Back in April when the District 150 Board of Education decided to discontinue live broadcasts of the board meetings, they presented it as a cost-saving measure. I had this to say:
In other words, this move has little to do with cost savings. It’s simply a further manifestation of the district’s desire to minimize, if not eliminate, public input and public access to the school board meetings.
Last night, board members admitted that was indeed the case. From Peoria Story:
Board members acknowledged that the reason they stopped the broadcasts was not, as was initially reported, to save money, but because they objected to negative comments from the public during the public comment portion of the meeting. “It (the money) was never my reason,” Jim Stowell said. “Nor mine,” board president Debbie Wolfmeyer said.
And the Journal Star adds these quotes:
“. . . The board has tried, but I think the board has the responsibility to try to shape the message they want to convey to the public. . . . I’ve heard the same four people at 70 percent of those meetings. . . . and I doubt that very few of them, if any, have any children in the district.” . . .
“I was in favor of taking the broadcast off until we could do something about how to answer people or how to tell our own story – we don’t answer people or questions or rebut anything, so all the public really hear is what other people are saying,” board member Martha Ross said, wanting to revisit the idea because community members have asked her to do so. “It’s their only connection to what’s going on at the school district.”
I would submit that these board members don’t quite understand the concept of petitioning the government for redress of grievances. They think they should get to take our money and feed us back a message they “shape” and “want to convey to the public.” All dissenting opinions should be censored or effectively hidden from the public.
Greeley does typically fill quickly, and Greeley deals mostly with students with serious behavioral issues. PAHS is for students at high risk of dropping out, and is a very particular kind of program; not all students are interested in it. We do need further models of alternative schooling available, which should include a vocational program, IMHO, and supportive programs for students who are unengaged by school but wouldn’t be appropriately placed at Greeley. We need alternatives for students who don’t thrive in a traditional classroom (even a Montessori model could be considered “alternative” at the younger grades), and we need alternatives for students who are disrupting the school environment for other students. Currently we provide alternatives for students with serious behavioral issues and for students at high risk of dropping out, but we have other students who, either to achieve or to prevent them from disrupting the school environment for others, also require alternatives. Struggling students are not “one size fits all.”
Jon, at this point as long as Dr. Lathan accepted my “information,” that’s about it for now. If I appeared to mock Dr. Lathan’s response, then I apologize–not intended, at all. Also, I did hear from an “original” source.
Thank you, Laura. I agree with offering “alternatives”, and I appreciate the way you loosely describe it (e.g. a Montessori model or vocational program).
The interesting part will be how to implement it – for example, what should be a separate school and what should be a “school within a school”? And if we are going to offer these various programs, then it would seem wise to offer true choice across the district, rather than trying to implement each one at each high school, for example.
Specifically as to disruptive students, I also noted your earlier comment “Schools are being urged to implement stepped interventions for Special Ed students BEFORE going to suspensions, rather than after.” Perhaps more closely following the stepped interventions will lead to fewer students needing an alternative program for disruptive students.
It can be difficult to find information about the various alternative programs throughout the state, in part because the students are often placed in their “home” school for state data, and because many of the schools are regional and/or county based programs. However, I do know that Rockford recently expanded its alternative program for disruptive students. It would be interesting to note what % of Rockford students, or Springfield, for that matter, are served in alternative program for disruptive students, compared to Peoria.
Laura – Thank you for your response regarding alternative schooling. I, however, hate to see vocational education lumped into the “alternative” category as though it is some default position.
Vocational education should be a front and center educational option incorporated into the District’s curriculum. It is a viable educational path that more students in the District should be encouraged to pursue. I thought there was quite a bit of discussion that this might be a major initiative that would be offered at PHS after the consolidation. I assumed this would continue to be explored by the BOE after the merger of WHS and PHS was complete.
