vision2020
Re: School Board Meeting 1-22
In reply:
I would presume this means we would no longer utilize the free space
allocated by the University Of Idaho for our Kindergarten.
Yes, that's right. IF the recommendation is followed and IF the district indeed has to operate next year with $2M less than this year, then the ONE kindergarten class at U of I would be consolidated with all others at West Park.
There were several questions that remain unanswered about this proposal. Dr
Fisk assured the entire audience that `there are very good reasons this was the
best option of all those considered.' He declined to enlighten us on those
reasons, but stated that he will do so immediately before the comment session on
January 28. It couldn't be that listing those reasons tonight would give the
patrons a little more time to verify or dispute the logic, could it?
No. mn I chaired the meeting and we were 30 minutes overtime and had people waiting for the regular meeting agenda. That, in part, is why more time wasn't spent. Dr. Fisk declined to enlighten you further on the "best option" issue because he was given 10 minutes for this part of the presentation at a Board Workshop (not a public hearing, that's next week). This was a chance for the board to hear from staff. It truly was not a public presentation--where more detailed explanations are needed and will be made.
It was said at this meeting as it has been said at every other public meeting that this is the BEGINNING of the process to look at one OPTION for next year- -the "operate with $2M less next year" option. As Dr. Fisk pointed out, 14 people had met over 22 hours to come up with the best proposal for the children of the district under the expected financial constraints. That group included ALL building principals including the West Park principal. They had to set aside looking at what was best for individual buildings and come together to figure out what was best for the WHOLE district. As each of them pointed out, it was a very painful process for all of them, just as it will be for every staff member who loses his or her job and for every family whose child has to be moved next year.
One question is exactly HOW does shipping our kids in grades 1-6 all over
town save the district money? If it was lodging the kids all withing grade
level schools, ie K-1, 2-3 and 4-6, etc, I could see the logic. I wouldn't
agree with it, but I could follow that. Have the transportation costs and
liability been figured into the equation? What about the families that cannot
attend school functions if they are held out of our area?
Yes, transportation has been considered. The state picks up the majority of the transportation tab, so the cost effects are minimized. The short answer to how it saves money is that there is a savings for not having the entire building open which requires a principal, secretary, and other staff. Consolidating operation of 4 into 3 elementaries also saves staff time traveling from building ot building (since we have to eliminate some staff positions). For example, if 3 p.e. teachers have to "cover" four buildings instructional time is lost when one of them has to travel to another building. More complete answers will be provided at the public meeting and on the district website.
I am aware that walking to school, or riding a bike, gives my children some
badly-needed physical activity before they get to class. It helps them, and
helps the teacher. What accomodations can be made so my kid arrives at school
ready to learn? With an environmental and fiscally prudent focus, I see big
problems with busing a kid across town only to have the school pay for a staff
member to oversee the physical activity.
NO ONE prefers this solution. It's making the best of the situation.
Will the school district re-draw the district lines so kids from our area
can attend the nearest school? This seems only fair. I'm not sure the folks at
Lena or Russell would like to be shoved to a school farther east to make room
for our kids.
More children will need to be moved besides just the West Park students in order to achieve some balance to class loads in each classroom in each building. The details will be complex and are not yet in place. And I would once again stress that this is one option for which the district must prepare-- while at the same time assessing other options and being prepared for them as well. This is one of the CONTINGENT plans.
Other than being forced to `put up with' our kids, what sacrifices are the
other 3 elementary schools making in this budget crisis? I have seen the
sacrifices proposed at the high school and Junior High, as well as in
activities. However, I saw no such list for the other 3 elementary schools.
Our first priority should be children not buildings. The sacrifices are that people will be out of jobs, buildings will be crowded, and many students will be moved. There will be more stress on teachers, administrators, students, and parents because change produces stress in a variety of ways. Each elementary "family" will be disrupted because staff will change and students will change as they are moved to other buildings (and new ones enter from other buildings) to accommodate the necessary adjustments.
Has it been considered how many kids living within the district will be
removed to a school of their parent's choice? If we moved into this area
because of the neighborhood school, and we did, removing that school
removes many of my ties to the public school. How many students will be
lost to other situations, and how will that affect the school financing?
Yes, I think it's clearly understood that there are educational choices and that some parents may change their choice. Personally I doubt that many of the choices involve staying in the neighborhood, except home schooling. Classses will be larger but we will have the same quality teachers--including the current West Park teachers--doing the same good job next year.
Don't tell me about mitigating the damage. I would like to see a list of the
BENEFITS to the kids in grades 1-6, being removed from their neighborhood
school. With any decision like this, the benefits must be weighed against the
cost. If there are no discernible benefits, perhaps another option shoud be
considered?
Let's be clear--as EVERYONE was last night. There are NO DISCERNIBLE BENEFITS to students to moving them and no one suggested there were.
This is making the best of a bad situation, period. And, as was also clear at the meeting, other options WILL be considered. But we have to be PREPARED for having no more funds than the $2M less than we have this year. Not to be prepared would be completely irresponsible.
I trust the teachers with whom I come in contact because they know my child. I
don't beleive the administrators do, so I cannot assume they will watch out for
him/her. How will you convince me, and the other parents, that this is in
their best interest? Under these circumstances, I will be a `tough sell.'
Personally I don't intend to try to convince anyone that this is good for children because I don't think it is. REPEAT: this is making the best of a bad situation.
Speaking of these highly professinal people, when are the teachers going to be
asked for their suggestions on reducing the impact of this crisis?
The NEXT step is to ask everyone, including teachers, for their ideas. I want to hear ideas, but I don't want to ask teachers who already put in long days taking care of our children to spend another 22 hours on the preliminary questions. It's a complex issue and takes a lot of research, study, and a district-wide view to solve the problem.
By the way, most of the administrators that you don't trust are in daily contact with our children AND were classroom teachers at one time. THEY are the professionals the district and community hired to do the kind of job they just finished--making difficult suggestions in difficult times. You may not trust them, but I do. I'm a parent just like you. The one benefit I have from being on the board is that I do work with professionals at all levels in the district from those who feed our kids, clean up after them, push the snow off the sidewalks, teach them everyday, counsel them through tough times, discipline them when needed, and oversee compliance with the law and that we are delivering the best education we can in a consistent way. If you know and love West Park I think you would be hard pressed to be distrustful of its principal, Bill Marineau, a Moscow native who taught for years at Moscow Junior High (as not only a very effective classroom teacher, but also a very popular one with his students). It's HIS building that will be effectively closed, but he was part of the consensus that IF there is $2M less next year, this will be the best we can do for the kids.
It is unfortunate that the presentation tonight did nothing to reassure me that the district is truly going to do its best for the kids at West Park. I hope the school board can find the best alternatives for ALL of the children in this district.
I expect that sort of dialog will be part of the future public meetings.
Until that happens, I am afraid I shall lodge my trust with the
professionals I work with on a day to day basis.
I look forward to hearing from those professionals after they have studied the problem carefully, assessed what money is available and suggested other options to operate with $2M less.
Thanks for attending and for your continued interest in the district.
Mike Curley
Back to TOC