Above the fold, far-right column, in the January 29th issue of the Register, one finds a blogger’s natural prey – an uncritical, one-sided view of a topic.  It’s a story about our public school district’s budget. I would prefer, as I have written before, a robust private school alternative in Whitewater, alongside our public schools.  We’re too small, it seems, for a private alternative.  I would be less inclined toward, but still supportive of, those parents who wish to home-school their children.  (It wouldn’t be my choice, but it should be theirs.) 
 
School District on Target with Budget.  We’ll, the headline’s the story – the school district budget is on target. 
 
One quick question, though: What’s the target?  The Whitewater Unified School District’s Business Manager, Jane Nikolai, reports that “All the percentages are real close to last year.”  Well done, surely.
 
By these percentages, she describes, of course, the supposed financial health of the district.  The budget, though, is not an end-in-itself, but a mere means to another, far greater end.  A quick example illustrates this point.
 
Suppose I told you that the federal government could produce a new and innovative public program, at a cost of $220 billion dollars.  The program would cost a bit less than initially estimated, down from an original figure of $245 billion. 
 
Would you support the program? 
 
Perhaps, but first you’d ask me: What’s the program? 
 
I might give you two possibilities.  Possibility One would be a program that, for $220 billion, would definitely produce an efficient, compact, reliable, fusion reactor design, easily constructed throughout cities in America.  I would prefer that the whole program be privately undertaken, over several years’ time, but I’d listen to the public works proposal for such an extraordinary achievement. 
 
Possibility Two, for the same $220 billion (remember, down from $245 billion!), would be a federally-controlled chain of Hardee’s style restaurants near bus terminals, train stations, vacant lots, and skid rows across America.  (Set aside, for the moment, that the private sector has already achieved as much.)     
 
Would you support, or oppose, these possibilities equally? Probably not.  The $220 billion seems more or less reasonable when considered as a substantive proposal, for definite ends and goals. 
 
A few quick questions, then, for district leaders – each sincere — some serious, some light.  The answers should be known to every leader in our district, as the metrics that matter more – far more — than the budget.   
 

• How do Whitewater students perform on basic measures of academic performance, against other students in the state?  Is their performance better or worse relative to others now, as against five, or ten years’ time, ago?
• How many students read at or above grade level in our elementary schools, compared to students from other districts (excluding ones with extreme poverty, like Milwaukee)?
• How many students, each year, drop out of school in our district?
• How many languages do we offer in our schools?  Spanish, French, yes, but what else? 
•   How many canonical works of literature are taught – not just mentioned – in our schools?  How long do students spend on a given work?  Other than American and British literature, what else is taught to interested students?
•   Do students readily know that they may take university courses if our district does not offer a course for them?  Are they encouraged to do so?
• How many students will attend post-secondary education upon graduating this year?  Is that number more or less than five, ten years ago?
• Where will they attend, if they attend post-secondary education?
•   How many of these students, attending colleges outside the area, will return to live in Whitewater? 
• Is there anything interesting about calculus?  Why study that subject?  Is it more, somehow, than notations on a page? 
•   For the natural sciences that we teach, is there a history and sociology of them, too, that might add color and understanding to the problems we ask our students to  solve?
• When is the last time our District Administrator walked into a classroom, and had a substantive discussion with students about history, philosophy, art history, trigonometry, biology, agricultural science, or music. A full discussion, animated and interesting, than neither students nor Administrator wanted to end? 

 
Now, I am not a teacher.  Sorry, professional educator, or doctor of whatever field.  Imagine a world – ours, sadly — where ‘teacher’ is role and title not enough.  There was a time when a great people, first in the wilderness, yet later setting the foundation for our way of life, saw the honor in calling someone ‘Rabbi.’  No longer – we must be titled more elaborately now.  Teacher was, and should be, enough. 
 
I have, at least occasionally, opened a book, and read it, and done so without feeling the need for anyone’s permission.  A free person needs no license to read, either from government, or any number of self-important town squires.  He does need, though, the desire to pick up a book, apart from any program or class, and enjoy it. 
 
School ends for all of us.  Yet we might do ourselves and our children the service of lifetime learning, far beyond cold metrics, if we would instill that desire forever.

Below the fold, in the January 29th issue of the Register, there’s a story on Jim Winship’s write-in candidacy for the Third Aldermanic District, and Dr. Nosek’s call for a voluntary ban on political lawn signs.
 
Winship.  Winship has filed as a write-in candidate, as no one filed earlier to be on the ballot for the Third District seat.  (Nosek is running against Marilyn Kienbaum for the at-large seat on Council, rather than re-election in the Third District. I will post separately on the race between Nosek and Kienbaum.)      
 
Winship may not be alone as a write-in candidate; others may receive write in votes, too.  In the last race, two years’ time ago, Nosek defeated Winship by two votes, in a race in which the winner had less than 200 votes, I recall.  One can be sure that Winship, whatever agreement he may have with Nosek on some matters, will offer a marked difference should he be elected. 
 
