Clint Zweifel--education proponent

“Education policy should be considered as a bi-partisan investment in kids,” says Clint Zweifel, of the Florissant area, is doing.

Two pieces of legislation, Missouri House Bill 1886 and Senate Bill 993, allow for a scholarship fund to help children, with anomalies such as Asperger’s and autism, go to schools that meet their needs. Many of these children don’t get the services they need in their current schools, and their families are unable to afford schools that can help them.

The scholarships would all be administered by the Department of Economic Development, and financed through scholarship granting organizations to which citizens could donate, claiming a personal tax credit.

Speculators erroneously claim the bill would somehow hurt public schools. Of course this in not the case, nor would it remove public dollars from the tax base. All in all, the public would win on all counts.

Representative Zwiefel looks to me to be making some excellent statements about education--what Missouri needs and how important it is. We hope Rep. Zwiefel will hold fast to his commitment to opening up doors for all students in Missouri.

You may contact Clint Zweifel at: Clint.Zweifel@house.mo.gov

Or call his office at the capitol, 573-751-5365.

"Domo Arigato"

Found some more of the same in this article from Indystar.com (The whole article is worth a read~here's the 'gist):

"Study: U.S. 8th graders lag in math and science." The cited study refers to a 1983 report by the U.S. Department of Education's National Commission on Excellence, which warned: "Our nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world."

We know this already folks....I'll save my cynicysm for this author, since he beat me to the punch:

"Is anyone else shocked that a problem identified nearly 25 years ago is still unresolved or that our nation's students are drifting in a current of limited opportunities that lead to a lowered standard of living?"

Okay, no. I'm not shocked. Saddened, angered, peeved, yes. Confused? Yes...

"A 2004 report by the National Science Board found that while the number of jobs in science and engineering are escalating, there is a "troubling decline" in the number of U.S. college graduates in those fields, a trend that "threatens the economic welfare and security of our country." Based on this report and others, we need to help not only all students become math and science competent, but also to prepare more students for careers in technical fields.

To achieve these goals, the current system of math and science education must be reformed, beginning in elementary school classrooms. Early math and science lessons are often interactive, filled with field trips and lively experiments. Sometime between elementary school and high school, however, too many students trade magnets, pattern blocks, and jars of earthworms for textbooks, lectures and memorization assignments. And, not surprisingly during this time, many students' sentiments about math and science shift from relevant and thought provoking to confusing and elusive."

Well, what can you expect when our elementary and secondary teachers require only a 2.5 GPA to teach and accelerate young minds?! We hire the mediocre and cry foul when we get exactly that out of them...

"Students do not become inspired by textbooks. They become inspired by great teachers, experiences they have, discoveries they make, and their expanding ability to apply complex and abstract ideas to the world around them."

But that's Indiana~Funny, sounds alot like Missouri... Sounds like they are paying for mediocrity too... Well, at least Indy won't beat out Missouri... Can you say 'Domi Arugato'? (Sorry, can't spell....went to public shcool...meant to say thank you in the language of my superiors...)

It's a fair request

This is an excellent commentary on the issues facing parents of special needs children in Missouri. As a parent who has lost much sleep, a marriage, and is on the verge of financial ruin, I cannot tell you how meaningful it would be to see passage of the bills that are currently being debated at our state capitol. They are tuition tax credits that, if I qualify for, would allow me to get the much needed support for my daughter who has many developmental issues. I cannot afford to move, nor would my daughter tolerate it well, nor would moving to another district guarantee that it would be the right fit for my daughter. I know many parents with a special needs child who uprooted their entire family for the sake of one, moving to a new district and then soon finding that it wasn't the best choice after all. Then they move again. This is absurd and yet it happens again and again.

This video tells my story too and that of many Missourians. Supporting the bills, SB 770 and SB993 and HB1886 (aka: "Bryce's Law") would help those of us out here drowning in defense of our children. We are not asking for hand-outs. These bills do not drain public monies nor threaten the viability of public schools. They would give freedom of movement to my daughter and alleviate the burden from public schools that cannot serve her and others like her. I want my success story and happy ending for my daughter. It's a fair request and poses no undue burden on society~in fact, helping her now, and others like her will alleviate the financial burden that will surely arrive at the doorstep of taxpayers in the future if I cannot help my daughter become an independent and contributing citizen. That's really what we want for our children~Again, it's a fair request.

