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.
Billie – I guess when you beg for help paying a $20 bill for internet service, everything on a relative basis must be “MASSIVE”. NHM – By “control” I mean “shape”. Those that drone on without constructive input at every meeting (sometimes a valid point is raised) don’t help the public perception that our whole community is like water swirling through a sieve. Our curriculm needs to be stronger (more math, science, medical), our schools and neighborhoods safer, and our students need to be engaged and accountable. That’s the message I think we need to “shape” (control).
Billie – I guess when you beg for help paying a $20 bill for internet service, everything on a relative basis must be “MASSIVE”.
That’s a three pointer!
For a good start, Dr. Lathan is planning to stay connected with the public.
The PJS reported she is planning a series of luncheons at various locations after the school year starts. Purpose is to gather input, get a pulse on how the District is doing. According to article, she thinks
this is better than having people come to the Central District Office.
She has done this before, while in San Diego. Here is the link:
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x550419246/Lathan-plans-lunch-dates-to-gain-input
So my question now is: Will the Board be ‘shaping” the message for her to put out at these functions? Will any Board members be able or willing to join in on these luncheons, so that the perceptions of the BOE might
improve in the public mind?
Mahkno said:
“District 150 needs to tackle the naysayer problem head on. Not by dismissing them but rather by finding how to satisfy them.”
That is the worst thing they can do. Show up and complain and we’ll satisfy you. Should they address their concerns? Absolutely. But many times they sure won’t be satisfied.
Terry, in particular, rails against Edison nearly every meeting. That’s fine. That’s his opinion. (though sometimes, I’m just not sure what his position is on the issue – I guess it’s a good thing he brings it up every meeting) What happens if people think the board might vote to cut Edison? The red shirt supporters show up and address the board. Whom do you “satisfy” then?
Dennis- I agree that Dr. Lathan’s idea of luncheons at various locations is a good start. I personally believe she will be better off if she does this without Board members. She appears to have some great ideas and a desire to tackle some of the issues that have been dogging the district for years. IMO Board member involvement may hinder her progress. Let her use her skills and experience to build relationships with community members.
Yeah, there will always be naysayers. The only way to “satisfy them” is to do what they want you to do. Then other naysayers will come out of the woodwork complaining about what you just did. You let people have their say a few times–not every single board meeting–and then do what you think is best based upon all the info you have.
Most of the time when “naysayers” say they aren’t listened to–it translates to “they didn’t do what we wanted them to do”. Just because a board doesn’t do what you are asking them to do doesn’t mean they didn’t listen—it means they disagreed with you.
I would have at least 1 board member at every luncheon if possible.
I can hear it now if no board members come to the public meetings:
“See, I told you the BOE doesn’t want to listen to the voters. Hell, they don’t even attend public meetings to listen to input on improving our schools!!”
Well, I wonder what Dr. Lathan would do if her child’s principal sent home a newsletter explaining the decline in academic achievement on the state changing the mean or claiming a non-existent letter of concern was filed with the state? Time will tell. In the meantime, she is the fourth consecutive Supt. to state that academic achievement is a top priority (according to PJStar).
Jon, you satisfy the bleeding budget. The red shirts will simply have to understand–just as the Woodruff teachers, students, and community–had to accept (without understanding) that it’s all about money and nothing else. At the last BOE meeting I gave the board Manual’s ACT scores and pointed out that the ACT scores indicate–as it has always been–that there are students who are not academically inclined at Manual and at other 150 schools and that the course offerings show a disdain for students who do not want to go to college. Also, I pointed out (with the list of credits earned by this year’s MHS seniors) that all but 4 students earned credits over the required 18–so it’s time to raise graduation requirements. I do not regard any of that to be complaining.
