Public schools
Public schools can be compared to businesses. They're like corporations that manufacture products for specialized markets.
School boards are like boards of directors of corporations. School superintendents are like corporate CEOs. Teachers are like corporate employees. The product public schools "manufacture" is education.
Corporations' owners are their stockholders. They pay money to own shares in corporations'.
Taxpayers pay for schools in their communities and so one could say that taxpayers "own" the schools. Some but not all taxpayers also use schools' product, education for their children.
Because taxpayers in communities invest so much in public schools, they have an enormous financial stake in what happens there, just as stockholders have a financial stake in what happens in corporations.
Usually corporations are honest with stockholders and treat them well. Usually the relationship between corporations and stockholders is good. The same is true of public schools.
The comparison is apt. Taking the analogy a bit further, one could argue that D46 resembles corporate America in other ways as well.
Corporate CEOs and boards of directors sometimes don't treat stockholders well, and sometimes do things that are unethical, misguided, and sometimes even illegal.
Boards of directors of corporations sometimes do not prevent CEOs from taking actions that lead to abuses of stockholders that finally come to the attention of the law, the media, and the public. This, too, is an apt analogy.
The laws of Illinois do not prevent some taxpayers being deceived and abused by the managers of some schools that are paid for and, it can be argued, owned by taxpayers, and those managers cannot be called to account legally.
The managers of some public schools, like managers of some corporations, sometimes misappropriate monies of taxpayers for projects that do not improve education, that are inappropriate, or that are wasteful. Sometimes they do things secretly that should be done in the open. Sometimes they withhold information. Sometimes they deceive.
The managers of some schools, like the managers of some corporations, sometimes abuse the trust of taxpayers so often and so blatantly that the good relationship that is necessary between school and community is damaged beyond repair.
What has happened on the "watch" of the present school board and superintendent in district 46 has affected the education of children as well as the school's relationship with the communities it serves and its relationship with the schools owners, who are the district's taxpayers.
Monies that could have been spent on education have been mismanaged and wasted. Examples abound.
By losing focus on education and curriculum the school has lost and continues to lose students to private schools and homeschooling . Student test scores are down.
Some say that the school is over-administered. Excess administration means less money for classrooms. But a new school and lots of administrative staff enhance the superintendent's importance and salary.
The school board "sold" taxpayers a new building and expansion of the existing building on the basis that they were designed for expansion.
Now they claim that the expansion isn't feasible, but is that true? Can't the expansion be made to work so that more focus and money can be devoted to improving education?
At this time the majority of development in the district is on hold. Still, the board and superintednent purchased overpriced acres that may not be suitable for a new school, even if one were needed or feasible now.
Though voters have made clear their disagreement about a new school at this time, the board wants voters to support high interest bond purchases when there are no balancing impact fees to offset the costs (because development is on hold).
School census is not growing, yet the board and superintendent ordered unneeded, over aged mobile classrooms.
And with election looming and voter anger evident, the school board secretly renewed the superintendent's contract over a year early.
Yes, there's more than enough evidence that the D46 board and superintendent have behaved badly, like some corporate CEOs and boards of directors.
But there's hope.
When 66% of voters demonstrate in two separate elections that they have lost confidence in the management of their school, the writing is on the wall.
Public schools are not sacrosanct, nor are they the property of the few who work in them, but literally belong to the people who live in the districts...every taxpayer, whether all taxpayers use them or not. If schools want to benefit from their state mandate to put their hands into our pockets they have to answer for their actions.
On April 17 the voters of district 46 will decide whether they are satisfied with the performance of their employees, who are the managers of Prairie Grove school.
Please exercise your right to tell the D46 school board and superintendent what you think - please vote.
Sharon Rogowski
Candidate for D46 School Board
-Restore Fiscal Responsibility
-Focus on Education
-Restore Public Trust
-Use Finite Resources Wisely
-Plan Intelligently For Growth
-School and Communities Must Work Together
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Letter from Candidate - Sharon Rogowski
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Sharon, I know many that are behind you. As a citizen and taxpayer, my experience as an owner of the school has been very similar to that of an Enron shareholder. It is not too late! I am excited about you being a candidate...we are counting on you to join Charlotte Kramer, and get this mess cleaned up!
