| Board Update 1-10-01 The Conversion continues! Will the Board be healed? Last night, the Slippery Rock School Board appointed Rev. Michael Bruno to fill Duryea’s seat. Rev. Bruno is a resident of the SR boro and the pastor of the church that meets at the high school. Adams made the nomination and it was seconded by Christmann. The vote was 6 to 2 with Smith and Thompson voting no. This is the first Sign. The second Sign will be when our board votes to elect board members “at-large”. The third Sign is open for debate. In case of rapture, this website will be unattended! To learn more about the rapture- check out this Christian site-CLICK HERE! Update 1-15-01 The More Things Change… You may remember that last week the illustrious Dr. Christmann informed each candidate for Duryea’s seat that the District had adopted Core Knowledge. So last night I asked if the Board could clear up the confusion swirling around the Core Knowledge curriculum. Some in the community are concerned, I continued, that this Board’s interest in Core Knowledge could be motivated by some members’ right wing political agendas. I explained that groups such as the Heritage Foundation, the Rutherford Institute, and Citizens for Excellence in Education, The Get-equipped website, discuss such agendas, as does The Investor’s Business Daily (Remember when the Board (or Bill Adams??) paid for every Board member to have a subscription to Investor’s Business Daily?) I know that’s where I get all my information about education!!) Right wing Christian groups, too, have agendas, and talk about public education in terms of reconstructionism and deinstitutionalization (rhetoric that has found a home in this District.). As my time drew to a close, I asked what I thought were two simple questions: When did the district adopt the Core Knowledge curriculum? And what exactly did Dr. Christmann understand the term “curriculum” to mean in the context of Core Knowledge? Simple questions, or so I thought. The palpable silence was broken, first by the sound of Christmann’s sitting up straight and leaning over the table, then by the sound of the raised voice of an obviously irate public official. “Are you saying we didn’t adopt Core Knowledge?” Christmann blustered (Remember the Board passed a motion to integrate Core Knowledge content into the existing curriculum, then tabled the integration, pending further staff development). Christmann’s other insightful comments went something like, You tell me, you’ve been at all the meetings, you have the camera, what, did you miss a vote, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah…. Whose records are they? I’m not on the Board! I always thought elected officials were accountable to the public, not the other way around. Things sure are confusing here in the Slippery Rock School District. Bottom line? Did they adopt the curriculum? “I think we have,” Christmann continued, saying that the district was going to move forward with Core Knowledge. (Remember, all you teachers who wrote our existing curriculum, you’re just amateurs…Oh and middle school teachers, get ready. Christmann’s now pushing for K-8 Core Knowledge). After a short discussion with Superintendent Beaton, Watson said he understood that a vote had been taken to integrate Core Knowledge into K-5, but integration and adopting a curriculum are different things. That’s true. But what is ignored is the fact that the motion was tabled. Core Knowledge fan Christmann never did answer what he understand the term “curriculum” to mean in the context of Core Knowledge. I guess not. Cause that brings us to the crux of the matter. Is this District going to adopt Core Knowledge hook, line and sinker? If so, that means that all the content must be taught in the sequence established by the Core Knowledge Foundation. If we want the same results that other schools get, then we have to implement Core Knowledge according the Foundation’s guidelines. But maybe what this District would be just as happy with is a do-it-yourself version of Core Knowledge. That way they could leave out all that Buddhist stuff, the sex education and evolution (Creationism, here we come!!!). Of course, you wouldn’t really be doing Core Knowledge in any official way (it ain’t about the test scores anyway), but at least the good ol’ boys could brag to their conservative buddies that they got Core Knowledge into the schools. Just a little is enough for bragging rights. Plus it might just be a good punishment for all of those uppity teachers who just got that big ol’ raise…. Superintendent Beaton also addressed Core Knowledge. She has spoken with all of the elementary teachers and discovered that the teachers just don’t have enough information about Core Knowledge. In fact, they’ve received misinformation. A significant number of the teachers want to know more about it, and want to get solid information. But it has to be a grass roots movement and teachers have to want to do it for Core Knowledge to be successful. Teachers do have to support Core Knowledge for it to be successful, but do they have enough information to make a professional decision about the curriculum? Several Core Knowledge speakers (was it three or four different groups?) have addressed the faculty. Teachers have taken trips to Core Knowledge schools and attended the Core Knowledge conference. They’ve been given copies of the Core Knowledge Sequence and a book called Becoming a Core Knowledge School. Hm… I guess that they just aren’t professional enough to make up their own minds! And saga continues….. Reapportionment and Voting Regions A motion was made to authorize the solicitor to prepare a petition to modify the current voting regions in the district prior to February 13, 2001 (the date that candidates for the School Board begin circulating their petitions). A written proposal, describing the changes in the regions, was circulated. Mr. Giesler was extremely knowledgeable about the issue, using terms like “inequitable” and “what the school code requires”. Attorney Hnath referred to their earlier discussions about creating a two region plan, but he found out the school code won’t permit this. Earlier discussions? When? Who was involved? Surely not more than 2 Board members – then it becomes official deliberations. I thought the Board always had to meet in public, except for issues that require an executive session (personnel, pending litigation, etc.). I didn’t know that changing how citizens vote was a private issue. Silly me. I guess I thought the citizens should be part of this. Citizens will have a chance to be heard at the Court’s hearing. You have to wonder why the Board doesn’t want at-large voting – couldn’t be political, especially in this election year -–Could it??? Committee Membership A new policy was introduced that collapses the 6 sub-committees of the Board into 4 sub-committees (Operations, Educational Programming, Personnel, and Athletic). The President would appoint members, and everyone would serve on two committees. Gielser and Christmann took exception to the policy that said that only members on the committee could vote; any other Board members who attended the meetings were only observers. Why couldn’t you just vote in committees and make decisions there, Giesler suggested. Beaton had to explain that the full Board has to make the final votes and final decisions, not a committee. President Watson, in a conciliatory tone, said he hoped the Board as a whole could look at the possibility of getting away in some type of retreat format in order to set goals, develop action steps and plan assessments for the District (kind of like the Strategic Planning mandated by Chapter 4). Gee guys, what is this? The Slippery Rock Social Club? Hell no. It’s a school board!!!! You can’t have private meetings for strategic planning and exclude the public. You can’t have discussions about reapportionment behind closed doors. Subcommittees cannot act in place of the full board. You can’t table a motion and then put it into effect. Obviously, this Board is in desperate need of training. It’s available free of charge from the PA State School Board Association. Of course the Board doesn’t want training because then they would discover that local control doesn’t mean doing whatever they want. It means upholding the constitution and the laws of the Pennsylvania and the United States. It means involving parents and teachers. Year Long School It’s coming. I can feel it in the air. After looking at a draft of next year’s school calendar, Superintendent Beaton said she would circulate it among teachers to get their input. Brad Smith, though, asked Dr. Beaton to look into a school calendar for year round school. Dr. Beaton described how much teachers and children loved year round school (where are the parents in this equation?). And the teachers’ contract doesn’t prohibit it. York City Schools are currently dealing with this issue. Click here for more information. |