First of all, I believe I gave them some information that not all board members (or any) have been given. Secondly, I know they have much to do, etc., so sometimes they just don’t think of issues that are important to the district’s future and there is a need to make them and the public aware of those issues. Why wouldn’t Terry bring up Edison at every meeting. If you know 150 history, he was elected to be president of the union because of the Edison issue. I have been amazed that board members want to talk about property tax money that doesn’t come to District 150 because employees do not live in Peoria. Every year they send $800,000+ (Edison) and $200,000+ (Johns Hopkins) to benefit the economy of some other city. That’s what they are doing with the money they are currently receiving from property taxes.
What snark around goes around. Snark is a matter of how one sees it. I have never heard snark at the Board meetings but have read it here. I have to ask with all this hoopla on TV broadcasts, How in the name of all that is holy, did the public and school board survive before cable access? In the 60s and most of the 70s and way before that?
I vote that any excess money the school board has goes to keeping the Peoria Pundit on the internet!
Mr. Stowell: And what does my request for donations to operate a group blog (http://blogpeoria.com) have to do with your relative inability to recognize that you are massively out of touch with the wishes of the resident taxpayers in District 150. You have an ability to explain WHY you think all those people who showed up at the forums to beg and plead to not lose their neighborhood school are somehow a minority.
“Silent majority.” How appropriate that someone who resorts to personal attacks borrows a phrase from the Nixon administration.
BTW: As long as I run the Blog Peoria Project, I’ll continue to be transparent about how it’s financed (a lot of welcome donations, a lot out of my pocket) and that includes posting an occasional request for donations and posting the hosting bill receipts when it is paid.
If District 150 had a policy of transparency, it would enjoy more respect from voters.
Regarding Dr. Lathan’s lunches, there was a commenter at the PJS site who immediately accused her of only inviting people of color. This is an example of the constant negativity that has evolved because of years of non-transparency and occasional out right lies from the district administration and the board.
That the board actually has to debate whether or not it will allow board members to communicate with citizens … it just boggles the mind.
The solution is simple: Tell the truth ALL THE TIME and then no one has to worry what lies they have to remember telling. Stop trying to shape the message. Just be honest. If you don’tknow the answer, say so. If someone says something out of line (criticising grade school kids) then call them on it.
“Every year they send $800,000+ (Edison) and $200,000+ (Johns Hopkins) to benefit the economy of some other city.”
Sorry, Sharon, but I think there are quite a few children, parents and teachers in the City of Peoria who see a number of benefits – right here – from the Edison and Johns Hopkins programs, including the principals of both schools. To them, the cost is justified.
But, of course, the district might decide it simply can no longer incur the expense – just as it did with Woodruff. The point is, they are NOT going to “satisfy” everyone – and their decisions should not be made on who vocalizes their concerns the most.
Let’s see, what has had a bigger impact on D150’s financial woes – the Edison contract – or the 2000 teachers union contract negotiated by Terry?
And raising graduation requirements? I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand where you are going with that one. This, coming from a person who decries the lack of summer school for all – lamenting how some children might not be able to graduate on time? Vocational classes, on the other hand? Sure, I think they cut back too much on those.
“Maybe you’re weren’t talking about that as a “qualification” to be a speaker at a D150 meeting”
Don’t be jerk… there is no qualification to exercise free speech. If everyone has the right to free speech, how “qualified” is someone who is both “everyone” AND a taxpayer AND a parent AND an employee AND an interested member of the community????
The problem with people like our board (sorry, Jim) is that they think they are the experts. They are incapable of escaping the group think dynamic, and they just go along with the strongest member of the group.
You opposed Glen Oak, Jim? Why are you still on the board? You opposed keeping Peoria High open OVER Woodruff? Why are still on the board? You seem pretty incompetent and impotent. Did you opposed McArdle’s firing? Did you oppose hiring Lathan? Did you oppose the charter schools or Edison?
What have you done?
Jon, my point about not graduating on time had to do with students who failed required courses during the 2nd semester of last year–traditionally, they went to summer school and were able to get their diplomas by August. That situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the 18 point credit minimum. A person with 25 credits could have failed English 8 (a required) course offered 2nd semester of the senior year and not be able to graduate–and that happened to some this year.
