I was able to obtain a copy of District 150’s draft “Educational Enhancement and Budget Alignment Plan.” I discovered something. I thought that the district was planning to close Woodruff and distribute its students to Central and Richwoods. That is practically what’s going to happen, but it’s not technically what will happen. Technically, the plan calls for Woodruff and Central both to be closed, and a new school created:
Close Irving and Kingman primary schools, Lincoln middle school, Woodruff and Peoria high schools … re-draw boundaries and re-allocate entering Woodruff-Peoria high sophomore through senior year students to a merged Woodruff-Peoria high school on the existing Peoria high campus.
So the question that immediately comes to my mind is, “Why?” Why state it that way? I believe the answer is that both Central and Woodruff have been in “academic watch status,” or AWS, for five years as of 2008. Do you know what happens if they are still in AWS after six years? They go into State Intervention and Federal Restructuring, and that means some really drastic action could be taken by the state:
The Regional Superintendent removes the local school board OR the State Superintendent appoints an independent authority to operate the school or district. The State Board may dissolve the entity OR the State Superintendent may reassign pupils and reassign or remove administrative staff. Title I schools must continue to offer school choice and supplemental services. Federal restructuring options include the following: classify the school as a charter school OR replace principal and staff OR select an outside management entity OR state takeover and management.
However, if both schools are closed, then the academic warning status is moot. The AWS disappears into history along with the schools’ independent identities. A new combined school will essentially reset the clock of state accountability. A cynic might say that a plan to close and merge schools ostensibly for budgetary reasons is really just an end-run around the state’s accountability standards — and their consequences.
So, despite the protests that will take place Tuesday night before the school board meeting, I’ll bet this plan is put into action anyway. It not only helps fix budgetary shortfalls, it also obviates state action against failing schools.
“ed (not the one needing cialis)on 20 Jan 2009 at 8:54 am
George – better to be a tool used to build than a screw that has come loose.”
My point exactly. The district is a screw come loose. Jim, et al can pretend all they want that what they’re doing is for the better of the community, but does the history show that?
Post after post after post over the last two, three years point out specific issues this administration, and this board has done extremely poorly; from communicating with residents, taxpayers, students and staff (um, reading about your school closing in the newspaper, mr. principle?), so hackneyed implementation plans (do you recall the shortened school day fiasco), to questionable financial management (Cahill was asked to leave a district for a reason, in this instance past performance DOES impact future results).
Drivel posted by you and concerned citizen and stowell just feed fire of discontent. Stowell’s first post on this thread was PURE drivel, his response was arrogant and dismissive. He did this because he felt comfortable doing so; do you realize how wrong that is? From Wolfmeyer claiming she doesn’t need to talk to constituents, to Jim’s flippant replies peppered throughout here, it’s a culture problem; and you claim I just need to get laid?
ed (not the one needing cialis)
Real mature. Undoubtedly written by one of the same anons that are telling us we should just lie back and enjoy it.
CP – It bothers me that you are critical of parents and citizens rights to voice opposition to dramatic and sweeping cuts in education. If I read you correctly, we should simply acquiesce or work quietly behind the scenes. HELLO???? Where have you been for the past few years? What a ridiculous suggestion.
District 150 has made it clear over and over again that they are not interested in any type of community input whether it be from parents or experts in the field of School Management and education. This latest go around is just another example.
What is your explanation for the Districts propensity to lob half baked ideas to the school board with a request for expedited approval? Is it at least conceivable that this is done with the hopes that it is approved before the reality sinks in with the public and the duped board members? If one more board member says they have to rely on the “expertise” of the Admin to make their decision I will scream. What expertise? We have had year after year of failing schools. If you don’t have the capacity to understand the implications, then please DON’T RUN!
This whole thing reminds me of the scene in the Titanic when there were a fortunate few who secured a spot on a lifeboat. As others were trying to climb from the freezing water into the lifeboat the passengers of the lifeboat would push them back in. We don’t want to sink the lifeboats… we just want more children to be able to climb aboard.
I’m disappointed in how this conversation has degenerated. After all the complaints of board members not communicating with their constituents, I can’t believe that when Jim Stowell comes on here and communicates with you, the response from some of you is unrestrained animosity and name-calling. No wonder the board members don’t want to talk to you.
