This weeks issue of the Falls News was a good one. I’m going to start with the letters to the editor. I swore I heard the dueling banjo song in the background as I read them. This was the best one.
Then there was Shame, shame, who’s to blame? That was the title of an administrative presentation in Columbus in 2007, wasn’t it? But who’s to blame for what? The letter writer wants you to focus on buildings closing first and foremost. Keep in mind grade level configuration was something she supported her first two years in office. The academic benefits would make a profound impact on a majority of children in our district. It would also level the playing field between various “neighborhood schools” in class size and spending inequities. This is where the focus should be. It seems the board president is willing to accept a simple “it wont work” rather than look at research based evidence that says it will.
There are several problems with the superintendents “three page report”. First, there is no data to back what the administration is saying. In my opinion this is because the facts that I presented cannot be refuted on paper. Secondly, it is filled with misleading numbers and misinformation, There was NOT a “preference for neighborhood schools” according to the survey the district paid for. In fact 71% thought we either should reconfigure or take a look at reconfiguration. Only 30% thought we should keep doing like we’ve done since the 1800’s.
As for “socialization issues”, well a majority of Summit County school districts are grade-level configured. I wonder how screwed up all those kids are? The ones in Hudson seem out of control with all their drop outs and low test scores. Oddly enough the “issues” seem to be in the neighborhood school buildings. There are only three districts in Summit County that have neighborhood schools- Akron, Barberton and Cuyahoga Falls. Those three are in the bottom 6 performers in all of Summit County. In reality Hudson, which is configured almost exactly as I suggested for CF, is number 1 in performance.
I have been told several times that 8-10 busses will be needed. I have shown on paper in black and white (actually in color) that 4 busses are needed using numbers directly from district employees. I’ve asked how they have come up with 8-10 busses. As Ms. Peabody always said, just the answer will not suffice; I need to see your work. Because when this number was originally thrown out there, I was in the room. I happened like this: Um, it looks like we’d need 8 or 10 more busses to bus that many more kids.
As I’ve shown on paper many times, it may look or seem like a lot of things, but research and data frequently show otherwise.
And one outright falsehood is that we "would lose an estimated $2,621,104 in state and local revenue by canceling and closing open enrollment." We would lose no local money by eliminating open enrollment. Open enrolled children do not bring local dollars with them. The truth is, the actual dollar amount CF would lose by eliminating open enrollment is about a half million dollars. On top of that, what he doesn’t want to tell you is this: We spend $212,000 per year of our local dollars on out of district children in one building alone. The state money these kids bring only covers 2/3’s of the cost to educate them. The tax payers of CF support six additional classrooms in this building due to open enrollment. This what the board president should have complained about a lack of coverage on. Why won’t the Falls News report on these atrocities against the taxpayers of Cuyahoga Falls? This district spends less on its own kids than it does on an open enrolled child from Akron. That’s news the community should know.
The last article explains why there is no data to back the assertions that my proposal is “unrealistic”. There is only so much time in the day. While working on this funding plan, the superintendent suggested that the board reuse envelopes to save the district money.
Who is being unrealistic?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Voters and taxpayers should remember where the majority of board members live and that they have fought with their neighbors against reconfiguration. They don't care about the spending inequities or unequal class sizes because it benefits their children. They claim the don't want to "disenfranchise" anyone by making major changes but don't forget it was perfectly OK to disenfranchise almost half of Cuyahoga Falls students just a little over 5 years ago.
Now this same majority is going to ask for a new levy to continue to support this unbalanced system. Neighborhood schools are great idea that Cuyahoga Falls and especially Silver Lake do not have the students to support any longer.
In this time of rising expenses and growing job losses, does it really make sense for the tax payers of Cuyahoga Falls to pay for this system that isn't serving our children fairly?
Do you have an estimate on the amount of time these students will be on the busses? 43 to 50 kids.....It looks like some of these kids will be on the bus for an hour.
What can gas prices go up to before your plan starts to cost the district money? How much mileage will be put on the busses each year causing maintenance expenses? I'd personally rather drive my child to school instead of paying for another levy.
What about the busses needed for field trips and after school activities? Are there enough busses in your plan to accomodate all of the needs of the district? I apologize if you have already answered these questions.
Post a Comment