My point about the graduation requirements has been twofold. First, students should not be allowed to repeat courses during the school year–taxpayers should not have to pay for students to take the same cases over and over. Also, next year all three high schools will have large class sizes (and don’t even try to start that argument again–I already presented figures to the board to prove otherwise). The class sizes will be even larger next year because the repeaters will be taking up space in the classes–also, more teachers will be needed, thus cutting down on the supposed savings from closing Woodruff. District 150 should continue to have a strong summer school program–that died in about 2003. It needs to be revived. Why is it that Manual seniors were able to acquire from 19 to 28 credits–and some took only two courses 2nd semester?
As I stated at the board meeting, Manual’s block schedule gives students the opportunity to graduate early–but not necessarily prepares them for college. Also, non-college bound students need courses that will help them. The high school course offerings are geared mainly to students whose immediate goal after graduation is college. Jon, as usual, you just don’t agree with me–I can live with that. Billie–Jim does seem to resort to irrelevant personal attacks instead of presenting a legitimate argument to the issue at hand, whatever it may be.
“Our curriculm needs to be stronger (more math, science, medical), our schools and neighborhoods safer, and our students need to be engaged and accountable. That’s the message I think we need to “shape” (control).”
Unfortunately, only in your bureaucratic world does a group of unqualified plutocrats decide what is going to happen in the schools. YOUR JOB is to find out what is best for the kids, what the taxpayers want and what the teachers can provide and SUPPORT THAT. It is not your job to sell off public assets to private businesses that attractively package scams.
MEDICAL CURRICULUM???? Let’s talk teaching the kids to read and critically analyze world events.
medical curriculum… Good grief!
“students need to be engaged and accountable”
Accountable??? to a system designed to categorize and stratify them into winners and losers with no control over which group they are going to be assigned to?
Schools are accountable to the students, not the other way around. It is the schools’ job to educate, no the students’ job to learn.
Jon, you didn’t answer my implied question? Why are the proponents of maintaining Edison and Johns Hopkins (and there aren’t that many of the latter) more important than those in favor of keeping Woodruff open? I do agree that the principals and academy leaders (the very top heavy Manual administrative staff) benefit financially from Johns Hopkins–but should they?
“Why are the proponents of maintaining Edison and Johns Hopkins (and there aren’t that many of the latter) more important than those in favor of keeping Woodruff open?”
Who says they are? Again, you relate the question to the PEOPLE making the argument, rather than the argument itself (granted, the argument/decision affects people, but that includes MORE than just the people who vocalize their concerns.)
Now, if you really mean why pay for Edison and JH and close Woodruff – obviously the board felt that was the overall best use of its funds. Some people agree – some disagree.
Just because the Chamber of Commerce voiced its opinion that Woodruff should be closed, doesn’t mean the board was influenced by them – just as it doesn’t mean that Woodruff supporters had no influence on the board.
Charlie:
“Don’t be jerk” Thanks for going lightly on me – I guess you didn’t appreciate my inherent sarcasm in the comment you referenced. That’s OK, I could have been called “pretty incompetent and impotent”.
Jon, your arguments amaze me. I have always considered my argument to be more important than I am. The board should not agree with a person because of who they are instead of basing their decision on the argument. Exactly, why I think the Woodruff decision was wrong–the board paid attention to who was making the argument instead of the argument–my opinion. Anyway I’m off to do something constructive–help Hedy teach her GED class–another mistake 150 is making: not carrying out Durflinger’s decision to pay Hedy’s salary to teach GED classes at Harrison and Taft this fall.
“Thanks for going lightly on me – I guess you didn’t appreciate my inherent sarcasm in the comment you referenced.”
If that was what you intended I was just kidding….
Jon, seriously, I apologize.
Sometimes I can’t tell when someone is just being thoughtless and when they are being clever.