| Board Update 1-22-01 The Good News (Thank goodness for the parents and teachers)! Congratulations to Darlene Bullock, the Physical Education Teacher at the Area Elementary school. In March, Ms. Bullock will receive the Elementary School Outstanding Service Award from the National Intramural Sports Council. The Council noted the quality of the after school programs (PeeWee Basketball and Gymnastic Gems) that she developed. Ms. Bullock is also being inducted into SRU’s Athletic Hall of Fame. Ms. Bullock is my child’s teacher as well as her coach in both PeeWee and Gems. These awards are well deserved! Sigma Tau Gamma, a local fraternity, presented a check for $300 to the Area Elementary School in appreciation for the huge number of books donated to the fraternity’s annual book drive (Last year a $200 check was given to Moraine, and a $500 check was given to Har-Mer the year before that). Principal Cokain informed the Board that the Home and School Association at Har-Mer has arranged for a visit by 2 players from the Pittsburgh Pirates, the team’s manager, and two broadcast announcers. Originally, all they asked for was the Parrot, but it turns out the team is in between mascots. A player and announcer were scheduled to come on Dec. 12, but the snow delay caused the event to be canceled. Sounds like things worked out for the best, though. And Student Representative Ismail had a spirited suggestion. The student council has recommended changing the address of the HS from 201 Kiester to 201 Rocket Drive. Good idea, but no action was taken. The Pretty Good News You know, Superintendent Beaton seems to be trying to do the right thing. Last meeting, the Board directed her to develop a school calendar for next year that has school starting after Labor Day, and a calendar that has school starting before Labor Day. So she did, never suspecting the ambush Adams and Christmann had planned. Well, Adams began beating that old drum once again. If Adams is correct, working families can only take vacations around Labor Day, so school needs to begin after that (um hm, chorused Christmann). Adams reminded the Board that they voted in March 2000 to begin the 2001-2002 academic year after Labor Day. Beaton, though, (not being aware of the March vote) understood from last week’s meeting that this was done in order to provide more time for construction. And since that wasn’t happening at this point in time…. Anyway, Beaton had already directed the principals to survey the staff, support personnel and PTA groups to see which schedule they prefer (Gee that seems logical. Thank you Dr. Beaton!!). Adams was concerned that these groups really weren’t speaking for the mass of parents (and, of course, he is!), but President Watson was willing to wait for feedback before a decision was made. Christmann, though, said the Board had already voted on starting after Labor Day ( hmmm, wonder why he didn’t tell her last week about the March vote), so…Attorney King reminded him that motions could be amended. Dr. Beaton noted that there are drawbacks to starting after Labor Day, with the last day of school on June 13. Athletics begin before Labor Day. Graduating seniors aren’t able to take college classes. Military enlistments may be affected. Adams, though, is always thinking. Teens who work on Labor Day make time and a half. Needy folks need that money. Dr. Beaton quipped, that defeats your whole purpose. If they’re working, they aren’t on vacation with their families. I like this woman’s style! Seems that Adams and Christmann are the only ones really pushing for this schedule. Wonder why? Beaton also presented the Board with the “modified 180 day” calendar (translation – year round schooling) that Brad Smith had requested. The audience wasn’t given a copy, but is sounded like she said it was 9 weeks on, 2 weeks off. 8 weeks on, 2 weeks off. 6 weeks on, 2 weeks off, with the entire month of July off. This schedule would help with the unpaid leave problem, she stated. The As Expected News Value engineers looked at the Middle School renovation plan. A Building and Grounds meeting will be scheduled to discuss the details. But wait. It seems to me that parents and teachers were asked for their input regarding renovations at the Middle School. Surely in this election year, Board members wouldn’t ignore the suggestions of their employees and constituents, would they? Politics, Politics, Politics A January 29th court date has been set to review the District’s petition to alter the method of election of school directors (1:00, courtroom 3, Judge O’Brien presiding). The proposed reapportionment of the three regions will be presented. Mr. Cessar will testify. Board member Giesler has volunteered to attend, and Board member Youngman might be there, too. Citizens wishing to speak will be heard should just give solicitor King a call. Smith and Adams, though, were surprised to find out that they could have tried for 9 regions, or even a combination of regions and at large. And they’re the ones making recommendations for how school directors are elected? Geez… This Ain’t Political, This is Legal! The Board voted to send a letter of support to the Seneca Valley School District regarding their challenge to the PSSA Writing test. The legislature got rid of the test, and the Dept. of Education is still making districts give it. Several of Mr. King’s districts have sent similar letters and are taking the State to court. King assured the Board that this is a legal, not a philosophical, challenge, and went on to explain the weakness of the test, with the less than objective test questions and the less than qualified assessors. None the less, it was good to have Mr. King himself back in the solicitor’s seat. And So It Goes The Board didn’t actually adjourn (they forgot to in haste to get to the Ex. Session), but the meeting was over and an executive session was held for legal matters, personnel, and litigation not yet filed. That doesn’t sound too good, does it? The Board apparently was meeting in private prior to the meeting. However, they didn’t announce that they had been in executive session! If they did meet and didn’t announce it, they are in violation of the Open Meeting law. Business as usual….. In a final note. I asked last week when the Board approved the “integration” of Core Knowledge. Watson directed that they would look into it. No mention was made about their findings……… Board Update February 9, 2001 (well...sorta) Well, almost two years after hearing “Connie Jones says…”, parents from the District were graced with her presence during a one hour meeting in the Middle School. The meeting was well attended by 50 or so parents, Superintendent Beaton, Assistant Superintendent Nogay, and Core Knowledge President Connie Jones (no Board members, though). There was a sense of urgency in the meeting…hurry up, hurry up…Connie Jones has to catch a plane…hurry up…Lots of questions were asked, but not all were answered. A Panacea for a Fuzzy Curriculum Dr. Jones explained that Core Knowledge is a non-profit research foundation, not a company. The Foundation has identified topics and a sequence to teach, but Core Knowledge is really just a grassroots effort to share information. Too many times, content is left to chance. It is fragmented and random, relying on individual teachers who pick and choose what is taught (Gee, I didn’t realize our curriculum was so fuzzy. Now why would our Board approve something like that? And I didn’t realize the textbooks that were adopted were so fragmented – those darn companies. I thought they always had some sort of systematic scope and sequence for what was taught. I guess they’ve fooled me!). Adopting Core Knowledge, continued Jones, is a local decision. Hopefully you won’t go into it unless you give it your best shot. Where’s The Board? Parents had apparently done their homework in preparing for the meeting. Jones, though, was unable to answer many of the parents’ questions, saying they were “local issues”. Will this put too much stress on children? Why are we the guinea pigs of Western PA? Will more special classes be added to help struggling students, especially with the grading scale being pushed up