WE Blog

We are graduating students that do not have any training for jobs that the majority will be entering into.
They want to spend money on fine arts and athletics how many graduates go into either of these fields. This shows the total lack of intellectual ability in the use of our tax dollars for education.
We need to train people for the job market as well as college.

Put this date on your calendar now!

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Plan to get out and vote that day. Don’t let a few make a decision that will effect everyone.

Ben, Is your money well spent? United Spending District 259 doesn’t have a good track record. You know I am one the biggest advocates for education. Would prefer discussing this topic than most. But I won’t vote to give people more when they can’t spend what they have responsibly.

While I think USD 259 was responsible in the way it spent the proceeds from the last bond issue, there are many questions concerning how the basic state funding is spent, thus the apprehension of the voters.

Ben, my take on the upcoming bond issue vote is the same as yours. Putting aside for a moment the general feeling of most of us that we don’t want our taxes raised regardless, there are some other reasons I think it will fail. First, the question of spending to improve fine arts facilities and athletic facilities doesn’t resonate well with the majority of voters. These improvements are perceived as being of benefit to a small part of the general student population. Next is the perception that the district has failed in meeting its assertions that better facilities would lead to better academic performance, made in support of the 2000 bond issue. Most folks, I believe, look at improved academic performance through the prism of better state assessment scores, which, while improving a bit at the elementary level, haven’t done too well overall. Third, a feeling that some of the bond money went for “luxuries”, for example, air conditioning the buildings. While I believe this was a good thing, not all agree.

If the district was to concentrate on building additional classroom space, together with redrawing attendance lines where appropriate, such that a real need for the additional space could be shown across the district, there might be more support. However, in the priority list, the additional space for classrooms is below both improving fine arts and athletic facilities.

I’ve posted many times about my volunteering at NEMHS. That building, and the programs within it, would benefit from additional capital funding to enlarge the library or replace it with a larger area; enlarge the auditorium (currently, it is too small to hold an all school assembly within it); creating some additional classrooms, either by building new ones or by renovation of the current library area should a new library be built, to alleviate the overcrowding of the rooms now there; renovation of two classrooms into art studios (after all, there is an art magnet program there; should there not be studio space?); and replacement of inefficient windows with more efficient windows to realize some savings of utility costs, now that the building has efficient boilers and air conditioning. I’m sure that those who are involved with other schools can make similar arguments. However, the needs of NEMHS do not fit nicely within the priority list of the district.

I also concede the need to build new middle and high schools on the East side, as well as to either build new or enlarge existing elementary buildings in the AAA, due to the plan to end busing. Again, while listed as needed within the plan, these are not the top priorities.

As to athletic facilities; has the time come for centralized facilities, without each building having its own? I’d be more favorably disposed to the current proposal if that was a part of it, rather than the building/enlarging facilities at the several buildings (middle school as well as high school). I’m aware of the argument that some facilities are not safe for physical ed; if this is true, then “bare bones” phys ed facilities need to be considered at these locations, without the seating, lighting, etc., needed to hold athletic contests there.

I will vote in favor. All of my children are out of the District now and my grandchildren have yet to enter. The facilities where I work are excellent, but many of the buildings in the District are “well worn” to put it nicely.

My parents always taught me that there is always a cost attached to things that matter, like schools. I will gladly pay the additional mil levy for the new Bond Issue.

I’m not optimistic about the outcome of the election myself, but one never knows.

Ben, agree; the proposal, as I understand it, is to build/renovate the existing facilities at each site so “competitive” may happen at each. That’s my problem.

One thing that differentiates, a bit, the fine arts proposal from the athletic facility proposal. The students have the opportunity to enroll in classes which take advantage of the fine arts facilities, such as drama classes, band classes, vocal music classes, while in the “competitive” athletic realm, only a small number of students benefit therefrom. If the fine arts proposals are merely to allow more folks to attend plays, musicals, etc., then I have the same problem with this as I do with the athletic facility proposal.

“They want to spend money on fine arts and athletics how many graduates go into either of these fields. This shows the total lack of intellectual ability in the use of our tax dollars for education.”
SSITL
Posted February 18, 2008 at 6:14 am | Permalink

Here is ignorance at it’s best. Fine arts is proven to help develop the critical thinking skills needed for all other areas of life. In instrumental music yoyou use visual, aural and kinestetic skills, all at the same time. Think about it.
Atheletics keeps kids in school who may not otherwise be motivated. Kids keep their grades up so they are eligible to play for the team, or perform with their fine arts groups. Not to mention the team work building skills that are learned are so important in todays market place.

SSITL’s comment is one of someone who truly does not understand education.

linda

A little correction to your post: The “administration” does not decide what is taught and when, it is the “Department of Learning Services” who makes that decision. I am in NO WAY defending these decisions, but the fact is that in many of our schools there are students with a high degree of mobility. Most teachers dislike these “pacing guides” and many simply ignore them and just teach to the state and national standards.