“those that drone on without constructive input” also pertains to some of the commenters on the blogs. charlie is a great example of free speech. Everything that is free is not necessarily worth something.
With all of the budget woes, do we really need six assistant football coaches at Peoria High? This seems as excessive as the administrators this district believes it needs. I believe I heard Dr. Lathan say in an interview that more employees need to wear more hats to help out. It seems we are just passing out hats to get less than necessary employees.
I saw the coaching jobs posted, also. But, they are taking in Woodruff as well. There’s fresh/soph and Varsity, so after giving it some thought I figured they’ll need at least 6. I’m thrilled to see jobs for music and art as well. I’m glad they aren’t giving those up.
Great article in the PJS this a.m. regarding this issue.
http://www.pjstar.com/opinions/x550419504/Our-View-District-150-should-resume-live-broadcast-of-meetings
Jim, The Journal Star all but called you an idiot. Do you have a response to that?
The transparency at D150 is almost palpable……NOT.
My favorite line in the article is where Stowell is quoted as saying “Those constant critics have hurt the image of the district….”
Jeez, Jim can you think of anything the Board and Administration has done during the last few years that “hurt the image of the district”?
Shall we start a list????
#1 Hiring Ken Hinton back at 150 after a 27 day “whirlwind” superintendent training course at Western University. Top drawer leadership with that hire. That definitely makes the top 10!
#2 Lindbergh principal fired because he viewed pornography at school.
#3 Glen Oak secretary tells two children to walk to Pekin. However, she did tell them to “be safe”
#4Edison and Johns Hopkins…need I say more
District fraudently tells the public that someone had been disciplined for #3 when in fact they weren’t.
#5 Wacky Wednesdays
District kept Administrator on the payroll for over a year when they had documents proving that said Administrator falsified student records to avoid NCLB requirements.
Creating jobs for administator’s family members
LACK OF DISCIPLINE AND CONTROL IN THE SCHOOLS…..ONGOING
District continued to retain clearly incompetent and overpaid legal council.
#4 – Add to the list a board proposal to take away 45 minutes of learning time from primary students–and saying that the shortened day would actually improve the education of primary students. And then their change to Wacky Wednesdays and never giving the public the evaluation by teachers that they had promised over and over–remember that the surveys were passed out so late at the end of the year that only 18 (I think) teachers responded. Hinton stated the teachers would be regiven the survey at the beginning of the next year. That didn’t happen but Wacky Wednesdays quietly went away after a year.
District does not recognize and correct past transgressions against individuals they have harmed. (McArdle)
District closes schools without a plan and cancels all public hearings regarding same.
People are responding so quickly that the numbers are being duplicated. I think we’re at #7 or 8.
#8 Push back start of school year a week because of poor planning and construction over-runs. Yet hires back the person who caused the problem as a consultant.
#9 Spends thousands of dollars on attorney fees to “investigate” itself. Found nothing amiss, except now the Peoria Police Department has uncovered software/technology that sprouted legs and sold itself on ebay.
Inability to recognize and avoid obvious violations of the Open Meetings Act
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x487487318/States-attorney-says-District-150-meet-and-greet-violated-law
Board President Debbie Wolfmeir boldly LIES on the record to the public and gets reinstated as President by a majority vote of the Board for another year all in the same week. Read this link:
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1030871947/District-150-ready-for-tape-delay-era
Academic Officer indicted on 16 felony counts.
Trewyn Prinicpal transferred to different position after failing to report to authorities alleged possession of a gun at school by a staff person.
Unauthorized raises given to several secretaries.
Cahill’s budgetary follies–finally leading to his firing.
Blain Sumner’s non closing: The misuse and cost of keeping this building open is an issue brought up strongly by District Watch speakers. I don’t believe the current changes would have even been considered if speakers hadn’t continued to bring up this wasteful spending. Now the employees are moving back to be closer to the children they serve, but the building will still stand empty.