district wide? Will sexual reproduction be taught in 5th grade? Who contacted you from the Board? Why does the Board feel this is needed? Can parents still vote and say no to Core Knowledge? These questions went unanswered (I guess the superintendent really couldn’t speak for the Board!!!). Some parents were very vocal about where all this was heading. The boat has left the dock, one said. If this Board wants it, that’s what will happen. Another parent expressed frustration saying, the Board is pushing this, and we’re getting pushed aside. And where were Board members during this discussion? Who knows? For some reason, they didn’t want to come to this Core Knowledge meeting. I guess they want us to come to them during a Board meeting – that way they can limit our time to speak and, as we all know, they have to listen to us, but they don’t have to reply. You know, this Board hasn’t been too willing to publicly discuss Core Knowledge. True, they’ve had lots of speakers in. And they even went/sent people to Core Knowledge’s annual conference. But if I remember right, the teachers who attended the Conference didn’t come speak in public. Instead, they went to Board member Smith’s house for a private meeting. And until the contract talks, the public didn’t really know what the teachers had told him (some of the ideas had merit, but CK was not right for our District). Maybe the Board wants to silence the teachers, too. How Much Will Core Knowledge Cost? One big concern of parents is cost – indeed that question was asked 4 different times. Surely that question is one for the Foundation’s president. How much will it cost our district, the first parent asked? According to Dr. Jones, the Core Knowledge sequence costs $22.50 - $17.50 if you buy multiple copies. The foundation sells a few things, and they do conduct training. A second parent asked a simple question - what is the total cost to the taxpayer? The response? Core Knowledge doesn’t have contracts. The Core Knowledge Sequence book costs $22.50, and it’s cheaper if you buy multiple copies. OK, asked a third parent. School districts have to pay for the knowledge. But what is the cost for implementing Core Knowledge? We already have a curriculum…No comment from Jones, but Superintendent Beaton said yes, we have a curriculum. But it’s not specific. We’ll plug Core knowledge into the curriculum we have, and maybe teachers will have to skip around in the textbook (Now what page is Ancient Egypt on in that first grade social studies book? And all that religion? What chapter is that?) And the cost is????? And a fourth parent, just before Dr. Jones is rushed to the airport. What are the general costs for the District to adopt Core Knowledge? Surely as President of the Foundation…. Well, Jones answered; it depends on what you already have in terms of materials. OK. So we know how much the knowledge costs - $22.50 and $17.50 for multiple copies (Gee, could we just buy one copy of the sequence and then Xerox it? If we really want teachers to share the knowledge….). And Dr. Jones is right. I don’t think anyone knows exactly how much it will cost to buy materials to support the curriculum. The Foundation, though, does have an idea. According to the American Association of School Administrators, the Core Knowledge Foundation estimates that schools will spend over $10,000 to purchase sufficient materials in the first year. Costs for new and replacement materials will be on going. Fortunately, the Core Knowledge Foundation will provide start-up grants to schools who want to become official Core Knowledge Schools. It was curious that neither Dr. Jones nor Dr. Beaton (both Core Knowledge trainers) mentioned the training costs associated with Core Knowledge. The website quotes different figures, but on the “Planning Your Professional Development worksheet”, training for Year One will cost $4,000 per day for 51-75 participants. Each teacher needs a Teacher Kit, which costs $50 per teacher. Site visits cost $1,500 and do not include the trainer’s transportation, food and lodging. Now I don’t work for the Foundation, but using their worksheet, this is what I estimate the first year’s training to cost. They recommend 6 days of training ($24,000) and 3 site visits ($4,500). 3 airline tickets, etc. for the site visits? Let’s estimate it at around $1500. And materials for teachers? If we have about 66 teachers @ $50 each, that’s $3300. The grand total for training and Teacher Kits - $33,300. And let’s not forget the Annual Core Knowledge Conference. I don’t remember the exact figure, but it seems to me they spent about $10,000 on that last year and are planning another conference junket this year. So in one year we can expect to pay about $53,000 to the non-profit Core Knowledge Research Foundation. Of course, one could argue that we don’t need to have that much training. Just like people say we don’t have to have all of the content from Core Knowledge in our curriculum. But if it’s going to be done, then let’s do it right. I haven’t seen any research on do it yourself Core Knowledge schools. It seems to me that the schools that were studied fully implemented Core Knowledge. If we do anything different, then we can’t expect the same results. The Future Ain’t What It Used to Be Core Knowledge, a grassroots movement. Teacher working together to develop lesson plans and gather materials. Research by Johns Hopkins and research in Oklahoma City. Test scores on Core Knowledge content go up. Test scores in basic skills sometimes go up. Were any of the schools like our district, a parent asked. Jones stated that the demographics of some schools in the Johns Hopkins study were similar. I’m not sure how familiar with our District she is. The schools in the Johns Hopkins study targeted children who are at risk of educational failure because of limited English proficiency, poverty, race, geographic location, or economic disadvantage. The rural schools that used Core Knowledge had high poverty rates – 37.8% in one, and 46% in another. Now I don’t know, but I don’t think that sounds like our children. And is Core Knowledge going to continue to be a grassroots effort? One parent asked about Pearson Education, a huge multi-national company (they are based in London and do a lot with computer based learning. They also produce Baywatch!). Last year, Pearson Learning acquired several imprints, including Core Knowledge Publications. Dr. Jones admitted that Pearson Education has bought the rights to use the Core Knowledge content in textbooks (so the knowledge is for sale!). And yes, it is still a grassroots because it’s the teachers who want textbooks. So much for teachers controlling what they teach. Core Knowledge may not be totally teacher proof yet, but it will be soon. Gee, do you think it will become just another textbook series? Hmmm. And, surprise, surprise. There are even official Core Knowledge tests. TASA, a company who develops national tests, has just published “Core Knowledge Curriculum-Referenced Tests” for grades 1-5. Each grade level has a test for Math, Language Arts, History & Geography, and Science. And TASA Scoring Services will even grade the tests for you. Wonder how much that will cost? Of course no one mentioned that during the presentation, but I guess it isn’t relevant. More to Come Superintendent Beaton has promised to schedule another meeting for parents to discuss Core Knowledge. Bring the Board, someone suggested. No comment. Have a point/counterpoint debate, another said. No comment. Why can’t we have parents and teachers at the same meeting, someone asked. You can talk to the teachers anytime, was the reply. So I guess there’ll be another meeting soon. Can’t wait. And Finally You know, it’s an election year. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the incumbent Mr. Adams and the man who brought this brilliant curriculum to us backing away from Core Knowledge altogether…. Update 2-19-01 NOW IT CAN BE TOLD!!! Breaking news…Slippery Rock Core Knowledge. It’s bigger than the Johns Hopkins study. It’s more conclusive than the results in Oklahoma City. It goes way beyond test scores. Have we indeed been victims of misinformation? Are we all suffering from a lack of understanding? Startling evidence regarding the effects of Core Knowledge has just been discovered. At last night’s Board meeting, it was revealed that Core Knowledge is on its way to becoming a voluntary program, for both teachers and children. As the Superintendent put it, maybe District parents are happy with their children being average or below average. Parents who want their kids to excel, though, will sign them up for a Core Knowledge classroom. Teachers who want to make their classes exciting and dynamic will volunteer to be Core Knowledge teachers. Everyone else can just carry on with the status quo. But newly released information shows, without a doubt, that Core Knowledge has benefits beyond test scores. To see the incredible effects of Core Knowledge, click here. |
