subject.
Again, I stress, these are my opinions, not my father's. I do not, and could not, speak for him.
Jeff, thanks for your post. I deleted the post you're responding to because Goldstein is a troll, just out to stir up a fight. If you had to be a scientist to be on the Board, most of the members would have to resign.
There isn't even a requirement that a member be an educator, which is why we currently have a veterinarian serving as Chairman.
Those board members prided themselves on going against the consensus of scientists worldwide. They did so even as they displayed their unwillingness to learn more science, or to even read the standards they were criticizing.
Being a scientist shouldn't be a requirement for a KSBE spot. The job of the KSBE is to guide policy, not to micromanage issues on which they're ignorant. They should be professional enough to leave science standards to the scientists, and music standards to the musicians, and the sex ed standards to the health professionals.
Instead, they claimed to know *more* about science than the scientists themselves, and thus deemed *themselves* worthy to judge what Kansas' kids should learn.
Somehow, I don't think Jana Shaver or Don Weiss or Jack Wempe or Sally Cauble or Tim Cruz have that unbridled arrogance.
"For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
Heh heh heh. Looks like the troll can't argue against the substance of the statement, so it has to resort to 'outing' attempts.
(C'mon, "James," go back and read Matthew 5:14-16. Let your light shine! You commend Jeff on being upfront, but you won't reveal *your own* name, or motivations, or relationship to John Calvert?)
The only requirement for the state school board is that one is over 18 and a citizen of Kansas. One would *think* that a basic literacy test should be passed, but as Connie Morris' 'newsletter' from the summer of 2005 shows . . . well, maybe there *should* be such a test.
Jeff is exactly right, that the state school board isn't in business to micromanage the issues or to push their own narrow theocratic agenda.
One does wonder why Bacon is choosing to abstain in most votes. Is he trying to pander to the voters by being able to claim that he didn't support the radicals on the board? One might ask why, if he's *such* a principled person, didn't he vote *against* those radicals?
Do you suppose he'll abstain from voting again tomorrow & Wednesday, when the board meets again?
Or will he even bother to show up?
James, Stauff.: If you can't discuss substance, go elsewhere. If you want to talk about other blogs and other forums, do so in those places.
No one ever said anyone had to be a scientist. Weiss never claimed he had science degrees, so this whole discussion is a red herring. The issue is that John Bacon, a man who is sure that all scientists got their research wrong, can't make up his mind about simple matters that come before the Board. He isn't doing his job, which is to make those decisions.
Josh, you mentioned, The issue is that John Bacon, a man who is sure that all scientists got their research wrong, can't make up his mind about simple matters that come before the Board. He isn't doing his job, which is to make those decisions.
Bacon's (in)actions just don't make sense. What gives?
I guess we'll just have to see how he does at this week's meeting, providing he doesn't just blow it off.
Speaking of mysteries . . .
Isn't a pseudonytroll's continued pestering about another poster's identity just a tad hypocritical?