Stick to the issues. Don’t attack people personally. Don’t call people names. Comments that violate the rules will be deleted.
CJ;
I don’t believe this conversation has degenerated; it’s flowed rather nicely. You posted an alternative driver behind the district’s recent action. Jim responded by posting something a little incoherent toward answering your assertion. Only later in the conversation did he obliquely acknowledge that your alternative driver has a role in this decision. Your finger-pointing doesn’t make much sense.
If you have rules for public discourse, post them. It’s your blog. We’ll follow them. But, if anyone doesn’t like direct challenge, and what your implying is that we shouldn’t directly challenge someone, then, well, again, its your blog and the quality of discourse will so reflect.
“No wonder the board members don’t want to talk to you.” Yeah. Because, um, it’s not like they’re a governing body or anything…I know because concerned parent wrote it so.
Look, this is a message board. Thick skin is a de facto requirement. I thought everyone knew that. Why, exactly, would we need to handle elected officials with kid gloves simply because of their status as elected officials. You seem surprised by the notion that Jim would post on here, when in fact it should be assumed. Again, culture.
I promise I’ll behave, though, I’m not sure what it will look like 🙂
CJ, with all due respect to Jim, he asked for it when he said he needed to dumb it down for us. I’ll give you the Cialis remark though.. very childish.
ed- please call me or e-mail me. dianevespa@yahoo.com, Thanks!
Sharon – just found the hard copy of the ISBE March 2005 document, “Local School Board Review and Approval of School and District Improvement Plans” that discusses the NCLB sanctions for a Title I school that does not make adequate yearly progress (section 1.9) and NCLB sanctions for a non-Title I school that does not make AYP (section 1.10).
Here is the ISBE link:
http://www.isbe.net/sos/pdf/guidance_document.pdf
Hope this answers some of your questions.
I just reviewed the document I linked above, and found some very, very, very interesting language. Just keep in mind that the 2008-’09 SY is the 7th NCLB assessment year.
From “Local School Board Review and Approval of School and District Improvement Plans”, section 1.12, number 7: “After the seventh assessment, ISBE must take one of the following actions: a) direct the regional superintendent of schools to remove school board members, b) appoint an independent authority to operate the school, c) change the school’s recognition status to nonrecognized, or d) reassign pupils or reassign or replace school district personnel who are relevant to the failure to meet adequate yearly progress. (105 ILCS 5/2-3.25d-f)”
Well, that explains a lot!!!
By closing WHS particularly, and possibly PHS depending on how the state handles schools in Safe Harbor status, the charters are gone and both schools cease to exist. Schools that don’t exist can’t be tested or have sanctions levied against them.
For me, at least, it certainly calls into question the motives of this school board.
Since the school code cites as its first option, that the Regional Sup’t of Schools is to remove school board members, the motives of this board could easly be construed to be more self-serving than in the best interest of the children, parents and city.
ed says, “If you have rules for public discourse, post them.” They are posted, here. You can easily see them by clicking on the “Terms of Use” link at the top of my blog.
I’m not saying we have to handle board members with kid gloves. But calling a board member a “tool” is completely uncalled for. Surely you can understand the difference between spirited debate and mean-spirited sniping.
Prairie Celt: I hate being considered a cynic, etc., but there are certainly too many hidden agendas–and I do believe there is one or more behind this latest decision. For all the people who so often speak out against government control, etc., I hope they understand that we all jumping through all these hoops because of NCLB paranoia created by the federal government.
I’m still not certain about the differences between guidelines to be followed in restructuring non-Title I schools as opposed to Title I schools.
Also, isn’t it true that each state can develop its own NCLB test and that some states have chosen tests that are much easier than the one chosen in Illinois–and that the states with the easier tests are going through as much restructuring, etc.?
Have any of you really seen this test. I did a study of a sample test–to show just how difficult the language portion is. I would bet that the average or even above average college graduate would have difficulty with the test. I do consider myself a bit of an expert in grammar, usage, etc. (just because that’s what my career required)–and I found some of the test questions to be very confusing.
Anyway, I do think we would find it difficult to learn the real reason for these decisions.