| Board Update March 19, 2001 Harassment Policy and Reporting Procedures Questioned In last night’s Board meeting, safe schools advocate Katherine Gardner expressed concern about the District’s existing harassment policy as well as the District’s reporting of harassment incidents. Research into the characteristics of those responsible for the recent school shootings reveals that all of the shooters could be identified as “avengers”, outcast and alienated individuals who were victims of on-going harassment in the schools. While the District currently has a harassment policy (despite Adams’ vigorous objections), Gardner is concerned that it fails to comply with requirements of the Office of Civil Rights. Notification of rights regarding the District’s policy (racial, sexual, ethnic, religious, etc.) is not currently given to all parents and students. Gardner asked how the District planned to comply. There were questions, too, about the wording of the policy itself. It mentions harassment in school buildings, but leaves out “property” – harassment on buses or during school sponsored events. A third point involved the way that the District reports harassment incidents to the State in the mandated “Violence and Weapons Annual Report”. For the past three years, in all five of the district schools, only 4 incidents of harassment were reported. In 1997-1998, there was 1 reported incident of racial harassment and 1 reported incident of intimidation. In 1999-2000, there were 2 reported incidents of sexual harassment. Can these figures be accurate, Gardner asked? Or is there a trend of under-reporting incidents. The worst thing that can happen is apathy. The District must take an active stance in publicizing and enforcing their harassment policy. Finally, Gardner make a public request for a copy of the findings of the State Attorney General’s 2000 Audit of the District’s compliance with the Safe Schools Act. Turns out that our District was 1 of 34 chosen from across the state for this type of audit. Should be interesting to see what Gardner discovers. Does the District take an active role in preventing harassment of students? Or is there an attitude that kids will be kids? I have to admit, though, it does seem odd that there have only been 4 reported incidents in the past three years… Researcher Requests Information On All District Students And what’s up with item 10, “Allow sharing of transportation database with SRU for purpose of developing computerized bus routing software”, on last night’s agenda? Business Manager Cessar explained that a university researcher has requested this information and the District apparently plans to provide it. Board President Watson assumed that parents’ signed consent would be required, but no, that’s not the case. Instead, it’s the University that will sign a confidentiality agreement, promising not to disclose this information to anyone else. Youngman and Angerett wondered why actual names were needed, why not just a head count of the number of children at each address? It’s encouraging to see such a concern for confidentiality, given all of the state and federal investigations into violations of students’ privacy rights. And surely the solicitor has reviewed this request. Still, it’s painfully obvious that the Board and some District employees desperately need training in privacy rights and confidentiality. First of all, students’ names and addresses are considered “Directory Information”. According to FERPA, directory information includes a student’s name, address, phone number, date and place of birth, participation of officially recognized activities and sports, weight & height of athletic team members, degrees and awards. No consent is needed to disclose this information. It is available to army recruiters (remember the Seneca Valley flap a few years ago), photography companies, or anyone who is just curious. Period. That’s why it’s ok to post the honor roll in the paper. Districts have to provide an annual public notice that tells parents of their right to refuse to have any of their child’s information identified as Directory Information. All a parent has to do is send a letter. Now in many Districts, the school calendar has this information. In our case, the District puts the notice in the paper (well, they have been ever since the Feds ordered them to) – so I hope parents have saved this information for future reference. This is where the curious part starts. If it’s simply names and addresses (Directory Information) then no consent is needed. Why does the University have to sign a confidentiality pledge? But wait, it says “Transportation Data Base”. What other information does that contain? Must be something more than names and addresses – but that’s not what the public’s being told. Hmm. Seems to me that the Transportation Form filled out at the beginning of the year has other information – emergency numbers, names of babysitters, medications and allergies…Could that be part of the Transportation Database? All of this is moot, though. According to Chapter 4, parents have the right to have their children excused from any research study conducted by an outside entity, unless prior written consent has been given. Sounds like it’s an outside research study to me. And no parental consent is being sought? It’s pretty hard to have your child excused when you don’t even know a study is going on. Oh well. The Solicitor, the Board and the Business Manager must know best. They wouldn’t knowingly subvert both state and federal laws. We all know that the Board takes every opportunity to pay the attorney $105 an hour to write resolutions against Chapter 4 (this week it’s a resolution against requiring Special Education students to take the PSSA), but surely that doesn’t mean the Board is willing to violate the law just because they disagree with it. Isn’t that some form of, what would Adams call it, tyranny? Core Knowledge Training – It Really Works! Board member Giesler has come back from the Core Knowledge Conference in Boston touting the new party line. I guess all that training took! Giesler, Beaton, Cokain, Allen, and 2 (or maybe 3 – it wasn’t clear) teachers (one from the Middle School and one from Har-Mer) represented the District at the National conference. Giesler expressed his growing understanding of Core Knowledge and guess what he learned? In most places, he explained, Core Knowledge is a teacher’s movement and we have to remember that they - the teachers - are the true experts on curriculum and teaching (Is he campaigning or what?!). Giesler also told about the infamous misconceptions regarding Core Knowledge (the only school reform movement that has a published list of “misconceptions”). Did you know that as the District can choose how much of Core Knowledge to implement? And they can even leave some areas out (Would that include, say, world religions?). According to Giesler, ‘there’s nothing wrong with being less than a Core Knowledge school’. No, there’s nothing wrong with that, but there is also no research showing the effectiveness of picking and choosing your way through the Core Knowledge sequence. Improved test scores come from schools that go all the way – common planning time, 80-100% of the sequence taught at the appropriate grade level, etc. If we aren’t replicating the conditions of the research studies, then we aren’t going to see the same benefits. As all good cults do, the Core Knowledge Foundation Corporation is seeking ways to find new converts, and Mr. Giesler was an effective mouthpiece for the changes underway. It turns out that just a little is enough. Beginning this month, there are now 3 levels of implementation for Core Knowledge (Anyone wanna buy some Amway products?). First, there are the “Friends of Core Knowledge”, schools who have expressed an interest in Core Knowledge (do you think this will affect the number of schools Core Knowledge claims?). Then come the “Official Core Knowledge Schools”, schools that have documented that they teach 80% of the sequence and have site visits from representatives of the Foundation (does anyone in our District count as an official