I agree with Jon that the District should centralize various choice offerings within a particular school to ensure limited budgets are concentrated in developing “best in class” program offerings. More consideration should be given to “academies” within schools, magnet schools, and differentiation of primary and middle school curriculums based on student population needs. Finally, the IB program should be dusted off, promoted, and expanded to demonstrate the District’s commitment to offering a unique, rigorous college prep program that sets it apart from other school districts in the area.
Frustrated, I agree an alternative school is not the same as vocational. I will say, however, that some of the young people who may be discipline problems might be acting out because they are not inclined to an academic setting; they need to be doing more hands on. However, the vocational school will not solve all the discipline problems. Besides, an alternative school should be for middle and high school students.
No Sharon, a vocational school is a educational opportunity. An alternative school is a corrective measure, IMO. Although perhaps I don’t say it often enough, I agree with you there needs to be another type of alternative school, perhaps one that is designed for students that are acting out to temporarily attend in order to adjust their attitude and gain self-management skills so that they can later rejoin the mainstream. If such a school were available to transfer students with poor conduct, perhaps it would only take a swift and early departure of a few to have an effect on many. And as you stated, maybe if the District was able to offer learners requiring pratical, hands-on experiences a vocational ed option it would keep them in the game and some of the acting out could be minimized.
As one who teaches in an alternative high school, I can say that not all of the students attend because of behavior problems. They attend because of truancy issues, self-medication issues, and ill-fitting. I want to focus on the ill-fitting issue.
Ill-fitting means that, more often than not, the students are forced to be “square pegs going into round holes.” They, for whatever reason, have not been successful in a traditional learning setting. They think “outside the box,” which, to be quite honest, scares most teachers. They (the students) will challenge teachers with why we do the things we do the way we do them. They want to know how what we teach will influence their lives once they leave our four walls. It is my job to show them that connection and I do, through different styles of lessons, speakers, testing and nurturing.
If you know of a student that would benefit an alternative to a traditional high school, have them visit with their high school counselor and ask about the Academy at ICC. It may very well be the best thing they have ever done.
Jane Winter-Clark walked out yesterday.
Blue, I heard she walked out, but where is the person she is supposedly mentoring?
Actually, she walked out on Thursday. I hear that the one Jane is mentoring is not ready to be a director. Has she ever supervised people? I don’t think so.
The Journal Star has the details on Jane Winter Clark.
Just out of curiosity, how did you all end up back on this thread from July?
I was just following the latest comments from others regarding dist. 150. I didn’t pay attention to what the original post was.
Sharon posted to it Thursday and we replied. Perhaps she thought her point (about tardiness policy) was best suited on this thread (or where this thread had left off).
Or maybe there was a subconscious intent to make this the longest thread ever 🙂
Sorry, C.J., I didn’t want to hijack any of the posts about city business. My original (recent) post related to public comments at BOE meetings.
No need to apologize. I was just wondering. All of a sudden we were back in July! 🙂
I do believe this post wins the prize for most comments.
Yes, there’s some slight confusion because “alternative” can mean so many things. PAHS is for square pegs in round holes; Greeley is for serious behavioral problems. We have TWO needs in the district that require alternatives: Students with moderate-but-disruptive behavioral problems who must be removed from the classroom for the sake of other students; and students who are square pegs who aren’t succeeding well in a traditional classroom setting. One “alternative” for those students could be a vocational tech program. Or a Montessori program. Or smaller group settings, or project-based learning, or any number of other things. And that doesn’t mean voc tech should be an afterthought — just, literally, that we need to provide more alternatives for our students. I personally would have done much better in math and science in a project-based learning environment.
These two needs are to some extent intertwined because students who are not succeeding in a traditional classroom or with a traditional curriculum are more likely to act out and be disruptive. But we need BOTH types of programs available — more choices to reach our students in the most effective way possible, and an effective program for disruptive students that removes their disruptive presents but still provides them an education.
Mrs. Ross always complains about the word “alternative” being too vague and I begin to see her point. 🙂
(And CJ, I scan your left column for relevant comments when I happen by your front page, that’s how I landed here!)