Sharon, the real distinction lies in the available remedial options. Title I schools not meeting AYP have choices the non-Title schools do not – parents must be offered a choice of schools within the district that are not subject to sanctions, parents are offered supplemental educational services, and the schools must undergo corrective action. The state sanctions apply to both Title I and non-Title I schools and include the sanction for the seventh assessment year, as mentioned above.
I suspect I am at least as cynical as you! But, instead of placing the blame at the feet of NCLB, it is my opinion that if the present BOE and administration had the skills and knowledge their positions require, then we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today. They have had since August 2004 to fix the problems. They did not hesitate to tell the community how great they were and how much better things were going to be under their management and control. Here we are in January 2009 and things are not better, they are worse. Much worse!
CJ:
“But calling a board member a “tool” is completely uncalled for.”
I did no such thing. If you re-read what I wrote in context, I simply reflected on how he came across in his response to me AND as I may have come across in my response to him. His status as a board member was irrelevant.
Look, the whole premise behind my original post was to note that Jim’s response to what you wrote was unsatisfactory for me to take into my household and discuss with my family. I did not cynically ask him to post his family’s response to be sniping, but in all honestly to implore Jim to recognize that his response would not be sufficient in and around the dinner tables of this community.
I stand by that. And he did come across as a tool in his response. It wasn’t a singular observation on my part. And, as I stated, I came across as a tool in my response. Mea Culpa.
Mr. Stowell, blog community, I sincerely apologize for going over the top. It WAS an emotional response on my part, and for that I will change the way I frame my words.
Prairie Celt: I had that chance also–and obviously failed if you really believe that four years is long enough to resolve the problems facing public schools–and I honestly believe that some, if not many, of the problems cannot be solved by schools. The public schools are societal problems–and NCLB guidelines and tests, etc., aren’t helping. NCLB shines the light on failures but does very little to bring about solutions to the problems. I am a true cynic; I think that NCLB’s main goal is to discredit public schools so that many of you will do exactly what you’re doing cry out for the voucher system, etc. If that isn’t the NCLB goal, it certainly is succesful in so doing, intentional or not.
I do agree that all the promises that the BOE made do not do them any good. I think the board and administration would bring about more goodwill if they would clearly state (without an sugar coating) what the real problems are. For those of you have not spent any time in a high school classroom (mine for example), you have no idea the extent of challenges that teachers face. I wasn’t so discouraged about those situations–my discouragement came with administrators (central and in building–and NCLB) blaming teachers. The NCLB era began for me when an administrator said to the teachers, “If I’m going down, you’re going with me.”
I hope that all of you were able to put all these situations aside for an hour today to watch the inauguration of our new President of the United States. For me, it was a joyous occasion.
PrairieCelt – With all of your insight and answers, I’d welcome the opportunity to meet and learn from you what you think I should be doing to more effective in my position and in moving our District forward.
Mr. Stowell, we have met.
Well, Mr. Stowell, I have a suggestion.
How about shutting down the Wisconsin office and allowing Principals to run their schools?
How about, in the alternative, posting the REAL budget numbers of the Wisconsin office?
How about making education a priority, and not buildings and investments?
How about eliminating tenure and going to contract for teachers based on ability to teach?
How about chopping off the multiple heads of this beast on Wisconsin and at the very least have only one?
How about allowing parents to decide which facility they send-tence their children to?
(Given the choice, right now, they would all go to Limestone, Dunlap, Notre Dame and / or Peoria Christian.)
Jim: Please know that your willingness to comment here is appreciated by some. It’s ironic that the one BOE member who bothers to do so becomes the whipping boy for those that don’t.
kcdad tenure is established by state law, not by action of the local school boards.
I think Jim can handle a little criticism. We’ve all gotten our fair share.
Sharon,
For the last few months (I am new to the area) I have agreed with many of your points, but your stereotype off all administrators is not fair. Some teachers went into administration to attempt to make positive change on a larger scale. Some teachers were in failing systems and realized that the one person that can affect the most positive change in a school is the building Principal.
Don’t give up hope on all administrators.
PraireCelt – Having met doesn’t address my request. Are you willing to sit down and help me address some of your concerns and suggestions? I’ll be happy to accomodate your schedule.