Please continue this blog if you are elected. Let the people know what is happening even if the administration won't.
sharon...what is your background?
why were the 3 "great" candidates....Rand, Etling and Rogowski...NOT at the school forum?
Sharon, you offer an alternative that is very necessary. I am glad you see the connections between fiscal mismanagement and shortchanging the children. At the very least, the current board's obsession with new developments have led them to ignore the education issues in the school. They have shown a disregard for the interests of the taxpayers along the way. Good luck in your campaign. Many of my neighbors and I support you.
Dear Anonymous said: Why were there only 30 people at the "school forum"? Over half of the 30 were on the payroll for District 46, just like the task force (Delphi Technique). That means about 15 "residents" were there. Most of the 15 residents were PTO members that booed when a statement was read from a non-attending candidate. I guess the PTO members have made their minds up already? Why did the taxpayers not show? And, why did the candidates not show? Could it have anything to do with the manner that open meeting have been conducted historically by the school board? The school lost all credibility to hold a public meeting when they elected to use the Delphi technique on citizens with the task force. Also, do not forget the “open” forums held by the school board when they were trying to pass referendums…yes, maybe you recall, the open forums where there was no “real” open dialogue. Where each statement by a taxpayer was carefully timed to limit input and questions that were raised were not actually answered by board members who waited to the end to make brief statements on a few selected issues that they deemed “safe”. It is now wonder that no one attended the school board’s forum. Residents, and viable candidates, are no doubt avoiding the feeling of emptiness that results from a school board “open” forum, the feeling that no new information that was presented was really worthwhile and that no-one really cares. The feeling that the board members really weren’t that interested in listening to citizens regardless of how important the issues are to taxpayers. Are you really surprised that anyone attended? I am surprised that 15 people were there, that is a superb turnout given the school board’s record for conducting “open” forums.
Dear Anonymous said: You are asking about Sharon’s background. Would you know anything about Domoto or Bowman that will give us all a “background” on how they have performed as board members? I am sure that Domoto’s and Bowman’s brag sheet would include stealing from taxpayers on the 2002 referendum, until they got caught. Or, how about how they purchased land for a new school after taxpayers said “NO” to the purchase (2:1 margin for “No New Land”). Of course, they must be proud how they found the loophole financing method that prevented taxpayers from “veteoing” there $4 million dollar land purchase of power line shaded land unfit to put a school under. Maybe they would also brag about how academic performance at the school has declined since they took office….or, how they increased spending by over 100% in 5 years when the enrollment in students stayed flat. There background as a board member is certainly stellar.
Anon 1 4/7/07 2:39pm
Thank you, Anonymous, for the support. You are right, it is not too late, and never is, when good people recognize that something must be corrected. You too are helping to do that by providing comment and insight, and I hope that no matter who is elected that you will continue to offer comments, especially if you believe that the board that is elected may not understand what voters and taxpayers want.
I would like to see the most open process possible and hope that the owners of the school will participate so that the right things will beging to happen. Voters and taxpayers know what those things are, and the board must listen to them.
Voters will decide what they want to happen when they vote. In the aftermath, the new board, whoever is elected, will need -- and I hope they will welcome -- lots of direction from the communities. Only in that way can a new board know if they are on the right track. Please continue to blog here. SharonR
Educationmatters 4/7/07 7:02pm
Thank you, Educationmatters, I so agree with you. I have just discovered the blog and believe that it has provided much wise feedback and illumination of issues that have brought the D46 communities to this hopeful place, an election that looks like it may provide change. It only takes a few sharing their knowledge with others to make a difference. You are one of those and I hope that after the election you'll continue to offer guidance to the board. And I hope they will appreciate that and find it educational and helpful. SharonR
Anon 2 4/7/07 9:40pm
Thank you, Anon 2, for asking that question. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "background" but I've lived in D4 since March 1, 1978 and have watched developments of the last few years with a sinking heart.
Until recently I was not in a position to devote time to the school district but am lucky now to be able to do so.
Please do not assume that I believe I know all the facts or that I believe that I have answers to all questions -- I certainly don't...yet...and may not ever have them all -- but I have time and energy to devote to helping to improve education for D-46 children, to helping develop a workable plan addressing community growth, and to insuring the wise use of every tax dollar, and I'm determined to see that those things happen.