representative?). Finally, there’s the “Certified Core Knowledge School”. These schools teach 100% of the sequence and have students take the Core Knowledge Curriculum-Referenced Tests (I’ll bet when Pearson publishes the new Core Knowledge textbooks, they’ll be required too.). Seems like Core Knowledge is undergoing some changes. They’ve gotten a Federally registered trademark for Core Knowledge, Core Classics and Core Chronicles. They’ve gotten a company to write Core Knowledge Tests. They’ve sold the knowledge to an international company and Core knowledge textbooks are coming. What does that mean for our District? According to Giesler, Core Knowledge has common ground if we can find it and the Board just needs to listen and take direction from the administrators about where to go regarding Core Knowledge. Ah, there’s the truth. Not the teachers. Not the parents. It’s the Board and the Administration who want Core Knowledge, by any name. As long as the District does some if it, they can claim victory. Click here to read about the SHOCKING failure of Core Knowledge in the Fairfax Co. Va. schools! It Was Just An Informational Meeting The District’s solicitor has sent Dr. Beaton a letter, explaining that the Board’s secret meeting with Connie Jones was really a training session, not an open meeting governed by the Sunshine Act. Is he paid to say that? I’m sure there were no real discussions going on during the meeting. It was just coincidence that the plan for voluntary Core Knowledge came up right after their meeting… Hmmm. Wonder who paid for dinner? In the "Oh yeah" Department The board voted last night to hire the contractors to perform the renovations at Har-Mer. Adams, Youngman, and Christmann voted no. Go figure. Board Update 3-27-01 Contract Negotiations Gone, But Not Forgotten The plan developed by the Act 48 Professional Development Committee (written by teachers, administrators, parents and business people) was tabled last night. You’ll remember that last week Brad Smith expressed concern about how the plan fit with the new contract and whether or not there would be additional costs to the District. Well, solicitor King has gotten involved, and as expected, there are “philosophical” (or would that be political??) questions concerning the teachers’ contract, the board’s power, and the right of the State to mandate anything under Chapter 4. Dr. Nogay is to be commended for all of the work she put into the committee. She involved parents, conducted a survey of teachers, and put everything on a fast track so teachers could begin to keep an official record of their professional activities. She wanted to bring the District into compliance with the law. And she had a nice Power Point presentation to share it with the Board. Ah, but it wasn’t meant to be. Mr. King began, speaking to “what Mr. Smith had in mind”, and explained that there were three issues that needed to be resolved before the Board approved the Professional Development plan. Issue one – that pesky contract. Should teachers be permitted to earn Act 48 credit for something they’re being paid for? Apparently the current CBA allows for teachers to be paid for participation on certain committees. Apparently some members of the Board still resent this. Apparently inserting a statement like “the plan will not supersede the contract” (Watson liked this idea and Asst. Superintendent Nogay had found a place to insert the language.) just wasn’t good enough to allay Mr. Smith’s concerns. Because it’s not really about a conflict with the Contract (unless it’s the inner conflict that some Board members seem to have about approving that contract in the first place. But hey, it just makes them determined to be there for the next contract talks, come hell or high water…but that’s another story). No, it turns out that this is really about power and politics. Who’d have suspected? Issue two – ultimate power. Why isn’t there pre-approval by the Board for everything teachers might do in the name of professional development, especially if it’s outside of their control, um I mean outside the district? And if the Board doesn’t approve it, then at least leave it up to the superintendent (now you wouldn’t want those building principals to think they had any power, would you?). Issue three – the real political agenda. It seems that Act 48 is one of those gosh darn unfunded Chapter 4 mandates from the State. The Committee’s proposed “curriculum mapping” (I thought the mapping was just to see how the existing Board approved curriculum fits with the state law – Chapter 4). Mr. King, again speaking for what Mr. Smith had in mind, believes this would be realigning the curriculum to fit the PSSA. They’d feared this all along (who are “they” anyway?). If it’s curriculum re-design, then the Board must approve it (Is mapping a re-design? What is being changed?). Which turned into the recurring theme of this board – additional cost to the District (Does additional cost also include all of the solicitor’s work fighting Chapter 4??). Business manager Cessar stated that a half-time clerk’s position had become full time in order to keep up with the required documentation. And that teachers might be going to college more, since it’s a way to get even more Act 48 credits. It doesn’t, according to Adams, facilitate learning. It’s just levying more taxes to pay for a boondoggle. That’s right. I’d forgotten. It’s all tied to the right wing beliefs of most of our board members. It’s John Dewey and progressivism that has ruined American education. Continuing professional education doesn’t improve teaching. There’s a research study that proves that teachers’ higher education doesn’t necessarily result in improved test scores. Indeed, there may just be a correlation between higher levels of teacher education and declining test scores (because we all know colleges of education are just more pigs at the trough). We need a proven, teacher-proof curriculum. How ‘bout Core Knowledge (seems like so long ago when Smith first asked for a speaker to come and enlighten us all. Yep. A review of the Board minutes shows that the FIRST mention of the Core Knowledge Corp. came from Smith)? If we don’t like it, we just don’t understand…and we can all just quit whining, too, cause the board doesn’t care about what the teachers or the parents want. Instead, they are the leaders, they hold the power. Teachers, they’re not professionals. Just a necessary evil…just like their dang contract… More Contract Stuff School Safety advocate, Katherine Gardner, was appointed to the District’s safety committee, a committee mandated by the current contract. She’s certainly knowledgeable about the law and will be an effective advocate for students and parents. Good move. If you haven't visited the Message Board lately, you should check it out! |
| UPDATE 4-23-01 You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows… Another milestone in the annals of school district history… Last night, the Board approved the Act 48 professional development plan. Adams voted against it. Smith and Christmann were absent. Did you know that we’re the last District in the entire state to adopt an Act 48 plan (just as we are the only District in the state without a Strategic Plan – gee what a surprise)? Well, we have one now, but it came with the usual backroom politics that this Board is so fond of. Just in case you’ve forgotten, a brief review. The State requires a committee of administrators, teachers, parents and community members to conduct a needs assessment and develop a professional development plan for all educators in the district. Beginning in February, the committee met, and the Board received the finished plan in March. When the Act 48 plan was presented to the Board, Asst. Superintendent Nogay asked the Board to insert a line that said the document could not supercede Board policy or the teachers’ contract – that way legal problems could be avoided. Board member Brad Smith had several political problems with the Plan (teachers shouldn’t be able to get paid for something and get Act 48 credit; the Board wasn’t getting to approve everything the teachers did; and it seemed that PSSA was having too much influence on the curriculum). Attorney King suggested that the Board’s Education committee and the Act 48 committee meet together to iron out the details. The Act 48 committee, King reminded everyone, was charged with promulgating the document and had a legal responsibility to do so. And it was up to the Board to vote it up or down. Since Smith has only one vote, I guess the other Board members