In reality, these issues have little or no bearing on the bond issue. The primary purpose is to build new facilities and expand where needed. I suppose the athletic facilities need renovated and up-graded. Sports are the “hook” for many students to stay in school and excel. It has always been that way. The Fine Arts component of the bond issue is extremely important. Study after study show how complementary the Fine Arts are to the Core Classes. However, I don’t think we as voters get to “pick and choose” what parts of the bond issue we vote for. That is what the BOE was elected to do.

Apophis, you and I are in agreement on much of what you say as well. Yes, we don’t get to “pick and choose”. However, should not we as voters have some way to at least suggest to the BOE to consider alternatives to the sports plan?

Many of the buildings within the district are indeed “well worn”, to repeat your polite phrase. I’ve no problems with renovation or replacing these facilities, so long as the same benefit the greatest number of students.

Apophis,

Thank you for your input. I always appreciate your excellent input.

What is the difference in “the administration” and “Department of Learning Services”?

I live between two elementary schools (less than four blocks from either!) and one has been identified in a recent newspaper article as having a lower population than capacity. I don’t know about the other, but would like to know. I can walk to either school without ever getting out of neighborhood streets. Now, at some time in the past, the population of this area must have indicated those two schools so close together were needed. And, maybe they still are. Maybe they are needed for separate rather than duplicated services.

btw, I can walk five blocks to yet another elementary although it does require crossing a busy street. Three elementary schools within FIVE BLOCKS and one for sure not full.

Are we using current bldgs. in the most efficient ways?

Again, it isn’t the money! It’s that I don’t trust the people who spend the money.

Good points linda. I think we can make good use of ’short-distance’ bussing to better utilyze existing facilities. Also, if we could manage to create a decent public transportation system use that for higher grades and magnets.

VT

I don’t have a problem with looking at alternatives to the Athletic facilities issue. I think the facilities committee sought to “get something for everyone”. If the election fails, I see the sports component as main issue to voters.

linda

Administration is just that: Building level; Principals and Asst. Principals, District Level; Asst. Superintendents and Superintendent.

“Learning Services” is actually under Denise Seguine, the District’s “Chief Academic Officer”. I don’t want to go into depth about this component of the district, as a have a distinct bias. Some of us think THIS is the area that is extremely bloated. Many in this department are “kool-aid drinkers”, if you get my drift. But again, this has NOTHING to do with bond issue because the bond dollars cannot be used for salaries or programs, only facilities.

Ah, decent public transportation. Another of my favorite subjects.

Thank you, Apophis. I was using the wrong term. We don’t disagree here. I appreciate the correction.

Regular, I’m sure Apophis and others will chime in if my observations on this are incorrect, but the 2000 bond issue, as large as it was, was severely pared down before being presented to the voters. IIRC, if all projects which were identified to the BOE as being necessary/desirable had been approved, the principal amount of the 2000 bond issue would have been in the $450 – $500 million range.

Some of the identified priorities in the proposed bond issue are hold overs from 2000. Some are new (the new school buildings, e.g.). Apophis is correct in the assertion that the committee tried to give something to everyone in this latest proposal.

One other thing; the proposal has certain priorities identified within it; fine arts facility improvement is number one, then athletic facility improvement is number two; I’m not looking at the list right now, so cannot present the remainder in the order given.

Apophis, thank you for the links.

BTW, I’m not trying to micromanage anything, just stating my concerns.

Apophis, yes, the mill levy increase will actually be less than that of the 2000 bond issue; but, in the eyes of many, the fact that it will be in addition to the 2000 increase is reason enough to vote against it. Construction costs certainly do increase, and this increase is very apparent in the proposal (from $90 sq. ft. to $140 sq. ft.). I’m also led to believe that in the case of the fine arts and athletic improvements, at least insofar as the indoor athletic and auditorium facilities are concerned, these are among the most expensive spaces to be constructed, should the bond issue pass.

Again, I’m for the new classrooms, etc., but question the athletic facility and to a lesser extent the fine arts facility pieces of the proposal, which constitute a considerable proportion of the entirety.

I also will read the proposal in its entirety. Thanks for the links.

I do understand the bond issue will specify exactly how that money may be spent.

Wish I had some trust or confidence in how all the other dollars are being spent and the value our children receive from the spending.

Linda, I wasn’t addressing you in my prior post, as I understood your discomfort was coming from another area, but was trying to clarify for those who might not know how bond funds are segregated and used.

On the use of private/other public facilities in the fine arts area, I’m aware that there have been some inquiries made along those lines. There are some problems with this, including transportation, and fees to be paid, etc.

I know Vaughn. You and I have “talked” education many times. I know we are both advocates of education and of children who are our future.

These threads don’t attract many posters or much attention. Do you think that is an indication few will vote, that few will be well informed when they vote, both? Maybe it means it’s a subject they want to read about, be well-informed of before casting their vote, but not discuss?

I do like these threads where people are allowed to discuss without criticism. When posters are free to think aloud, ask questions, toss around ideas, express their opinions we get stuff that is interesting and thought provoking.

Please don’t try to persuade the voters.

Provide us all the factual information, the good and bad, and let me decide to vote NO all on my own using my God given mind.

To persuade me, indicates I am not capable of making a decision on my own with my own free will. It also sounds like you are trying to sell me some swamp land in Florida.