Give me a break!

It is clear that many Missourians could use a break~a little help in getting a good quality education for their child with special needs. It is unfortunate that more parents could not show up at the capitol on 2-13, but it really was an impressive turn-out none-the-less, given that families with children with special needs experience higher divorce rates and more parents necessarily are working outside the home. More wanted to come, but they simply could not afford to take the day to go to the capitol to implore the legislatures that they need financial support~and more importantly, choices within the educational arena. In fact, for families with an autistic child, the incidence of divorce is at 90%!

The parents who were able to make the trek had much to say on behalf of all of us who are touched by autism and special needs. (See Voices of Special Needs Parents, posted here on 2-15-08). Dave Roland, of the Show-Me Institute, had this to say about the parents and the legislation:

The hearings yesterday included moving testimony from parents who have faced (and, in some cases, overcome) enormous obstacles in trying to help their children, as well as testimony from a number of parents, educators, and administrators opposed to changing the status quo. Unfortunately, this morning's news reports missed the opportunity to note that some of the points raised by those opposing the bills were clearly and thoroughly debunked. Articles in the Southeast Missourian and the Post-Dispatch try to present a relatively balanced picture of the issues, as presented at the Senate committee's hearing. Both of these articles, and the one posted at Missourinet, point out concerns raised by some educators that the programs would take money away from public schools — but (as conversations at the House committee hearing made absolutely plain) it would be impossible for the tax credit bills, as written, to divert any money away from the state's educational funding formula. If the special needs tax credit program is adopted, public schools will receive exactly the same level of funding as they would without the program.

More information on the hearing can be seen in this article as well.

The House committee voted and it was overwhelming in favor of it. Now, it will head to the House floor for further debate.

This is a huge step in helping the special needs children of Missouri. Let's hope it keeps going in the right direction.

I choose for my child

Just because my child has a special need, as a tax payer I should not have to be grateful~with my hat in my hand, for whatever the school district should deem is appropriate for my child because I live on this side or that side of any imaginary line draw throughout the city or the county. I look forward to the day that schools and teachers should be accountable to parents rather than the government.

Not all schools can provide all things to all children~choice within the public system would recognize this fact. One of my sisters, who lives in St. Louis City, has a child diagnosed with ADHD. But because her son was doing poorly, learning nothing after years of being tossed around in a system that had no trained teachers who understood her son and could help him, she finally fictitiously took a residence in a county school~meaning she gave the school district (Kirkwood, if you really want to know) the mailing address of another of my sisters who really lived in Kirkwood. Unlike the happy story I refer to in the beginning of this paragraph, my two sisters already had a strained relationship. This series of misrepresentations to the Kirkwood school district put tremendous strain on an already strained family relationship, not to mention the dark veil under which my nephew was forced to live~lying to his new friends about where he lived and living in fear of being discovered.

When we all pay taxes, shouldn't we demand that the system serve US?! Not the other way around? We had better wake up and smell the coffee. Currently, children are being diagnosed at a rate of 1 in 144 for autism~on all parts of the spectrum (high-functioning to not). Ten years ago, it was 1 in 10,000!! We need to get extremely creative, extremely quickly. We need to be able to adapt quickly. When we let government dictate to us and run us, we lose so much. I want the schools and the teachers accoutable to me for my child.

I once received a letter from the school seeking my support for their mission to educate my child. I called the school and wrote letters to say they've got it COMPLETELY backwards. It is I who seek their help in educating my child~not the other way around. I am in charge. I make choices for my child, not them.

Listening to the spokespeople for the St. Louis Public School district, you would think otherwise. They are perfectly content to make all the choices~though one mother testified recently before the Missouri House and the Senate that her 11 year old son who CAN learn from her, has learned virtually NOTHING in the public school. She has begged and pleaded, made phone calls and took a day to go to the state capitol on 2.13.08 to tell them she wants choice in the system. Her high-functioning autistic child is already 11 and spent years without books. Anyone who knows even just a little about autistic kids knows that the very best time to reach them is in their early years~well before 11!

The cost conundrum

I am really bad at economics. I know this, but I still like it and think it’s important—so I choose to trust those brave souls who actually study it day in and day out. Dr. Eric Hanushek, a fellow at Stanford University, recently spoke at St. Louis University School of Business about the economics of improving urban education. He said some things that resonated with me, but first I’d like to mention a story from Janese Heavin at the Columbia Daily Tribune about per-pupil expenditures, because I think it sets the stage well. Within Columbia public school district, there is a disparity of spending of more than a hundred percent.