Impartial Observer: I think (on a later post) I acknowledged that my blanket statement about administrators should be challenged. I think Manual has been especially plagued with poor leadership and I tend to judge all administrators from my own experience–not fair. I know there are good principals in 150–principals I know were dedicated teachers. Also I noted a trend in recent years–the promoting of teachers who have very little teaching experience to administrative positions.
Thanks for pointing those out!
Be careful, Prairie Celt! It’s a trick! 😉
“to circumvent the consequences of not meeting the NCLB requirements, which are likely, impossible for the general population of these two schools to meet.”
the NCLB requirements are about the school, not the students. NCLB is not about students. That is the problem with it.
“tenure is established by state law” REAAAAAAAAAAALLY?
“What was once viewed as a means to protect academic freedom on the university level has evolved into a near total job protection for public school teachers with more than four years experience.
To put this in perspective, since school districts began implementing legislation intended to make it easier to fire underperforming teachers passed in 1985, only an average of seven tenured teachers have been fired each year, out of an estimated 95,500 tenured educators in the state.
Of those seven, an average of five were fired for issues of misconduct such as illegal drug use or abusing a child. And the remaining were fired for issues of alleged incompetence.
Teacher tenure is a national issue, but Illinois’ tenure laws are among the most protective in the nation.
To fire a tenured teacher, an Illinois school district must not only prove that the teacher committed a particular act or exhibited incompetence, but it must also prove that issue can’t be corrected over time. ” from http://thehiddencostsoftenure.com/stories/?prcss=display&id=266548
Then of course there was HB 947 which reduced the tenure wait to 2 years from 4.
And school districts don’t hire and fire teachers every fall and spring to avoid this?
School districts don’t decide who is going to stay on “probation” for that entire 2 year evaluation period?
Come on.. tenure, especially in elementary, secondary and junior college is a joke… a big, rip off, trough sucking joke. The only better joke is the (what was the number?) 89 administrators on Wisconsin avenue… MUST BE A HELLUVA CHRISTMAS PARTY!
“Also I noted a trend in recent years–the promoting of teachers who have very little teaching experience to administrative positions.”
How do autocrats maintain and centralize their power? They promote incompetent and dependent underlings to staff positions so they can be controlled.
Besides, and we all know this: Administration has NOTHING to do with education. AS you so rightly said earlier, good teachers teach. Bad teachers get promoted.
This is really sad! I feel like the board is just going to do what they want to do no matter what! Very upset with this whole situation! My son can’t even finish his high school years at the school he started. What a shame! I think they should at LEAST allow the children to finish out their years if already attending! Don’t get me wrong though, I am totally against this merge!!! I just wish they would actually treat us like humans instead of puppets! -playing with peoples lives is disgusting to me.
I also am so embarrassed that some of these board members (mostly the administration) are so rude and arrogant. You have not heard the end of me. I am new to this, but I am catching on. Being that I am new, thought that I would share with you all that my first impression of the board/administration was not good. This is not a joking matter. I think the meetings should be more serious. I also think that the board members and administration should ACT like they care when they are at these meetings instead of acting like it is such a bother to even listen to the public!
Very concerned parent AND a taxpayer!!!
Nicole Price!
Nicole, you’re right and more than ever Tuesday night Dr. Gorenz gave the impression that he didn’t see the need to listen to the speakers–interrupted them several times. Then he complained that the speakers (many students and parents of students who couldn’t stay up so late) didn’t stay to hear the board’s answers to their questions. Believe me there were no answers. It’s good that you have found this blog–a good place to learn and to contribute your thoughts, etc.
I am so tired. I can’t sleep! I can’t work! I am just so tired of thinking. I totally enjoy reading all of your comments though. I want to just share a note that I sent to the school board and administrators:
Good morning to you all! My name is Debbie B! I am the mother of a sophomore at Woodruff High School and a 6th grader at Von Steuben. I myself am a graduate of Woodruff! My parents are graduates of Woodruff High School. I am a single mother who is extremely active with youth sports throughout the Woodruff area. I currently assist with Woodruff JFL and Woodruff Heights Youth Baseball. I live at **** basically just on the other side of field behind the admin building.
