This past Mondays (7/21) school board meeting was another in a continuing saga of board decisions that defy the notion that the boards members are intended to be public servants. Suffice it to say (with the exception of Veronica Noland), they held true to their personal biases and completely ignored the opinions and pleas of those parents/taxpayers who attended. 35 people spoke about the EMSA charter school proposal that was before the board for approval - the first person opposed the charter, while the following 34 people stated their strong support. I would offer that there could have been 500, 1000, or more people speaking in favor of this proposal, and this board would not have changed their opinions. Their opinions were set before the comments were offered, as exemplified by the prepared notes/statements from which Kerber, Shroder, Bidelman, and Ellis were reading. It appeared as though their only thoughts generated that evening were not for understanding, but to convince the ill-informed public as to why they (the public) were wrong. Both Kerber and Ellis felt compelled to share their respective family histories and why those should impress the rest of us and thereby convince us that the charter school is a bad idea! The problem with that (and it was obvious to the proponents) was that their history and the success of their families had NOTHING to do with the purpose of the EMSA. The EMSA is seeking to provide an academic alternative for students who are not thriving in the traditional U-46 environment - whether they are at risk students and/or those whose capacity for learning is not being fully challenged. But Kerber, so consumed with her own bias, closed her comments by asking parents to not pay attention to the numbers (results), but instead to meet the teachers and measure their devotion. Setting aside the audacity of her statement to ignore the results and focus on the effort, I doubt very much if there was anyone in support of the charter that would deny the effort and devotion of most of the districts teachers. But if there are students who are clearly not being motivated to develop further, something must change. Ellis actually identified multiple points in the charter plan that she liked - but supposedly offset what she liked by the fact that she claimed the charter was being made to sound as if it were for Elgin only. But despite what she chose to hear, she knows that it cant be – it has to be available for all students throughout the district. And it should be. Nonetheless, she voted against it, but with an ironic caveat that she believes the district should be moving ahead with the beneficial aspects of the charter that she mentioned and seeking to incorporate them into current practices. The question is, why hasnt it been done already? Bidelman ended her prepared statement by placing fault with those who had a negative view of the district (similar to Kerbers plea to ignore the numbers). She literally implied that the U-46 academic environment would be so much better there wasnt so much public criticism. Shroder was, as always, emotional and flustered in her prepared remarks, and indicated that she went back and forth multiple times in an attempt to make her decision. And in the end, she decided to not support it, citing concern for the financial impact to the district. And even though there is no negative fiscal impact to the district, there was certainly irony in such reasoning from a board that has never missed a chance to increase expenses and taxes. Campos-Moreira, did not appear to have prepared comments, but also voted to not approve the charter. As someone who was appointed by this board, it’s hard to imagine that she would oppose them on a significant issue (she was, after all, appointed by them). Smith, as is normal, had little to say about the issue at hand, but did thank her board for all of their efforts in deliberation. She also added that this decision, like so many others, was very hard. Though the prepared statements and comments of fellow board members seemed to indicate that the charter denial was a foregone conclusion, Smith chose to view that as being “very hard”. No surprise. The only bright spot for this proposal other than the many people who filled most of the auditorium to support the pro-charter speakers was Veronica Noland. She recognized the need, the commitment of the charter team to make this a success, the financial soundness of the plan, and the inability of the district to make meaningful improvements in a timely manner. In digesting the opinions of each of the board members, it was difficult to escape the assumption by the majority’s vote that if it wasn’t created by them (the board), it simply could not be worthwhile. Even Ellis’ concluding remarks that she challenged the board to be quick to find ways to incorporate the benefits identified by the charter team. But again, if that was so evident, why has it not been done? There are likely multiple answers to why it has not been done and, more importantly, why it still will likely not be done. And whether it’s the personal bias of board members, the clearly biased position of the superintendent, the roadblocks of the teacher’s union, or other reasons, it makes little difference – except, of course, for the primary stakeholders of the district - the students, parents, and taxpayers. Voters of the district need to remember this decision (along with numerous other reasons) by Amy Kerber, Traci Ellis, Maria Bidelman, Jennifer Shroder, and Linda Campos-Moreira when the next board election is held next April (2015).
Posted on: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:48:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015