“CPS spent $15,136 per student at West Boulevard last year, but only $6,675 per child at Two Mile Prairie. So what's going on?”

This range is about a definition of spending equality—which does not mean that every student receives the same amount, but rather that every student receives an amount consistent with their needs. It is interesting to note that there is that range within a district. The average per pupil expenditure at CPS, then, does not accurately reflect the situation at either of those schools. There has been a lot of talk about spending differences between districts and how it’s not fair, but what per-pupil spending figures are being used?

This brings us to an interesting fork in the road, though: in Missouri, if we look at urban areas we find that they are in a crisis and that they outspend most other districts in the state. One of the reasons for this is a pervasive thought that failing schools need all the help they can get, so the state continues to allocate more money and resources to them.

Dr. Hanushek said this, however, during his talk:

"Now this is where most of the economists in the room start getting a little bit squeamish, at the idea that you develop and incentive system that says: If you fail you get more, and the more you fail the more you get. And if you succeed, you get less."

Is that true of West Boulevard and Two Mile Prairie?

Most people would say well, that’s just the way it has to be, because these are children’s lives we’re talking about, and we can’t punish them for the mistakes of their teachers and administration. That’s true! But it’s time we stopped equating our duty as Missourians to educate a child with a duty to support a public school. They are not one in the same. What kind of wake-up call do we need to realize that supporting a system that is chronically failing children means that we are NOT supporting our children? There is no evidence that we are “on the right track”, and even if there was, long-term reform does not help the current generation of students.

A little more food for though from Dr. Hanushek:

"You try to put…more choice in the system so that the parents get to choose which schools are effective and which aren't, and to vote with their feet, and vote with their money if it follows the kids…There is this huge linkage between location, residence, and the schools. And you have to break that because you can't have people that are stuck in a residential location, that are stuck with ineffective schools. You have to give them some way to get away from that."

School Choice, anyone?

Plan to Plan

Once I was involved in a strategic planning process where we were instructed to spend time preparing to create our plan. Our facilitator told us to "plan to plan." The idea was to get all of our ducks in a row before we tried to create a solid plan - make sure we had all of the right people on board, knew our strengths and weaknesses, carefully evaluated pertinent data, etc. In the end, it was the process of planning itself that our team would benefit from and hopefully the plan would be pretty good too.

I recently read something written by the Cato Institute titled "Why Government Planning Always Fails." Here's a significant excerpt: "Everybody plans. We plan our workdays, we plan our careers, we plan for retirement. But private plans are flexible and we happily change them when new information arises. In contrast, as soon as a government plan is written, people who benefit from the plan form special interest groups to ensure that the plan does not change, no matter how costly it proves to be to society as a whole."

Doesn't that sound like education? Take a look at our K-12 education system - it has one plan for educating all children. Now that the plan has been put into place the teachers' unions, administrators, and school boards are all vying to make sure the system isn't changed no matter what the consequence is to the kids. Some public schools are doing the right things for the right reasons - the KIDS not the plan. But others, are so consumed by the plan that they have forgotten their purpose.

Changing the plan and thoroughly rocking the educational boat could bring about the big reforms that our educational system desperately needs. We need to create plans that are living and breathing - plans that are flexible and adaptive. Educators should be our number one innovators. They should be encouraged to think critically and creatively. Most of all once the plan is changed it should never become more important than the children.

Educating all children

I am a mother, I try to read everything I can about children. I get emails almost daily with little pointers, info on development, ways to encourage learning, etc. Occasionally, there are sections that apply to me and sections that do not. I came across a section on Autism which does not apply to me and my son, however, I am compassionate to those who are impacted by it. I decided to take a look and this is what I found on my Babyzone email:

Where to Go for Services

There are both publicly-funded and private agencies that offer education and treatment services for children on the autism spectrum. In the United States, the early intervention program created by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) covers children under age three who qualify for special education services. Local school districts are required by IDEA to provide services for children in their communities starting at age three so they can receive what's called a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE).

You can start with the doctor who diagnosed your child for suggestions on where to go for the autism services you need based on the evaluations of your child. Be sure to ask the doctor for other people you can contact for more information, including other doctors, other parents, and social services agencies that specialize in helping children with autism.

