|
| Board Update 2-14-00 Last night our board appointed Randy Giesler to the Board. Mr. Giesler is a self-confessed conservative, pro-second amendment, anti-abortion, life-long resident of Butler Co. Other then stating he wa againt State mandates, little else could be determined from his 8 minute presentation. The vote went like this: Adams- Giesler Angrette- Giesler Duryea- Roberts Smith- Roberts Thompson- Giesler Watson- Giesler Youngman- Giesler Christmann was absent!....HMMMMM Why, out of a field of 12 canididates did they chose Giesler? Well, in my opinion, first, he is not female and second, he is a "good ole' boy" conservative who will promote the status quo parochialism that seems to be the back bone of Western Pa political power. Otherwise known as local control. In other news...... The board had a long discussion about whether they need to update any policies so as to prevent Communist fundraising in the district. Apparently there is some concern that these Communists may be trying to get a foothold in the area of fundraising. The superintendent agreed that they should consider the policy review. No, I'm not kidding! It Ain't Just Bill Adams Anymore- like it ever was They're all a bunch of hypocrites. By a unanimous vote, the Board passed a resolution to ask the state to rescind all of Chapter 4 (Academic Standards and Assessment). Led by an ambitious solicitor's pursuasive political diatribe, board members swelled with pride as they voted against standards for our children. And what a political decision it was. There is no doubt now where this Board stands. Opposition to Chapter 4 took over where OBE left off (we all know the standards are just OBE in sheep's clothing), but it was more organized. A right wing conservative movement - against anything "progressive". Our Board has bought into this hook, line and sinker. The most fundamental belief of that movement is parents' rights - the inalienable right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children. The Board's words and actions consistently contradict that belief. I'm glad that everyone showed their true colors at Monday's meeting - and taught us a great deal about the political beliefs of all our elected officials. Vandalism on the Rise! Bill Barnett, Director of Environmental Services, set the tone for the meeting with an impassioned report that 18% of the District's work orders are to clean up vandalism (could be up to 20%, the national average is 12%). Parents aren't supportive when their children are caught. Sentencing offenders to community service to clean up the mess isn't too effective either (too many regulation/mandates). Bad parents? Bad mandates? Coming Soon to YOUR Kitchen Table A committee of 15-20 teachers, counselors, and administrators (parents were conspicuously absent) under the fine leadership of the Curriculum Director, Dennis Spinella, has completed the mandatory homework guidelines. According to Spinella, homework is not a suggestion, it's required. The issue is "enforcement" - making sure the teachers will follow the guidelines. Why would he think the teachers wouldn't? It's a mandate, isn't it? Times (per night) (Grades 1-3) 30 minutes (Grades 4-5) 45-60 minutes (Grades 6-8) 60-90 minutes (Grades 9-12) 90-120 minutes And parents, you're part of this, too. One of your responsibilities is "to maintain a balance between school and family or outside events". Let's see. The District would like to mandate what our children will do outside of school - a decision made without any parental input. Nothing like a little governmental intrusion into my family life. The joys of local control.... Just Say No to Standards Standards - who needs them? Deborah Wells spoke to the Board asking members to make sure they had all the facts before they voted to pass a resolution against Chapter 4: Academic Standards and Assessment. She asked the Board to recognize that passing a resolution against Chapter 4 is more than a legal issue - it is clearly political. The Commonwealth Education Organization (CEO) has been very active in lobbying against Chapter 4. (Did you see District Solicitor King testifying before the House Education Committee along with representatives from the CEO? Is an elected office in someone's future? Heck, they all look alike). If you follow the CEO's website's links, it reveals an organization with ties to all of our Board's favorite right wing issues. The links are anti-OBE, anti-paganism, anti-environmentalism/eco-despair, anti-teachers' unions, anti-bilingual, anti-standards, anti school-to-work, and anti-government in schools. They seem to favor vouchers, homeschooling, charter schools, Core Knowledge, English only and abstinence education. Wells asked the Board to have a town meeting before passing any resolution. Parents were supposed to receive a "tabloid" from the State explaining Chapter 4, but it was never distributed in this District. If parents received this information, they could have informed opinions to share with the Board. Right. More parents to listen to. The plea for community input fell on deaf ears. King agreed that the resolution was both legal and political. His legal argument was a fear of religious profiling of students who had religious objections to the PSSA (A concern Wells introduced to the Board last month). But then the politicking began. Solicitor King had lots of reasons for opposing Chapter 4. I guess he's an expert on standards and the PSSA. He certainly knows that performance incentives are bad. But his greatest area of expertise is guarding against the loss of local control. It's the Quiet Ones Ya Gotta Watch The most interesting comments came from SR Borough representative Brad Smith - he wanted to challenge Chapter 4 in court (And just how much would THAT cost the taxpayers?). Would we have to comply with Chapter 4 during the legal challenge, he asked (King's advice - follow the law). Smith would not be dissuaded, and asked how this would compare with the Grove City College case and Title IX? King replied that the District was not in the position to stop taking federal and state monies. Bill Adams agreed wholeheartedly with Smith's legal challenge idea, so this should tell you where Smith is coming from. You may recall that Title IX bans sex discrimination in all programs receiving federal funds. In 1976, Grove City College refused to sign a Title IX compliance form and does not receive federal funds. Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex. This includes access to academic and athletic programs and facilities. It includes discrimination against married or pregnant students. And it includes sexual harassment as a form of discrimination. Now I know that mandates are unpopular with our Board, but would they really consider giving up state and federal money just to have local control? What mandates would they like to avoid? The ones that prohibit discrimination based on sex, race, religion or ethnic background? Or how about the Constitutional manadates against unreasonable search and seizure? Or maybe the mandates for due process in employment matters? Due process rights for students? We certainly could get rid of the Special Education mandate. And hey - that Sunshine Act is pretty cumbersome. I'll bet that Board could get a lot more done without all those pesky citizens. Maybe one of the anti-public education financial wizards on the Board could do the math for us and find out exactly how much would taxes have to be raised to make the District self-supporting. The ultimate in local control. Anyway. The resolution asking that all of Chapter 4 be rescinded (not just the "illegal" part) passed, with a UNANIMOUS vote. After it was over, Mr. Adams summed it up,"We have a weenie-free Board". (Translation - well, you fill in the blank....) The Bussing Saga Continues Mr. Youngman gave a report on the recent transportation committee meeting with, as he put it, the "lady" who made the request and her "colleagues out of the trailer park". You may recall that a parent spoke to the Board earlier this month, sharing her exasperation that no District administrators had been responsive to her concerns. She was strongly discouraged from taking her concerns to the Board - it's been reported that her name was removed from the agenda the night she was scheduled to speak. During the transportation committee meeting, parents asked that a new driver be assigned to their route. They asked for audio to be added to the present videotaping on the bus (King said there was a problem about consent and whether or not parents could give consent for children. Well, it seems like parents give consent for most everything else when a child is a minor - I guess an audio tape of a bus ride is somehow different....). And they asked whether or not a bus driver had the authority to create punishment for a child (Bonfield said some did, but it wasn't "universally" used). Apparently the Board ain't too happy about this situation. Bob Watson began his lecture - Some forget that riding a bus is a privilege (True. Districts don't have to provide bussing at all. But if they do, the mandate says they have to provide it for everyone within a certain distance of the school.They even have to provide bussing for kids to a private or religious school. Yep, it has to be provided for all - except of course kindergarten children who are only bussed one way. And yes, it even has to be provided to children "out of the trailer park"). That wasn't the real issue though. Watson sounded almost angry at the "special process" afforded to these parents. The board can't look at every issue that comes forward in the mind of parents, he said. Apparently Watson believed this was an administrative issue, and even if the parents weren't satisfied with the administrators' responses, a Board meeting and special transportation committee meeting was not the place for these issues. Ok. Let's review here. With local control, we're supposed to call our Board members, right? That's why we don't need parents on any committees. So calling a Board member privately is all right - but be advised - if you bring up an issue at a public meeting, you do so at your own peril. But that wasn't all. Adams and Duryea have a solution. Adams suggested that if there was a problem on a bus, we should get a list of all the students who are on Ritalin that ride that bus. Guess he wants a look into their medical records. Board President Dr. David Duryea wanted to know how many of the children on that bus eat breakfast at school. Guess he wants a look into the parents' financial records to see if it's a free breakfast. (If I remember correctly, some our current Board members were on the Board when the issue of offering breakfast at school first came up - and there was a strong sentiment against it). But I'm sure the Board will find a solution that satisfies everyone - well everyone except those who come "out of a trailer park", exercise their right to speak to the Board, take Ritalin, or eat breakfast at school. Buddhist Monks - Gone But Not Forgotten Adams had Dr. Bonfield scurrying back to his office to get Board members copies of an advertisement sent to Adams (I'm sure that produced a "warm and fuzzy feeling") from a friend in Florida (Where's Jim Roberts, anyway?). Adams thinks they might be the same monks who were here in March 1999 and performed their sacred dances (the deer dance and the bunny hop according to Adams) at SRU. He explained that the group is charging $18 for a ticket to the performance - quite a lucrative operation for a group that says they want to spread their culture for the good of the audience. Executive Session An executive session was held for: Labor negotiations (hey, teachers, doesn't mandatory homework increase your workload?) Personnel (Still no new English teacher)-delay, delay,delay A Complaint filed with the PA Labor Relations Board by a part time payroll clerk Other matters exempt from public discussion (after watching Adams' lengthy sidebar with King, I'll bet