Comments from Sharon Rogowski

Several comments on blogs and a letter circulated by Mr. and Mrs. Ponga, who do not know me and as far as I know never have met me, insist that I conspire with PG board president.

This is not so.

Mr. Breseman would tell you himself that I have challenged him numerous times in meetings on numerous issues, that we recognize each other but are not what could be called friends. Though I respect him for his good intentions, I do not subscribe to all of his plans for the village.

I did not vote for Mr. Breseman.

If I am elected I will insist the school board work actively with the communities that comprise D-46, including the village of Prairie Grove, because that is the only way to maintain the relationships that must exist for the school to be able to function its best and to educate children best.

Community rancor, school board secrecy and behind-voters'-backs plays diminish the effectiveness, function, and value of the school. These are problems that trouble the majority of voters, but should trouble all.

The actual education plan must remain with the experts who work at the school. They know best.

At no time have I said, nor would I ever say -- contrary to what Mrs. Bowman and Mrs. DeMoto claim via Mrs. Ponga and others -- that the school is "terrible". The school suffers from managmement that is hurting rather than helping.

I believe probably teachers need more support from mangement. And they certainly need for the communities and the school board to work together in order to provide the support and security they need to teach the children. But this is not happening under the present management.

To reiterate an oft-stated position, I am neither for nor against a new school. I want to keep an open mind and remain neutral so that I hear the opinions of all.

When we moved to Prairie Grove from Oakwood Hills in '85 I assumed that eventually there would have to be some type of improvements to the school. Those were made.

At some point probably there will need to be a new school. Taxpayers feel that this time has not yet arrived, and I agree, but this is an issue that should remain on the table for frequent reassessment, because though growth has slowed down and the issue may not be as urgent right now as it has been in the past, D-46 cannot allow growth to outstrip the ability of the school to serve all of the children.

Where the school should be located is a matter to be decided by the communities. All ideas should be discussed. There should not be a rush to any building, or any plans, or any selection of architects until all ideas have had a fair and open hearing and adequate discussion.

This could take time, and that's why the matter should remain on the table until the communities have agreed what should be done, not under duress and without getting the cart before the horse. Only after community agreement should the discussion turn to actual buildings, architects, and beyond, and that, too, should involve community participation.

During this school board campaign the incumbents have adopted language from me and my fellow candidates. Now they drop "communicate with the public" and other such phrases into conversation, as they did at the Herald candidate forum, and they claim that another referendum is not forthcoming.

But like many declarations of people elected to higher offices than school boards, these phrases are hollow, because during their tenure in office their own actions created the record that is out there for the public to see and judge them by, and for them to defend. Because they are having a hard time defending their record, they enlist kamikazi help from people who accuse the "outsider" candidates of all kinds of "abuses" of the public, such as not attending a school-sponsored forum that never has been held before when the present board members were flying so high with no opposition, and that very much resembles an event adopted only because they found themselves in trouble. Cavalry was called in but the enemy never arrived. They should be grateful they had the whole evening to themselves to expound their positions - gosh, what a gift!

Another accusation is that the vote for change candidates don't know what is good for the school and the children. But apparently the present management doesn't either. The community tells the board what the community thinks about its ideas, but the board doesn't listen, and won't listen in the future, because the only qualifications they tout is the record they are having a hard time defending.

They have alienated the majority of the D-46 community through mismanagement, and they offer no plausible explanation of how they came to do that, nor do they feel compelled to do so from any moral reason, because they don't feel they are wrong. They run on their record, but they need kamikazi defense.

It's no good now to change their language and think they can fool voters.

The present board has arrived where it is by mutual agreement among them, minus one, and if more of the same is what the community wants, I will be content with that.

But if the community doesn't want more of the same, it has to vote them out and take a chance on people who have different viewpoints from the present board. From those viewpoints ideas will take shape over time with feedback and direction from the electorate and the "consumers" of the school "product", education.

Anyone who offers the flash and dash of preconceived and prepackaged notions should cause alarm, not contentment. So beware the comments "what are their ideas", or "what do they know." We know that the school needs and the community deserves better management, and we offer to give up our time and work hard to achieve that goal.

The principles that have been stated by new candidates are out there for all to see. Those of the present board are not. From those principles, or lack thereof, all the rest will follow.

New management of the school would mean that better ideas could emerge, such as spending education money only for education, and such as putting the rancor regarding a new school right now behind us (while always keeping the matter on the table for discussion) in order to focus on the most critical issues such as raising test scores above the high D that is said to be the average now.

"Test scores are up"? Up from what to what? Is that good enough for children of D-46?

If you are satisfied with and want to maintain the status quo, then I will be satisfied with that, but I feel certain that things can be better.

Vote for change, or vote for status quo. The choice is yours.

The new candidates who have gone out on a limb to be concerned about whether or not the tax dollars the D-46 community provides to the school might be better spent on education, and who canvassed for signatures (in my case in minus 15 degree cold) to get on the ballot, and are campaigning now will either be accepted or rejected, and no questions asked.

But all of the people who are complaining about the fact that all three live in one community--which could have been any D-46 community--could have canvassed for signatures, could have been on the ballot instead of just sitting at home pointing fingers at others who did what they failed to do.

They are the chorus of doom that would keep things as they are.

If you want change, please know, and let it be known, that change is possible only through community participation in something other than the status quo.

Vote for change. Vote for Rand, Rogowski, and Etling.

Forward together.