Tonight, my whole family went to a candidates forum so we could hear the candidates for the upcoming school board election. It was held at award-winning Whittier School near my house on the West Bluff. I normally don’t take my whole family, but this forum had a twist: it offered “free childcare.” When you have three kids, that’s very attractive.
So we all trekked over there, arriving a little late as is normal when you have three kids. We were directed to the “computer room” for the “free childcare.” Our kids are 6, 3, and 1, so I figured perhaps part of the room had computers for older children, but then part of the room would be like a kindergarten room for younger children.
Nope. When we walked in, there they all were — kids of all ages, headphones on, sitting neatly in straight rows, staring at their computer screens. Each computer was turned on, the kids were tuned in, and they’d all dropped out of any social interaction whatsoever, each absorbed in his or her own individual virtual universe.
My children have never turned on a computer or played on a computer (unless you count James’s recent exploits with my laptop). James stacks blocks, Margaret colors pictures, and Jacqueline reads books. So, we asked if the room next door — the library — was open, or if there was anything for James to do. Nope. The kiddies could either sit with a computer or their parents for an hour.
I suppose you get what you pay for. Free childcare = computerized babysitting.
I’m not a big fan of computers in primary schools; I think they’re unnecessary and possibly even harmful to a child’s development. But even setting that aside, when you advertise “free childcare,” you expect there to be something for small children. Like a one-year-old. What’s a one-year-old going to do with a computer (besides pour his drink on it)?
So, we tried attending the forum anyway with children in tow, and our kids did quite well the first 45 minutes or so. Then they started getting bored and wanting to run around, and Jamie started getting rather noisy. So we left, much to the relief of the rest of the attendees, I’m sure.
The forum itself was very good. Five candidates attended: Beth Akeson, Alicia Butler, Linda Butler, Bill O’Brien, and Rachael Parker. Alicia Butler had to leave early for another engagement. I didn’t get to hear everything, but I did catch their positions on a couple of hot-button issues:
School in the Park
All the candidates except for Linda Butler emphatically said they were against putting a school on the corner of Glen Oak Park. Linda Butler didn’t commit herself one way or the other, saying instead that there should have been more public interaction and more communication so that they could have made an informed decision.
Properties on Prospect
All the candidates except for Linda Butler and Alicia Butler stated they believe the properties on Prospect should be sold, not razed. They felt the people and the park district had spoken, and the district shouldn’t continue to continue to hang on to these expensive properties. Akeson mentioned they could either sell the property to the park district or fix up the homes and put them on the market. Linda Butler referred to the fact that the Master Facilities Plan includes Glen Oak Park as a possible site for a future school and never really answered the question squarely, leading me to believe she favors the park school. Alicia Butler had already left when this question was raised.
Edison School Contract
O’Brien stated that he thought Edison schools were good, but financially draining. He suggested that if the school board would terminate the program, then businesses, corporations, and/or foundations would step forward to fund it and it wouldn’t have to be funded out of the district’s budget. Akeson and Linda Butler believed the Edison program could be replicated by District 150 without having to contract with Edison itself. Parker wouldn’t commit one way or the other, stating that her position would depend on the cost of the Edison program — she apparently is unaware of the cost. She might want to look that up for future forums. Alicia Butler, again, had already left.
There were two school board members in the audience: Martha Ross and Jim Stowell (aka “Gypsy Jim” for his ability to divine the will of the “silent majority”). I also noticed that WCBU’s Tanya Koonce was there covering the event, but I didn’t see any other media (I have to assume someone was there from the Journal Star, but I don’t know who).
Twice now I have driven by the properties that District 150 purchased. From the roadside, I fail to see how these properties rise to needing demolition. They are all in pretty good shape. There are far worse properties in this city that have been begging for demolition for years.
CJ: Your children are cute! It would be very hard to be upset with your son for his liquid escapade with your computer as he is adorable. And the only time we couldn’t hear was when Bill O’Brien was not using the mike. Sorry, the childcare was not better organized to serve your family and to help you and your wife stay longer.
Linda Butler’s reference to the MFP and that it should not have been a surprise that the GOP site was picked, imho, was misinformed. Yes, the GOP site was in there MFP as well as Von Steuben — it was the inadequate and exclusive process that got D150 in trouble — our community went from a to z without public discussion on the site and on top of that — we went from a K-8 school to a B-8 school again without public discussion.
I remain concerned that Alicia Butler promotes that she voted against the GOP site because of her constituents opposition and safety concerns. Although it is true she voted against the site in the end, she was initially one of four D150 BOE members to vote for the LOI on 29 March 2006 and was then the BOE President. What is concerning is that she had not talked to any constituents in District 2, specifically East Bluff residents prior to that vote as she said at a 1 Arpril 2006 meeting with upset constituents. She said that she was under the impression that the administration had the neighbors on board. Imho, it is her responsibility to communicate with her constituents and find out their opinions PRIOR TO any said vote. Our community was unnecessarily manning the ramparts for more than nine (9) months just to be included and to be heard as well as the unnecessary turmoil for the various Prospect property owners who remained in limbo.
I am supporting Beth Akeson — she is educated on the issues, she spends enormous amounts of time and talents to get the best practice answers. She is articulate, respectful, inclusive, persuasive and she had a proven track record of being a successful HOP Commissioner. She demonstrates honesty, integrity and a stong work ethic. She also advocates that the BOE must set policy. I agree, the BOE must be in charge and not have the organizational chart inverted with the administration setting the policy.
Karrie: Ditto on Akeson-she would be a breath of fresh air on the School Board. We need that!
I liked Beth Akeson too. Did any one notice Tonya Koonce making faces during the question and area period? She is one expressive reporter!
Mahkno –
As I said on another blog, I’ve been in 2122 Prospect (the brick house right beside the park) as recent as 3 years ago. The people renting it did a fabulous job of stripping and re-staining wood work, painting, fixing small things, etc. It is a beautiful, albeit smallish by today’s standard, 3 bedroom home. The basement was painted, but not finished, but wouldn’t have taken a lot to make the big room a family room. Not much yard space, but look out the living room window and how much yard (that you don’t have to mow!) do you need? This home was FAR from being in need of razing.
Having met Beth Akeson myself (although I’m not a D150 resident) I like her a lot. Conscientious, hard working and smart. Very involved in community issues. I think she would make a great addition to the board!
I can’t believe the advertised free babysitting at a school was to stick them in front of a computer with headphones with no other options. Nearly the equivalent of a teenager sticking the kiddies in front of a the tv and saying now sit quietly and don’t bother me.
What a crock.
Akeson might end up being the Gary Sandburg of the School Board. Intelligent, vocal, condescending and acerbic enough to never get enough people to see her way and vote to change anything.
El Bubba — I don’t think so. But even if you’re right, at least we’d have more transparency in school government.
I did not attend the forum, I had to be at home. I am supporting Beth Akeson as well.