it's about that Ritalin list) Oh, I almost forgot, Dr. Edwin P. Christmann never took the Oath of Office. Huh. One last note. Last time I told ya'll that Mr. Breth, Board Solicitor, revealed that there was an ongoing "computer investigation" . Through the magic of the Right to Know Act ( the district sure isn't going to tell ya'll anything about this) I have acquired 'new" information. Click here for details Board Update 3-20-2000 "Police accuse SR teen of bomb threat" So read the headline in the March 17, 2000 Eagle. According to the paper, around 4:00 pm on March 14, police allege that a 16 year old student threatened to detonate a bomb at the high school during school hours. Searches were done at the school, and no bombs or bomb-making materials were found. Criminal charges against the boy are pending. Calls to Superintendent Reggie Bonfield were not returned. At last night's Board meeting at Moraine Elementary School, citizen Katherine Gardiner asked about the latest bomb threat, and asked why parents had not been told about it. An interesting, though convoluted, discussion followed. Dr. Bonfield stated, "I don't know what the police are referring to in that article." (Gee, that instills confidence). He continued, "I know of no bomb threat that was called in to the school about a bomb going to go off on the 14th." When Gardiner explained that neither she nor the paper said anything about a threat being called in, Dr. Bonfield assured her that "When we have any credible information we can give to parents, we will do that..." Hm... I guess the reporting was all wrong. I guess a police investigation with pending criminal charges isn't credible. And if the building was searched, I guess they weren't really looking for a bomb. Safety first. When parents were notified about the earlier e-mail bomb threat for Thursday, March 8, 60-70% of the students were absent from school. Bonfield said this was because of the District's good communication with parents. Now let's see. Good communication with parents. How many children were absent because of the latest threat? How many parents knew of the latest threat? Apparently Gardiner left messages at the District office on Friday and Monday and her calls were not returned, even though people were in the office. Gardiner summed it up well. "If a police report has been filed, and this type of situation exists, parents should be notified." Exactly. Still No High School English Teacher When High School English teacher Kimberly Robertson resigned in January, a search began for her replacement. Although a name was presented to the Board during last month's Business meeting (Scott Fritsche), no action was taken. In last night's meeting, action was taken, this time with a "no" vote for hiring Scott Fritsche as a High School English teacher, Step 1, $29,997. A motion was made to approve, but no second was made for a looooong time. Finally Youngman seconded, but wanted to hear what his colleagues problems were (I guess he meant problems with the motion...!). Adams railed against the high starting salary of a beginning teacher (so we all made a mistake by not going into education as young men, Youngman quipped), but then the truth was told. Apparently, the Board's personnel committee did not get to review all of the applications received by the District. Not enough time, everyone's in a big hurry, said Adams. In the past, this committee has saved the District some real problems, he said, and as Dr. Christmann pointed out (to Mr. Adams, I guess), look at the grade point averages here...that kind of thing would have come out in the personnel committee. Too little time, too little power - the remedy? The Board's usual response - delay, delay, delay. Bonfield reminded the Board that a sub was currently teaching the English classes. Adams and Christmann voted no, Angerett, Duryea and Youngman voted yes. A majority of 5 was needed. (Giesler showed up after the vote, Smith, Thompson and Watson were absent). I guess the Board knows best. Teachers and Sabbaticals CAD instructor Mel Price is asking for a sabbatical for "study" for the second semester of the 2000-2001 school year. Concerned about finding a replacement, Bonfield asked the Board to move on this quickly. Giesler expressed concern about sabbaticals and their purposes. Is it part of their contract, he asked? And if we can't find a replacement, do we have to approve it? Duryea suggested that Board members could talk to the solicitor before the next meeting if they had questions. I sure hope the teachers' contract is clear...because this Board doesn't seem too fond of sabbaticals. The vote should take place next week. Teachers and Advisory Committees SRAE teacher Kim Creasy and SRHS teacher Sid Snyder have been invited to become members of SRU's Teacher Education Advisory Committee. An honor, you would think. But then again...the Board isn't so sure. Just how were these particular teachers selected, Adams and Christmann want to know. Their names were "given" to the School (sic) of Education. Do these teachers have the highest SAT scores? Do they excell in anything? Do their students have higher achievement test scores? After all, everyone knows that teachers are only as good as their GPA or their students' test scores, right??? Well, our Board seems to think so. Just read The Bell Curve, Adams says. Let's look at their SAT scores, their PRAXIS test scores (Christmann's interest). Our Board sure knows how to tell if someone's a good teacher. I'm glad they're looking out for us. Miscellaneous Angerett would like the Board's Athletic Committee to get moving on an idea to re-organize Youth Soccer and Youth Football to include grades 7, 8 and 9 (9th grade is currently varsity). If there are no 13 year olds in football, then 120 young men will be left with nothing to do. 100 cheerleaders will be left out in the cold. And if the Board wants to hear from some mad mothers, just let that happen. The issue was sent to the Dr. Watson and the Athletic Committee. |
|
|