Please continue to offer comments and ask questions here, because whoever is elected to the school board should find it enlightening to understand what voters and taxpayers are thinking, and what problems the folks perceive. I think there has been to little communication previously and I hope that won't happen again. SharonR
Anon 3 4/7/07 9:46pm
Hmmmmm Anon 3, if you had been at the forum yourself you would have heard the announcement that I could not be present because of a family birthday. I cannot speak for Ms. Rand or Mr. Etling, please ask them yourself.
I notice your use of the adjective "great" -- your words, not mine, and in quotes, so I don't know if you are quoting someone else or if you believe you are quoting me (you are NOT quoting me, never have I said or thought any such thing) and I don't know what your agenda is.
If you care to ask serious questions or to comment about the problems that plague D-46, I believe that you have opinions, comments, and analyses that could enlighten and infom. I hope that you will participate in the building of a remarkable educational environment for district children by continuing to blog here. SharonR
Anon 4 4/8/07 6:29 a.m.
Ahh, Anon 4, an early riser I see! Me too.
Thank you for blogging here, and thank you for acknowledging that an alternative is what you want. I hope that you represent the opinion of many others, because taxpayers in D-46 deserve better than they have now. If we all move forward together we can accomplish the restoration of trust between community and school, the elevation of education and curriculum, and can change the whole management environment of the schools. Only voters can decide whether that will happen, and I'm hopeful.
Thank you for your support, I appreciate it. Please let your neighbors know that their hopes for the school are mine, too. I believe we can accomplish everything we want, though maybe not in one week, one month, one year, or even five years, but we can quickly begin to move toward long term goals whose accomplishment will produce a district that we can all be proud of and excited about. Please continue to blog here to provide direction and feedback to the new board, whoever they may be. SharonR
JohnQCitizen April8,2007 5:09pm
Thank you, JQC, for your spirited defense.
I appreciate all of your enlightening comments about open meetings at the school. I believe there may be others who feel the same as you. I hope they will comment here too.
If you check my replies to Anonymous, you'll see that I answered his/her question. I hope that there will be no more such questions because every candidate was free to attend or not, though some were strongly urged by LWV representative Szilak to do so, to the point that some felt threatened and abused.
However, the forum is over and no harm was done because some candidates weren't able to attend.
Let's all move on to more important issues such as the restoration of trust between the school and the communities and the reconstruction of curriculum and education. Nothing could be more urgent, and the time is now.
Please urge friends and neighbors who have concerns about D-46 to vote. Low voter turnout is our enemy.
Thank you again for blogging here, please continue after the election to keep the board informed about your opinions of the job they are doing. SharonR
NotConfusedTaxpayer April 8, 2007 5:25 PM
Thank you, NCT, for your defense in the face of the question about my background. If you check my replies you will see that I tried to satisfy Anoymous regarding my qualifications. I hope he/she is satisfied by the fact that I've been a district resident for almost 30 years and so have a grasp of the history of the district before AND after these problems.
I hope that no matter who is elected to the school board on April 17 that you will continue blogging because the board will need your insights, opinions, and comments in order to fulfill their implied contract to manage the schools honestly and in the best interests of the community.
I believe that all who are in charge now believe they have had the best interests of the district at heart, but somehow they have not heard the voice of voters of taxpayers. I honor them for their effort, but now perhaps it's time for new thinking and new management.
Please let friends and neighbors who have epxressed concerns about the school know that only a good voter turnout on April 17 will change things. SharonR
Back to the "booing"... Is it me or does it seem CRAZY that the 15 parents mentioned earlier "booing" when a statement was read by by Rand Rogowski Etling pact seem like what kind of role model we would set for our children. I know I would never drop to this level . After all the ROAR credo that "we are trying to instill in our children" might as well be burned in the parking lot if this is how parents behave. If I am not mistaken. It sounds to me that the "debate" is nothing but a setup from the school.
I am voting for Rand Rogowski and Etling and after talking with neighbors and friends in my area it seems many other feel the same way.
I strongly feel RAND ROGOWSKI AND ETLING need to be in place in order to halt the a school board out of control.
Thank you, Zissou, for your support and for your defense.