I am writing you this morning with a heavy heart! I am not here to ridicule or throw punches. Now, I am a total Woodruff girl! But I can honestly say that I an writing you to beg you to analyze your thought pattern just a little deeper on your proposal of merging the two high schools. On my way to work this morning, I drove down Forrest Hill and wandered over to Central. I wanted to take the time to just look at the school and it’s surroundings. Wow! Although, I have attended numerous sporting events at that high school, I just simply wanted to nose around and capture what is being considered. As I pulled up in front of the school, I just could not get over how close the school is to the road and how close it is to the front porches of homes. As many times as I have driven down Abington Hill to Woodruff, I just could not help myself by taking another trip down the hill just to look at the surroundings? I then sat in the parking lot at Woodruff and simply just looked around in AWE! I strive to not make “knee-jerk” decisions. I try to instill in my boys not to make “knee-jerk” decisions unless of course their lives or well-being are in jeopardy. I want them to always take a minute to look at both sides of the equation. I find that when you take a deep breath and look at both sides, any decisions that are made will have far more admirable repercussions than a “knee-jerk” decision.
I understand the deficit that Peoria District 150 is faced with. Well, let me clarify by saying that I am aware of the deficit that we are faced with. Understand was not the correct word to use. With that said, I know that the challenges before us are astronomical. Have any of you seen the commercial ads on television lately, “it’s better here?” It is better here in Peoria! I am very proud to live in Peoria. I am very proud to be involved in inter-city youth sports. I am terribly afraid of what will happen if you all approve the proposal to put the Woodruff children at Central. I don’t recall any of you being at the meeting at Godfathers last night. You may think that this was just a meeting of broken-hearted, die hard Woodruff supporters. I want to let you know that there were people there who do not have direct connections with either Woodruff or Central. There was a realtor there who lives in the Richwoods district. She echoed how this will affect our economy. You will start seeing families move to other areas in our region (i.e., Chillicothe, East Peoria, Morton, or Washington.) At the end of the day is that what we want?
I want to now touch on my thoughts of Woodruff going to Central. Have any of you attended a high school baseball game at Central? My 11 year old can hit a home-run on their field. What do you think the average decent high school baseball player will do on that field? They can’t even play baseball at their full potential on that field. Let alone even consider having an IHSA Regional or Sectional baseball game at that facility. Have you ever gone to a high profile basketball game at Central? Three or four years ago, neither of my children were in high school at the time, when Shawn Livingston and company were on the way to a state championship, I made the decision to take my boys and a couple of their friends to see the game. It was a joke at best. There was not a safe place to park and we in turn had to go back home. Last year, I worked the concession stand at Woodruff during the IHSA basketball regionals. The night I worked, Woodruff was not even playing. I had several Notre Dame people make a comment about how awesome the parking and seating were. Some of what I am focused on here is athletics. We all know that athletics has a bearing on schools whether we want to admit it or not. But when you look at the limitations of Woodruff vs. Central just for athletics, why would you want to restrict these children? If my memory serves me correctly, 9 of the top 10 Woodruff graduates class of 2008 were 2 sport athletes.
If you haven’t visited Woodruff lately, I would ask you to drive down there and just take a quick look around. You will see how much more compatible Woodruff is for high school students vs. Central. I can’t see utilizing Woodruff for our younger children who will not be able to utilize the full benefits of the campus. The proposed merge will be detrimental for Peoria, not just Woodruff or Central families.
As a citizen of Peoria, I ask you to look at all the options. Someone has got to think about the children and the limitations that you are looking to put upon them. There are other ways to save money. If you yourselves can’t do it, then ask for help. Ask for input! People outside of Woodruff and Central can’t believe that we would squeeze all of our kids into Central and leave such a well-rounded campus as Woodruff left for little people to use who are unable to utilize the campus to it’s fullest potential.
Sorry, Debbie, you have no voice. You didn’t go to Peoria High.
kcdad,
I disagree….
The effectiveness of the building principal is the number one factor in a buildings success. Good teachers get burdened by bad leadership and bad teachers flourish.
side note…..
My posts such as the one above are always about education in general and not related to this district. I have said this same comment well before I knew about PSD 150.
Good Comments Debbie, there are other ways around this…we should not close Woodruff or Central…35-40 kids in a class are too many.
RE: Longer school year.