must have agreed with his concerns. Rather than vote on approving the plan, it was tabled. Early Tuesday morning, not 12 hours after the vote to table the Act 48 plan, Smith was on the phone to a citizen on the Act 48 committee, asking for changes to be made. And what happened next? Smith and the Act 48 committee member (who was unaware of what had happened at the Board meeting) were on the phone having a one hour conference call with District solicitor King (there goes another $105…). That Act 48 committee must have made lots of legal blunders, huh? Well, no. What were the 14 changes were made as a result of that conference call? First, every single mention of PSSA was deleted from the document (call me crazy, but it seems to me that the State supports the PSSA – I don’t think it’s illegal to mention that.). Second, a line was added that said if teachers were paid for a presentation, or workshop, etc., they could not receive Act 48 credit (King had previously said this was a philosophical, not legal issue). Finally, they added pre-approval by the Board for everything teachers did (yet another philosophical, not legal issue). And that was to be that – until others on the Act 48 committee heard about the private/closed meeting. A final meeting of the Act 48 committee was scheduled for April 5. During that meeting, the committee voted on each of the changes made by Smith. The result? PSSA was added. Teachers were allowed to get paid and receive Act 48 credit. And the administrators once again have the authority to approve some professional development activities (it didn’t make much sense to have the Board approving agendas for faculty meetings where staff development occurred!!). The newest Board apointee, Mike Bruno, (funny how three of the incumbents running for office – Bruno, Smith and Giesler – were appointed! Talk about a good old boys’ club!!!) Board Update July 23, 2001 Sabbatical’s Over – I’m Back Glad to see that it’s business as usual – so here’s an update on what happened at Monday’s Board meeting. The top story is the adoption of math textbooks. You’ve all read the Butler Eagle’s article, so now let’s look at the record. Dr. Nogay worked in her tireless fashion to bring a group of teachers together on June 28th to select math books for the coming year. They examined PSSA scores, read textbook reviews, heard from vendors, had discussions and recommended the books they wanted. Just like a real school district would do. That’s a good thing, the committee did a good job, and I’m sure they’re fine textbooks. The Record You’ll remember last summer’s debacle. First the Board refused to adopt the new math curriculum proposed and prepared by the teachers, then refused to adopt the new math books. At the 11th hour, when school was a week away, the Board finally voted to adopt books for the new classes (after first voting against it), but that was it. Copies of current texts were ordered so everyone would have books. School began without enough books. The major stumbling block? Christmann wasn’t given a chance to review the books before voting on them. And then after it was all over, he found a website that condemned the Glencoe books the teachers wanted. Professional intuition and luck, I guess. The Educational Programming Committee met on at 2:00 on Friday, July 20th. Christmann and Bruno were there (Smith was absent), along with Nogay and Beil. Dr. Nogay described the process, praised the teachers, and gave the Board members a couple of textbook reviews, a list of books, the cost of the books, and the value of all the “free” things the publishers were giving the District. If ordered by August 1st, she said, they’d arrive in time for the first day of school. The books themselves weren’t in the library where the meeting was held. Looks good, Christmann and Bruno said. On Monday night, Board members had their very first chance to hear about the proposed textbooks. Added to the agenda (meaning they hadn’t seen it in the copy mailed to them on July 18th) was item 9: “Approve adoption of Math textbooks, as proposed by the Educational Programming Committee, at a cost of $99,769.65”. Did the Board have a chance to review the books? No. They didn’t even have the opportunity to see the book covers since the books were nowhere in sight. Bruno said he’d had the opportunity “to look over” the books. Christmann said he’d “reviewed” the books. I suppose they could have gone to Nogay’s office to look at them after the meeting adjourned on Friday around 2:30. After all, how long could it take to review 16 separate textbooks for grades k-12? I wonder if they used that evaluation sheet that Nogay had the teachers use? Hmm… Anyway, everyone involved in the process seems to have forgotten one slight detail – Board Policy. Last year the Board wanted to make sure that they would never have to vote on something they hadn’t had a chance to review, so our Board passed a Textbook Adoption policy. All Districts have them. Most Districts follow them. Our policy requires that a month elapse between the time books recommended and the time books are adopted. During that month, the textbooks are to be available for Board members and the public to examine. So on Monday night, citizen Deborah Wells had a simple question for the Board: Would they be able to follow Board policy and have books available when school begins? She read the part in the policy about thoughtful examination by the Board and the Public and the month that books are on display. No comment. When the issue came up for a vote, though, there was a great deal of discussion. Christmann said it wasn’t an overnight decision, that the Educational Programming Committee had met several times (what he didn’t say was that the books considered for adoption were never discussed until Friday, July 20th). Bruno said he didn’t know there was a policy (that’s right, he’s only been on the Board for 7 month – and he’s on the Educational Programming Committee). Giesler asked if there was a policy. Beaton, too, seemed to be ignorant of the policy and sent Mr. Cessar to fetch a policy manual (Heaven knows you wouldn’t ever want to bring one of those things to a Board meeting). The District administrators were quite defensive. Nogay said the Educational Programming Committee had been discussing the matter since January. Well let’s see. The policy that created the Educational Programming Committee didn’t pass until February 19. So unless there were secret and illegal meetings, the Ed. Programming Committee couldn’t have met until late February. Even though the Ed. Programming Committee has discussed the need for new math books, the teachers didn’t even recommend books until June 28…. so no, the books considered for adoption were never discussed by the Committee until Friday, July 20th – the Friday before the Monday vote). Superintendent Beaton had another angle. Committee meetings are advertised and open to the public. Anyone could come. (And citizen Wells has been there). When Mr. Cessar arrived with the policy book, attorney King read aloud the same quote Wells had just read…the part about textbooks being available for a month for the Board and the public for thoughtful review. Yes, committee meetings are advertised and open to the public, King said, but does that comport with the spirit of your policy? The Board can do otherwise and get the books, but that would be changing Board policy. Well, that must’ve set Beaton off…Let’s make sure everyone knows where this came from, she said (I guess she was referring to Wells’ question about following policy and having books on time). I recommend we follow our own policy…and we’ll just get ‘em late…We’ll be criticized for that… To which Giesler responded, Let’s be rational and approve the textbooks. But Beaton wasn’t through. Let’s put them on display, she continued. And see who actually came to view them. Make a list of who came. In the end, the textbooks were adopted and students should have books when school begins. That’s good, but do the ends justify the means? Could it be that a superintendent, an assistant superintendent and members of the Board’s Educational Programming committee didn’t even think about having Board members and the public review textbooks up for adoption? Even if there’s not a policy, it’s standard educational practice. Many districts even have Board members and the public involved with the selection of books that are to be piloted. Not here, that’s for sure. Then, to think that all those people didn’t even know a policy existed. I would think that it’s also standard educational