Please continue to blog after the election so that the members of D-46 school board can better understand the needs and desires of voters, taxpayers, and "consumers" of the school product - education. All managers need to be made accountable for their actions, no matter whether they are hired or elected, but perhaps elected officials have a special obligation to "hear" their consituents.
I don't see the incumbents' names and info here, or any indication that they are interested in "hearing" what you or anyone outside their circle of supporters have to say, which is a sad comment on the state of things in D-46.
Please urge your friends and neighbors to vote on the 17th if they haven't already availed themselves of early voting. Every vote will be important in this election.
SharonR
I've just read the story in the Northwest Herald this morning which begins:
D-46 candidates explain their absence
By NICK SWEDBERG - nswedberg@nwherald.com
Comments (10)
PRAIRIE GROVE – A slate of candidates vying for three open District 46 school board seats refused to attend a voter forum last week because they said they would have been attacked with questions.
The reporter talked to me several times about why I was not at the school forum. Each time I reminded him that I had told him previously that a family birthday fell on April 3 and that I had written a letter to the sponsor of the event to say I could not attend for that reason. The sponsor said that she would inform those in attendance of that. Whether she did or not is a matter out of my control.
In stating that "A slate of candidates vying for three open District 46 school board seats refused to attend a voter forum last week because they said they would have been attacked with questions" is incorrect, and I am disappointed that Mr. Swedberg chose not to print what was true. He did himself and readers of the Herald a disservice, and he shows himself as forgetful at best, dishonest at worst.
It is completely false and misleading to state that I "refused to attend" the voter forum, or to state that I said at any time that I "would have been attacked with questions".
Sharon Rogowski
One-Taxpayer wrote on April 12, 2007 7:40 AM:
"I think the attacks here prove out what Mr. Ettling is saying. Whether or not Ms. Rand is an acquaintance, neighbor, or friend of Mr. Breseman or whether Mr. Ettling knows Ms. Kremer, who cares? They are not "controlled" by Mr. Breseman, as this all implies. I don't see how Mr. Breseman and the PG village can control anything with the district. He/They are not the majority in the community. Each of these people running have put forth their own reasons for running on www.district46.org. They have published their positions. The fact they skipped a public forum attended by only 33 people, over half of which were adminstrators and staff--some of whom don't even live in the district--, is of little consequence. These candidates still are putting forth their views so voters can decide. They have invited people to communicate with them via the blog and have answered questions on the blog so all can see. It would be great is all six candidates were equally accessible on an ongoing basis, not just in one meeting run by the League of Women Voters. "
hubertus wrote on April 12, 2007 7:47 AM:
"Domoto and Bowman need to run on their record, not the attendance grade that the other candiates received for not attending a meeting that they felt put them into an unfair setting. By the way, the "cry" of not allowing the public a chance to answer questions is a hollow and bogus one. After deducting the school teachers, board members, YES supporters that are on the PTO, school employees, and a handful of people that opposed the last two referenda, there were less than 5 people in the "crowd" with an unknown position at the forum mentioned above. Domoto and Bowman: Is that all you have to run on after serving on the school board for so many years? The article failed to mention that the biased part of the crowd even booed when a letter from Ms. Rand was read...can you spell "hostility". What is very curious? The real important issues of this campaign... the school board's overt actions in defiance of taxpayers, is not being addressed by Bowman and Domoto.
Fox River Observer wrote on April 12, 2007 8:08 AM:
"Hubertus, you are dead on correct...the people that have interest in District 46 need to "smell the coffee". This is not a typical, run of the mill neighborhood election focused on popularity. Our district is faced with a critical situation, its school board is spending $$ millions in defiance of demonstrated tapayer/voter interest. The defiance and spending issues are not manufactured issues, they are a matter of public record. So, focuding on meeting attendance and potential friendships between candidates is most certainly trivial in this race, this school board has aggressively spent money in spite of overwhelming opposition from the community. By the way, this school board has done nothing to further academics at the school. No wonder Domoto and Bowman do not answer these questions. A corrupt school board needs to stay in power to keep the facts and underlying motives from being surfaced....and trying to focus the public on these trivial matters is about all they can do. Domoto and Bowman must be held accountable for what they do, and not there favorite statement "it is for the children". "
Lulu wrote on April 12, 2007 8:23 AM:
"Too bad there was no NWH reporter attending the candidates forum either; shows that even the paper did not consider this an event of importance. However, if the reporter would have been there, he/she surely would have included the hateful 'no's and 'boo's when Rand's statement was read in this article. Hard to write a story on hearsay."