I hope the Board considers that a “one size fits all” formula does not work for all its learners. Our family enjoys the Summer and Holiday breaks and tries to use this time as an opportunity to travel and do special activities that time does not permit when school is in session. There are many ways for children to grow and learn and not all those experiences revolve around the classroom setting.
RE: Longer school day.
Similarly, much is to be gained by children developing and growing in all directions. After school music lessons, dance, sport are important as well. It is difficult for children to get their homework done, have a chance to engage in other activities, and get to bed at an appropriate time with the current length of the school day. I can’t imagine if the day were to become longer. I also question the value of primary school children having a longer day??? There is only so much young children can absorb.
Finally, pursuing endeavors outside the classroom builds self-esteem and discipline. My children have selected sports in which they train in, on an almost daily basis. This level of involvement outside the classroom has made them better time managers and better organized, and as a result stronger students. When I look at the others members of their sports teams, I see children that healthy and productive and engaged in positive activities. There is something to be said for developing the whole person. I think society is laying too much on the shoulders of public education theses days. Schools should not be the be all, end all for raising children.
frustrated:
that may very well be for you, but not for kids of lower socio-economic status. In fact, the studies show its exactly for the reasons you mention above that kids who don’t have the opportunities you mention above fall behind in the summer.
This:
“Our family enjoys the Summer and Holiday breaks and tries to use this time as an opportunity to travel and do special activities that time does not permit when school is in session.”
If you don’t have the money for travel, for summer camp, for special activities you fall behind.
Ed and Frustrated: I agree with both of you–because there are advantages and disadvantages on both sides, so it would be hard to please both points of view (another reason why it is difficult to be a school board member).
The 45-15 (I think) day plan to which Jim referred would be a good compromise, I think. In fact, it might work better for families who might want to take vacations during spring, fall, and winter–not just summer. Fifteen days is a fairly decent vacation time.
District 150’s request for suggestions: I know that Whittier parents (maybe all parents) just received an automated phone call informing them that the 150 newsletter that has been mailed today contains a form about suggestions for balancing the budget. Parents are supposed to fill out the form and return it to their students’ school or to the administrations building. Hopefully, the newsletter will also provide a way to use modern technology–e-mail–to submit suggestions.
I do find it interesting that the powers that be (more administration than board members) seem to be soliciting opinions only after the demonstration at the board rooms on Tuesday. We would all believe their motives to be more genuine had they come up with the idea on their own without pressure and before they made plans that seem fairly concrete. Hopefully, Jim is right–that the concrete isn’t dry yet.
Re: the closing of Woodruff, there will be another meeting at Godfather’s on Sunday at 7 p.m.
Sharon, et al
I find the notion of soliciting budget cutting ideas from the general public slightly absurd. Some of the views expressed here present obvious familiarity with technical aspects of student achievement, school finance, labor law, and facilities and asset management.
I do not underestimate the public in being able to respond to the challenge of putting forth ideas, I just think, in isolation, one is going to be hard pressed to present cogent change through a paper survey which they are then responsible to transit back to the district.
The reason I suggested to Mr. Stowell the idea of directing staff to hold focus groups and facilitated charrettes was to place the ADMINISTRATIVE burden on D150 staff to collect those ideas. ‘Tis better to actively seek and collect input than to assume a receivership role.
** to clarify **
“I find the notion of soliciting budget cutting ideas from the general public* slightly absurd.”
*via a form they must return.
Sorry ’bout that. Changes the context a little, hunh!
When the board announced possible school closings I don’t think they were surprised by the public outcry and demonstrations. They expected it.
Anytime you propose closing a school you are going have unhappy people.
Everybody knows a high school is a hot button and very emotional issue.
They saw this coming.
They made a proposal, ask for public impute and then make their decisions. Whether they actually consider the public impute who knows but they go through the process.
In the end you will have some that are unhappy with the decisions made whatever they are.
I will muddy the waters a bit. I don’t know when the board and administration began seeking public input from parents, etc., about school issues, especially the selection of principals, etc.–sometime within the last 10 years or so. I have always thought it was a bad idea. First of all, the decision-making has to rest with the elected body (that is accountable to the public)–that is the way the system works. I don’t think the public should ever be led to believe that they are making the decisions. However, 150 has set that precedent over the last very years. In fact, I served on teacher committees that were led to believe they had a voice in choosing deans, etc. Even when I was placed on the committee, I knew that it was a bad idea. Teachers are not charged with the responsibility or the accountability for choosing administrators.