practice to consult the policy book. So to have books on time, the Board had to violate policy and spend close to $100,000 on something the majority never even looked at. Just push it through late enough and they’ll have to vote on it...Where’s Adams when you need him? (He missed this meeting). So teachers, next time an administrator says you’ve violated policy – just play dumb. All you have to say is, We have a policy? Then blame the administrator. It’s your fault, anyway. I’m going to tell everyone it was you who said we had to follow the rules. Why if you didn’t know about the rule, we wouldn’t have to follow it. And we still don’t have a curriculum...But that’s another story. Asbestos at Har-Mer? A representative from Neshkin Construction reported that work at Har-Mer came to a standstill when the state Labor and Industry inspector came in and asked what was happening with the asbestos tile on the floor in the building. Nothing, he was told. Then you’re not coming in, the inspector replied. The guys in white suits have already been to remove some of the asbestos at Har-Mer, so removal of the asbestos tile came as a surprise. The plan was to “encapsulate” the tile by leaving it in place and laying another floor on top of it. The District hopes to have an occupancy certificate for the building by August 14th, but there will be a 2-3 week delay if the tiles must be removed. The additional cost could be as much as $120,000. Or everything could be ok and the new floor can be in by the 10th and furniture moved in on the 14th. Solicitor King recommended some immediate steps. Call the asbestos inspectors, check with the architect to see if this what was in the plan, call the Bureau of Labor and Industry to see what can legally be done, and call PDE to see if they’ll allow it and if it will be reimbursed. Youngman thought getting it “the heck out of there” made the best sense, but the Board voted to encapsulate the floor if it was permissible. Driveways and Sewer Lines School Districts don’t have to get three bids for anything that costs less than $10,000; all they have to do is contact three companies to see who wants the contract. So on Monday, the Board awarded contracts for repaving driveways at the High school, Middle school, Moraine and Franklin. And they approved a contract for installing a new sewer line at the High School. Wonder what would have happened if they voted no? Weird thing is, the sewer line was already in and the repaving had already begun. Seems that it would have cost $5000 more for the sewer line if they hadn’t done the job right then. Now. Seems like we have all heard that if a salesperson tells you you have to buy that car today to get it at this low price then you are being hustled. Just a thought. Giesler wondered if they couldn’t just have telephone meetings if special meetings were needed for things like this. Well yes, said King, but you still need a public meeting to approve bids. Looks to me like being a Board member sure is complicated with all those dang policies and regulations! In Other Business…Evolution? Creationism? Mr. Giesler expressed his displeasure with the State Board’s decision to remove creationism from the proposed Science standards. I’m not happy with it, he said, and I don’t think the people in the District would be happy if they knew (amazing how this Board cares about the public when it serves their own interests). Superintendent Beaton told him the Board could add other things to the Science curriculum and could easily put in evolution, creation, and the big bang theory (Well, I’m not sure how easy it is to do anything in the name of curriculum in this District, but that’s beside the point). It’s better if it’s left up to the District, Beaton said, and children are exposed to different things. Could this be a plug for Core Knowledge? Seems like I remember lots of emphasis on creationism - Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. Is this what Giesler had in mind???!!! |
| Board Update Nov. 19, 2001 You Can't Polish a Turd Last night may well have been the most significant night in SR school board history. Only time will tell if today will be. Last night was Bill Adams last night as a board member. Whenever I talked to people about Mr. Adams, they would always say-" ya know, he has some good ideas, but I just don't like the way he puts them". The strange thing is, I almost never agreeded with any of his ideas, but appreciated the way he pitched them! Say what you want about Bill, but I believe he is a man of honor and intergrity. He represented his people well. And I will miss him. But he ain't dead yet! So, I presented Bill with a ream of paper so he can continue to pontificate his radical views on public education via letters to the Butler Eagle editor. In addition I also presented him with the above plaque . So, Bill is gone. The most colorful characters to ever serve on our board. Can't wait for his next book! Bill gets Mid-Evil on they Ass In his "I'm outa here speech" Bill recounted the story of how he has been reading Dante's Inferno and that it is a sin to raise taxes while student acheivement is going down. He went on to say that public education is too concerned with making the students feel good about themselves at the expence of academic standards and that always raising taxes and never cutting them is insane. Tom Reiber will take his place on Dec. 3. I know Tom and think he will make a fine, middle of the road politicaly , board member. If he dosn't go crazy first and quit.. |
 |
BOARD UPDATE 12-4-01 The following Update was written by a Volunteer The newly elected board members Mr. Randy Geisler, Mr. Thomas Reiber, Mr. John Youngman, Mr. Brad Smith, and Rev. Michael Bruno were sworn in to start the meeting. Dr. Robert Watson was unanimously elected as President of the board for one year and Mr. Youngman won the election for vice president over Mr. Geisler, by a 5-4 vote. The setting of regular meetings was approved with one business meeting a month and the other meeting to be a committee/board meeting. The schedule will be advertised in the newspaper soon. Rev. Bruno was unanimously appointed as the Slippery Rock Area School District Representative to Legislative Chairperson to PSBA and Mr. Thompson was unanimously appointed as the Slippery Rock Area School District Representative to the Vo-Tech Board. The committee assignments will be done at the December 17th board meeting. Dr. Watson asked the board members let him know their preferences by next meeting December 10th. Each member of the board will be assigned to two of the committees, which are Education, Athletics, Operations, and Personnel. In other business the Athletic Director spoke about the 7th Grade Boys Basketball program. This year there were 34 students signed up to begin basketball. Due to the large numbers it had been decided t have tryours and the boys who did not make the team were given the option of an intramural program. Sixteen boys were selected for the team and the remaining boys were offered an intramural program., Only two of the boys choose the intramural program and they were grouped in with the 5th and 6th grade league that already exists. After a lengthy discussion on other options a vote was taken on the option of forming two teams. This was defeated by a 2-7 vote, where Mr. Smith and Mr. Thompson voted for this options and the others voted no. The board adjourned and then went into an executive session on negotiations. |
| Board Update 12-11-01 written by A Volunteer After roll call and the pledge to the flag Dr. Watson asked Mr. Geisler to lead the board in a prayer. Then Robert McCollum, a retired educator, spoke about the gifted program. He told the board that just as they pamper athletics the district also should pamper intellectuals. Not approving field trips for the gifted program because the other students could also benefit from these trips is unfair to these students. It is a good reason to look at the whole curriculum. Then Mary Messer, Director of Slippery Rock Parks and Recreation, talked about the budget that the board will vote on at next weeks meeting. The one item voted on was for Vonnie Gilliland's request for the Latin Club Students and two chaperones to attend a German Folk Festival at Bethel Park, PA, on December 17, 2001. This passed by a 7-0 vote with Mr. Thompson and Mr. Rieber being absent. Other items discussed included participation in a program to award High School diplomas to World War II veterans, the facilities use agreement with Slippery Rock University for graduation and rehearsal, and the plan con H for the Middle School additions and renovations. Dr. Beaton reported on the 2001 School Performance Funding Improvement Awards from the Pennsylvania Department of Education. The Middle School received $15,600 for improvement on the Grade 8 PSSA, which was about half of what the County of Butler schools received in this area, and the High School received $29,260 for attendance. The next meeting is Monday December 17 in the High School cafeteria at 7:30 P.M. Dr. Watson invited teachers, parents, community, and board members to a social at 7 P.M. just prior to the meeting in the cafeteria. |