Paying for Services

While government-funded services are free or low-cost fee based (specifics depend on the state where you live), they can sometimes be in short supply. Private services are costly (they can run $40,000 per year or more) and not covered by insurance in many states. States such as South Carolina and Texas passed legislation in 2007 requiring coverage for some autism therapies. Advocates at organizations like Autism Speaks are pushing to expand insurance coverage in other states.

Check with your health insurance company to see what services are covered and with your state representative to see what legislation is under consideration if your insurance does not cover autism-related services. (Read on for state-by-state insurance laws, plus more on health insurance coverage issues at Autism Bulletin.)

As you can see, it seems plain and simple; nothing new here. But from what I have heard and seen, it is not so black and white. Now, I am not trying to fault babyzone by any means. They are only trying to get the basics out there. But the problem lies with the first section...getting an education. There are so many problems with it. Children with special needs are not getting the services they need. A few bills have been introduced that would help alleviate some of the problems by allowing the parents to have a choice in their child's education. Not every school can properly educate special needs child; their needs vary and those schools cannot do it all. That is why we all need to support the Special Needs Scholarship Tax Credit Program. It will give those children a chance at an education.

Studies show...

What do studies show? While trolling the education news of the week, I’ve seen studies across the country that say AP test scores and participation are falling, that students in Milwaukee’s voucher program are experiencing much higher graduation rate than their counterparts in traditional public school settings. I’ve even found an interview in which Senator Obama says he would be open to vouchers if studies show “that’s what’s best for kids”.

It seems that a lot of the info we’re working with, though, is outdated, bad, or just plain incomplete. There are some things we can say with certainty, of course, but as far as making real assessment about the what works best for kids (and by that, what works best for Kid A and Kid B, not just what works for kids as a generality), we are pitifully lacking in longitudinal data. We have some of the best medical and scientific research programs in the United States, but there is a decided lack of entrepreneurial research and development in education.

It’s a daunting prospect. Shall we create a government mandate for this sort of R and D, at the risk of stifling a lot of the work through the constraints of government, or shall we do nothing and hope research simply happens and that it is of good quality?

There is another option, I think, that would give incentives for independent research and allow them access to any data that is being collected for the purposes of R and D on student performance, spending and school achievement. We need every great teacher we can get, why not every great researcher?

Voices of Special Needs Parents

The House and the Senate hearings yesterday made great headway into improving education and truly helping those children with special needs. Both the House and the Senate spent several hours hearing arguments for and against the special needs tax credit scholarship program, which is covered by three separate yet similar bills.

There were many witnesses testifying against the bills, however, it was evident their arguments were either unfounded or too weak to force a vote against the bill. Testimonies from parents moved the audience as well as the legislators. While every witness's testimony got to me, there was one mother that testified in both hearings that moved me the most. Her and her 11 year old son have gone through 6 six in St. Louis and are still not happy with the education. Most of his teachers were only trying to work on behavior issues, thereby ignoring the reading, writing, and math These bills, if passed, would allow children to go to another school, private or public, with a scholarship. aspects of school. One classroom he was in had no actual books in it! If he were properly educated, his mother explained, the the behavior would correct itself. It is no secret that many children act out when they are frustrated or not understanding things; you can see this behavior emerge in children as young as one year old. The fact is, it only gets worse.

Another mother, for the sake of her son, moved away from her husband to Ohio in order to enroll her son in a costly specialized school for two and a half years. Now, he has returned to Missouri schools and is flourishing. But without those two years with specialized attention and treatments, he most likely would not be where he is today. Unfortunately, not all parents can make this type of move, and they should not have to.

The House Committee passed this bill now it is up to the full House to debate.

It's a-parent

The idea that 'choice' in the academic environment is an ideal supported widely and strongly and at the discretion of the consumer who chooses a school all across America. That is, if you make it as far as higher level education anyway. That is, if you happen to live in the right zip code and the right teachers happen to be there to inspire you and make sure you make the grade. But for college, all you need is a grant and you can apply it to a college of your choice. Why not allow this at the elementary level~where it makes so great a difference to whether or not a child will actually make further?!