However, I think the board should be exposed to ideas from all stakeholders–teachers, parents, students, etc. And I think taxpayers have a right in our free society to express their displeasure or pleasure on any issues–but not with the belief that they are actually part of the decision-making process.
I believe the same as true with regard to the current decision about closing a school. The public has a right to express its displeasure with the choice, but in the end, six people are charged with that decision (and only four of them have to agree).
Also, emotional ties to a particular school can’t be the basis for this decision–I know that and the board can’t be expected to consider those loyalties as a major (maybe even a minor) role in their decision. The decision has to be based on what is best for District 150 and for Peoria. I am not yet convinced that closing Woodruff is the best for 150 or Peoria. Most of all–even though the idea for closing a school has been out there for quite some time–bringing it into the forefront came suddenly. I still hold to the belief that “haste makes waste” in that not enough thought has been put into this plan yet–and the timetable only allows for a month or so.
l
Ed: You are of course correct. Many students of District 150 could benefit from a longer school year/day. My point is that the District should customize its curriculum and programs based on the population of students it serves at each school. There is still a sizeable population of students, for now, that attend District 150 schools, that are capable students with involved families who provide a host of learning and developmental activities for their children outside of school. And, those families owe no apologizes to anyone. Most of the families I am referring to are not wealthy, they simply have made the decision to place family first, and have made the requisite sacrifices in order to use the resources they do have to accomplish this goal.
The District states that one of its objectives in reorganizing is to attract families/students to the District that are presently exercising other educational options. I don’t know that a longer school year/day will further than aim. I am “frustrated” with the District that they claim to want to encourage more families to choose Dist. 150 but only seem to implement changes designed to address the needs of “kids of lower socio-economic status” that you referred to in your previous post.
All,
I am operating from a premise that D150 must close schools, and likely trim 120-160 teaching positions. At least, in that neighborhood.
1. IF Cahill’s projections are correct, and I’ve nothing to prove they are not, then the schools must close. There really isn’t any room for argument there. We may tear our garments and gnash our teeth until the cows come home, but a financial condition of that magnitude does not self-correct.
2. It is in response to #1 that schools will then be able to customize curriculum changes.
I think everyone needs to concentrate on #2, and face facts and move on from #1. Grieve, then act. I personally think the better, more effective energy is in proposition two.
Ed – Love your post! I agree that streamlining the District and closing schools given the economic climate is a necessity. I hope that the District can simply concentrate on this first, as you state, let the dust settle, and then see what customization best serves the students. Though as Sharon often posts as one of her fears –the District often takes on too much change simultaneously. I think it is ironic that only a few months ago we were blogging on the merits (or lack there of) of creating a math/science charter school and now the District does not have sufficient funds to operate its own schools, let alone allow students to be enticed away to schools outside of its purview.
ed, Frustrated, peoriafan, and Sharon – Thank you for the productive discourse! Bill Murrays “What about Bob!” comes to mind. Baby steps. (quickly paced)
He did get better. HOPEFULLY!
jim,
there are people who really care about this, in a deeply heartfelt way. i believe you know that.
it’s what makes it so hard to understand why the district’s posture continues to be exclusive. the general public understands difficult choice made by their elected representatives; where it goes awry is when it *appears* either 1.) the general public is treated as ignorant after-thoughts, or 2.) administrative actions disenfranchise the electorate.
it’s a mystery to me how the school board does not see how the general public sees both 1. & 2. occurring time and time again in relation to district actions.
again, i would implore you to direct the staff to begin facilitated discussions with the community. make the economic choices you need to make, but involve the community in what restructuring looks like.
i was part of a team that went to manual last fall and spoke with some of the kids about their mid-term grads. it was a great experience, but as a participant we’ve had no follow up. no one has contacted us for the next round and we’ve heard nothing about how the kids viewed the event. i don’t mind being rolled out for a photo op, but make it meaningful.
please be a part of making this community trauma, which is what it is, meaningful.
Baby steps… for another how many years? This district has been falling apart for 30 years… Are you suggesting that the baby steps you are proposing are any better than the baby steps proposed in the past?