| Good question. Between the school year 1998 and the 2002 school year, local tax revenues have gone up 15% ($1,353,046). The interesting thing is, is that instructional expenditures (money spent teaching our children) have only gone up 8.5% ($983,568) during the same time period. Even more interesting is that non-instructional expenditures (administrator costs!) have soared during this time period 23% ($65,635) So, let's see. In the last 4 years: Local tax revenues have have gone up 15% Spending on the children has gone up only 8.5% Administrator costs have gone way up by 23% You asked where the extra tax money went. From the looks of it, I would say that it went to give raises to Beaton, Nogay and Lynn Francisco! But the really "scary" thing is, is that our reserve fund (savings account) has shrunk from $1,540,264 to $1,092,558. THIS IS A 30% REDUCTION IN OUR RESERVES IN JUST 4 YEARS!!!! This amount is just 5% the $20.5 million operating budget. It is recommended to have between 5% and 10%! Hey, you asked. Why am I having to tell you this? Because, despite the fact that our district administrators monitor this message board on a daily basis, the district won't tell you. Judging by the quote in the BE- Bob Watson claiming to be "shocked" with the news of a 14 mill increase, maybe they aren't telling you because THEY don't even know! Sad. And to top it off, how did Lee Beation react when the board told her to cut this new budget to a more reasonable amount by next week? She announced she would be taking vacation for a week starting April 23. Go Figure. Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps someone in the district office will correct me if I'm. |
| BOARD UPDATE 4-17-02 The following is a question posted to the message board "I know that taxes went up about 4 mills last year and now 14 mills for this year? How much has the school's revenue gone up? There are lots of new houses being built in Muddy Creek and Franklin Township. Isn't the district taking in more money now? Even if the state doesn't give as much money, it seems like there are more taxpayers in the area. What's happening to that income?" This was my reply: |
| Memorial Foundation- Slippery Rock School District- BOARD UPDATE 5-14-02 Robert Pratt The headline reads “SR board takes step toward foundation: Funds to honor former students”. According to the Butler Eagle, “The Slippery Rock School District Monday night moved forward to establish a charitable foundation that would encompass scholarships honoring two students killed in car accidents this year. The board voted unanimously to have solicitor Tom King prepare a draft charter of the foundation. King has offered his services for free.” Sound familiar? It should. Flashback to November 1998. Reggie Bonfield was the superintendent. Dennis Spinella was the Curriculum Coordinator. David Duryea was Board president and Jim Roberts was the Board’s token liberal. Brian C. Rittmeyer was the reporter for the Butler Eagle, and the quote is from an article published on November 20, 1998. But it seems that those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Fast forward 3 ½ years to May 14, 2002. Kris Miller, reporter for the Butler Eagle writes, “Also Monday, board members voted to create the Slippery Rock Area School District Foundation, Inc. The nonprofit organization will handle all scholarship funds and special donations to the district. While the need for the foundation was prompted by an unusual amount of tragedies and gifts donated this year, the foundation will exist for all students, board members said.” Now don’t get me wrong. I am 100% in favor of a foundation and I have been since the idea was introduced way back in 1998. What I’m not in favor of is what seems to be hypocrisy on the part of some Board members who seem to use private tragedies to further their public images. (I can hear district officials now - “Mr. Pratt, you’ve gone too far. You’re taking a generous deed and spinning into a sinister political prank. The Board has done a good thing and you owe them an apology. The least you can do is take it down from your website.”) Yes, I can imagine what the Board and the administration is saying publicly - what their consciences tell them is another thing entirely. How did this come to be, you ask? Well, I’ll tell you. In 1998, the Slippery Rock School District had lost two students in traffic accidents. On November 20,1998, the Butler Eagle reported that the school board discussed the formation of a foundation that would allow donations to be tax deductible charitable contributions and would, according to Superintendent Bonfield, “channel a number of scholarships through one vehicle.“ The foundation, according to the Allied News (12-2-98),would be an excellent way to memorialize a student and “could accept contributions made in a student’s memory and establish scholarships or loans for Slippery Rock alumni furthering their education.” Discussions continued, and on March 1, 1999 the Board passed a formal motion, directing solicitor Tom King to create the legal paperwork for the Foundation. On April 26, 1999, Mr. King completed the paperwork (free of charge), and Mr. King said that all the Board needed to do to put the Foundation in place was to appoint a group of people to be on the Board of Directors for the Foundation. This task was given to board member Brad Smith. When the Slippery Rock School District Unofficial HomepageTeacher of the Year Awards were given in the 1999, I donated $100 to the Foundation in honor of the recipients. In August 1999, business manager Paul Cessar wrote me a letter stating that the membership of the Foundation had not been established, but the District would accept donations and hold them in a general ledger account until an “appropriate time” when they would be transferred to the Foundation’s account. In the intervening years, a financial audit was done of the District. It uncovered the fact that the District had some ledger accounts that did not fit into the general accounting categories. Turns out people had donated money this Foundation (back in the 90’s) that never came into existence. A Foundation that, according to one community member, was a step in helping the community heal. Way back in April 1999, the Foundation was legally viable except for the appointment of a Board of Directors. Why was no Board of Directors ever appointed? And why were the donations allowed to just sit in inactive accounts for years? The Board may be winning some publicity points right now by creating a scholarship Foundation. It’s about time there was a Foundation to memorialize all students whose lives were tragically lost. But why has it taken the Board so many years to do so Why has it taken 3 long years for the Butler Eagle to write, “Community members who would like to serve on the foundation’s board should contact one of the board members for more information.”? Did Mr. Smith just forget to form the foundations Board of Directors? Or was it something else that prevented Mr. Smith from finalizing this memorial foundation? Anyone who wishes to be on the Foundation’s board should probably follow up that request in writing. Contact Board members for more information? Some Board members like Brad Smith and Bob Watson were on the school board way back in 1998 - but the Foundation never came into existence. Someone dropped the ball. Why? I can’t answer that. Someone on the Board probably can - but I’ll bet you they won’t. Just my opinion. Of course, I could be wrong. |
| Unofficial Slippery Rock School District HomePage School Board Chronicles Copyright 2000 by Robert W. Pratt |
| This page is not associated with the Slippery Rock Area School District, its employees or Board of Directors. All statements, views and opinions, except those on the Message Board, are those of Robert Pratt and no one else. Nothing on this website is guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up to date. |
|
|
 |