There's a great deal of debate out there that says that because people are poor, they cannot reach higher education~they even say that those people are culturally unable to achieve it. However, I suggest that many, given the opportunity, can and do achieve academic excellence. That is not to say ALL, but many CAN. Parents can and will choose the very best alternative for their child~when in fact they have an alternative. Choice, in the academic environment raises the level of public educational offerings~it does NOT destroy it. It provides liberation tfrom poverty and future promise~where it exists, anyway. There are plenty of studies that actually prove this.

Now, we need to acknowledge that not only does SCHOOL CHOICE improve academic achievement, but that all parents have the right to choose the best educational alternatives for their child. "The Voice for School Choice" points to this Feb. 4th Opinion in the New York Sun that supports that not only is choice legal, but logical and just.

Fight for what's right

I don't know what it is like to have a special needs child, nor do I even know what it is like to have a child. However, this does not mean I do not care for all the children and want the best for them. I am a teacher in a rural Missouri school. I would have to say our school does a great job for most of our students, but sadly, I cannot say all of our students. There are a few students that seem to slip through the cracks and unfortunately, there is little I can do for them. Our school is great, however, we cannot properly service those children with special needs. I have one child in my classroom that has an IEP and we try to work with that. However, I would be the first to admit she would be better served at another school. Unfortunately, her parents cannot afford the private school here that could do a better job, and they definitely could not afford to transport her to the large Autism school which is over 50 miles away unless they moved.

The problem is that my school is not able to provide every part of this child's IEP and that puts her at an extreme disadvantage. I know there are great parts to the IEP program, but this does not always equate to everything happening the way it should. Not every school can handle it.

Because of my experiences, I am in complete support of the Scholarship Tax Credit Program for Special Needs children. Unfortunately, I cannot say that the teacher unions agree with me on this; but they are not witnessing everything first hand. Bottom line is, it should not be about what big organizations or unions think of the program, it should be about what the program could do for these kids.

I know, if it were to pass, this one little girl in my class would have access to the private school that would give her what she needs. As sad as I would be to let her go, I have to think of what is best for her, not what is best for me! Support SB 993 and HB 1886!!!

Missouri School Districts Drop Out

Kudos to the schools that have dropped from the adequacy trial. It's time for others to drop out too. Suing Missouri taxpayers for more money is not a solution that will yield improvement and that is why it is important for those who remain committed to appealing the CEE vs Missouri decision to follow those who recently dropped (St. Joseph's, Columbia, Liberty, Blue Springs). Missouri taxpayer money would be better spent in the classroom where it was designated to go in the first place.

What is plaguing our public educational system is not a lack of money but a lack of proper direction. Schools can and do improve when proper incentive is given. Allowing schools to adapt to attract children they are capable of serving and educating is a good thing. Forcing schools to teach to all special differences of each child that lives in a certain district is an unrealistic burden currently placed on our system. So let's not focus on a losing trial and, instead, focus on winning strategy and alternatives within a thriving public school system based on parental choice and involvement.

This article, Expanded school choice would encourage innovation, shows that it is possible to improve student performance in the absence of increased taxes.

Research on programs suggests that school choice is having a positive impact. Surveys of families participating in school choice programs have found that parents are more satisfied with their children's education when they can choose their children's schools.

When kids come first, choice follows

I have recently learned about a program in Oregon, The Children's Scholarship Fund. This was started to help children from various economic classes to gain access to great education:

The Children’s Scholarship Fund-Portland provides privately funded elementary school scholarships applicable to any private or home school of the parents’ choice. CSF-Portland annually assists students from families whose income is low to moderate, residing primarily in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties.

CSF-Portland’s mission is to maximize educational opportunity at all income levels by offering tuition assistance for financially needy families and by promoting a diverse and competitive education environment. CSF-Portland scholarships may be used at any legally operating private or home school, and parents may change their children’s schools as they wish.

CSF-Portland plays a unique and important role in the school choice movement in Oregon. CSF-Portland has a seven-year track record of success, proving that low-income parents desire to take charge of their children’s futures through educational opportunity, and, when given a choice, do so. While their financial means are limited, CSF-Portland parents see themselves as the primary educators of their children. They are knowledgeable and determined to make any sacrifice to raise their children to be educated, responsible, productive, and respectful citizens capable of giving to others now and in adulthood.