Lawn Signs.  The Register recounts, but does not directly attribute to Nosek, his declaration that political lawn signs are ‘visual pollution’, ‘divisive in the community,’ and a ‘deterrent for possible candidates in municipal elections.’  The Register directly quotes Nosek as declaring that lawn signs are an “annoying promotional practice – like loud TV commercials (or) non-stop-Christmas music that starts Nov. 1.”     
 
He’s describing political lawn signs, presumably including the small cardboard signs that say “Obama: Yes We Can,” or “McCain: Country First,” or “Reagan-Bush” or “Carter-Mondale.” 
 
There’s no chance of banning these signs – Nosek surely knows they arer constitutionally-protected political speech – his call is for a voluntary moratorium.  Fair enough – if candidates will so limit themselves, that’s they’re choice. 
 
Someone might want to remind Dr. Nosek, though, that these signs have been part of American’s political tradition for decades, if not longer.  Consider the list of national political candidates – with thousands of volunteers, in campaigns separated across decades – who produced and used these signs.  Under Nosek’s view, they were all, counter-productively, polluting America.  They did so, apparently, in campaign after campaign, never learning their lesson.
 
That’s false, of course – the campaigns that paid for these signs did so because they know that they work – they persuade more than they irritate.  Frequent use over decades confirms their efficacy.  There’s no way around seeing this. 
 
Dr. Nosek may dislike these signs, but it’s an issue (however meaningful to him) that shows his limits as a politician.  By emphasizing how irritating these signs are, when so many others display them in campaign after campaign, year after year, Nosek only reminds voters of how idiosyncratic some of his issues are (e.g., dumpsters, lawn signs).  By the time voters learn about his signature issue – housing concerns – many have been alienated from his stridency on these – ultimately – trivial concerns. 
 
His approach may make for much commentary, but Nosek isn’t running as an op-ed pundit, blogger, or editorialist – he’s running for an at-large Common Council seat.   (I’ll post more on his race against Marilyn Kienbaum  later.)
 
The press angle, in all this, is checking how different Nosek’s views are from many other residents’ opinions, who display these signs for all types of candidates, election after election.  That’s easy to do – just ask why the signs keep popping up, if they’re so irritating.  They’re less irritating than persuasive, that’s why.   

It’s been a while – too long, really – since I have posted Register Watch™, my coverage of Whitewater, Wisconsin’s local newspaper.  Here’s a return of that feature. 
 
First, though, a summary of what I believe about our small town:  we have a third-tier leadership, in significant measure, because we receive scant, or inadequate, press coverage.  No single development would make this town stronger than vigorous press coverage.  Most of what passes for political skill, or managerial competence, in Whitewater would not withstand that scrutiny, and over time we would have a far better leadership than our present administration and local politicians.     
 
The Register, having experienced significant circulation declines over the last two years, is part of our problem. Want a better town?  Ask harder, more serious questions.  Afterward, follow up with a few more.  That’s not how Whitewater works – otherwise clever but lazy politicians and career bureaucrats think that their lame justifications amount to clever and skillful public relations.  Hardly. 
 
In the January 29th issue of the Register, there are four main stories.  Above the fold, one finds a headline on the Lakeland Players’ production of Front Row Center,  a story about the school district’s budget, a story on Jim Winship’s write-in candidacy for the Third Aldermanic District, and a story on alternative energy ordinances in Walworth County.
 
Alternative energy?  The alternative energy story notes that the “Walworth County Land Use and Resource Management Department (LURM) has been working to develop ordinances designed to streamline processes for residents trying to make their lives more energy efficient.” 
 
This is a spoof, right?  Walworth County residents need ordinances to streamline processes to make their lives more energy efficient?  How about just installing those fluorescent bulbs that Wal-Mart sells to dupe reassure customers that it really cares about the environment?  You needed an ordinance for that?  If you need an ordinance to save energy, then you really need a guardian, while you’re at it.    
 
The article talks about wind and solar energy, specifically.  Fair enough – go build a windmill, or install solar panels.   It’s hard to install these systems now, and there’s a way around that – repeal ordinances that make installation hard, and discharge employees who enforce them, whenever possible.  Fewer burdensome laws, few people on the public payroll.   
 
The proposed ordinances still require, depending on the size of the alternative energy source, either a conditional use permit, or a zoning permit.  No permit requirement would be better.  ‘Conditional use approval’ simply wastes time – and thus energy (Adams — how’s that for obvious?) – while a public panel throws conditions (impediments, really) in the way of industrious citizens with good ideas for saving energy.    
 
A good first step would be repealing any county restrictions on use of alternative energy sources.  Afterward, I know a better, second step: abolishing the Walworth County Land Use and Resource Management Department as a move toward efficiencies of all sorts.   
 
Next: Winship’s Candidacy, and Nosek’s Request for a City without Lawn Signs