I think this is an amazing program that students across the US could benefit from. It is privately funded, so people can let go of the issue of spending public funds at religious private schools (even though Pell Grants for college allow...). Missouri students would truly benefit from this. Thinking of it, it reminds me of the two bills that were just announced in the house and senate. The Special Needs Scholarship Program is a similar program. In this program, private donors would give to a scholarship granting organization which would then grant scholarships to special needs students throughout Missouri to attend a public or private school of their choice. Many special needs children are not provided for accurately in their district and need other services. The donors get a tax credit on their state tax liability too. I really hope this bill passes! I cannot understand those who are trying to fight this bill...do they really not want these children to get a good education? Do they really want to keep them in schools that failing them just to conform to the status quo? Hey, maybe someday we could also pass something similar for all the children of Missouri.

Acting on a method that works

President Bush has proposed a Pell Grant for Kids program to offer over $300 million in scholarships to low-income students to attend the school of their choice. This program would apply only to children in schools that have not met the No Child Left Behind standards for the past five years or have a graduation rate of less than 60 percent. The money could pay for part of or all of the tuition for a child to attend another public school out of the child's home district or a private or faith-based school.

Pell Grants are currently used at the college level. College-bound students may apply for the federal grants and then use them at any participating college or university of their choosing. Here's an official definition of Federal Pell Grants:

"Federal Pell Grants are direct grants awarded through participating institutions to students with financial need who have not received their first bachelor's degree or who are enrolled in certain post baccalaureate programs that lead to teacher certification or licensure. Participating institutions either credit the Federal Pell Grant funds to the student's school account, pay the student directly (usually by check) or combine these methods. Students must be paid at least once per term (semester, trimester, or quarter); schools that do not use formally defined terms must pay the student at least twice per academic year." Visit the U.S. Department of Education to learn more.

Unlike a student loan, Pell Grants do not have to be repaid.

Higher education is a wonderful model of school choice for K-12 to emulate. Choice abounds in the college selection process. Parents and students are free to choose the best college or university suited for their interests, goals, and needs. It seems only logical to look at the higher education process, one that works, and apply its methods to K-12 education.

There is a lot of opposition to Bush's plan. Most speak about the need to provide more money to public education. There is usually no mention of the children or their needs. I've heard several times that the US spends more money per student in education than other countries yet when it comes to international assessments we rank pretty low. It would seem that more funding is not the answer.

Rolla Superintendent defends poor decision to stay in school funding trial

Rolla’s School Superintendent Dr. Jerry Giger had this to say defending Rolla’s involvement in the state’s school funding adequacy trial. I was glad to hear that questions had been raised about the wisdom of continuing involvement, unfortunately Dr. Giger has decided to push ahead. He offers a thorough dissemination of his rationale and I do applaud him for having given it a good deal of thought and then educating the public about the nuances of this case. Those who pay taxes have a right to know not only how, but why, their dollars are being spent, and I also believe Dr. Giger’s heart is in the right place. I disagree with some major points of his argument, though, as well as Rolla’s involvement in the case.

The hinge of Dr. Giger’s argument is a rift between spending between rich and poor schools. This necessitates a change in the funding formula if and only if additional money does in fact improve student performance. The job that public education strives to do is to adequately educate all students, not to spend money and hope that results follow. The circuit court decision in this case, as Giger notes, said that the court does not have the authority to demand that the legislature spend more that the required 25% of the state budget. A following ruling said that Missouri is spending at least 25% of its budget on public education.

Furthermore, as we look at the gap between the districts that spend the most money per pupil, achievement DOES NOT follow accordingly. St. Louis public schools’ spending is some of the highest in the state and spends almost twice what MacDonald school district does, but St. Louis is one of three districts that have lost accreditation and has among the worst test scores in the state. Obviously, some districts can achieve more with fewer resources, and some districts do the opposite.

Essentially, the buck stops there. I commend Dr. Giger’s concerns and commitment, but the court has not only rejected the premise of the argument, but said that any changes have to come from the legislature. Giger applauds the Circuit Court Judge Richard Callahan for not legislating from the bench, and then incongruously says an appeal is the next step. The appropriate next step would be to take the text of that decision to the legislature and define exactly what Rolla needs that it is not getting—since what would be done with additional money never came up in this article.

The last point is that there is no way to tie the defendant intervenors with an increase in CEE's costs, especially since they joined the trial right before the hearing. No post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments fly in my book. It is my understanding that they joined to protect taxpayers and to offer expertise that should but was not being considered.