Lulu wrote on April 12, 2007 8:27 AM:
"By the way, it does not seem to bother anyone that Linda Rokosik, running with the incumbents, did not attend the NWH's candidates interview. Where can we find out what she stands for? "
hubertus wrote on April 12, 2007 8:33 AM:
"The music of this blog goes silent when the incumbent candidates' track records are the focus of conversation. Domoto and Bowman are accountable for their actions as board members. The have defiantly acted against the wishes of taxpayers in this community. The school performance in educating our children is abysmal. What can they really say?...they did not really mean to vote to over-levy tax payers and bilk them of millions? They really didn't mean it when the saluted the public with a large middle finger and purchased the over-priced land 2 months after two failed referenda clearly said no? This is not a controversial election at all...everyone needs to vote. The only people that rant for Domoto and Bowman either do not understand what they have really done, or have a vested interest in what they have done. We need change...we need Rand, Etling and Rogowski. It really is a simple situation "
Fox River Observer wrote on April 12, 2007 9:05 AM:
"Hubertus, again, your point rings true. The RTA, and Margaret Ponga's RTA style letter, the arguments on this blog about meeting attendance, friendships, coflicts of interest, and "for the children" slogans....are all missing the point. Domoto and Bowman are accountable for their actions, and their scorecard is a matter of public record. Have they voted to over-tax the public and conceal this action...YES. Have they defied the publics direction via referenda NOT to purchase over-priced land... YES. Here is another finger that points to the corrupted nature of this school board...the company that issued the debt certificates made a lot of money. Did the school board require them to provide a competitive bid? Did the the school board ask for other competitive bids to ensure the community got the best price? NO. In fact, the company that issues the debt certificates made well in excess of $10,000, the level of expenditure that requires competitive bids. Domoto and Bowman should answer this question. "
Fox River Observer wrote on April 12, 2007 9:07 AM:
"Domoto and Bowman need to answer the question...why did they award the opportunity to issue debt certificates to a company that was not required to sbubmit a competitive bid???? Can you spell CORRUPTION?"
hubertus wrote on April 12, 2007 9:18 AM:
"Corruption, not "meeting attendance", is the real issue of this school board election. No competitive bid??? Is Al Capone still vacationing in Crystal Lake?"
Fox River Observer wrote on April 12, 2007 9:27 AM:
"Laura Domoto brags about her dedication to school board training as a reason to re-elect her...I wonder if here training taught her to cover up graft and corruption...I am sure the training taught her about how to use the ole "my basement flooded" trick when trying to stall the public's questions on Mary Fasbender's illegal contract extension. "
It's for the Children! wrote on April 12, 2007 6:19 AM:
"Watch out D-46!!! Big red flag here! Any candidate unwilling to testify before such a noble inquisition that has gone so far out of its way to "appear" neutral MUST be A) an Anti-Tax-and-Spend-Addict and, B) Budget Conscious. Time to throw those bums off the ballot. Seek an Emergency Injunction. Do whatever it takes! Learn from us over here in D-200, we handpick each candidate to both the City Council and the School Board. Unless you are a proven a Tax-'em-till-they-cry candidate and pre-approved by our comrades in the State Teachers Union, you are NOT permitted to run. Period. No exceptions. Note how 100% of our City Council and 100% of our School Board backed the largest school tax hike in McHenry County history last year!! Zero dissention was permitted. None. Everyone on the City Council and on the School Board got in line and did as they were told by the Union (even though our "projections" of school growth/funds-needed (ha ha) made even Tony Soprano blush! - until he heard his competition got a fat, juicy no-bid contract related to our Taj Mahal new high school and the other grandiose new and wonderfully expensive schools, then he got green with envy!) So, D-46 comrades, learn from us masters over here in D-200: You're either "in la famiglia," or you're off the ballot! C'mon, its For the Children!"
hubertus wrote on April 12, 2007 7:37 AM:
"More unanswered candidate questions: I am curious to understand why Mary Fasbenders contract extension was not properly disclosed on the public meeting agenda? Further, what has Mary done specifically to improve the educational results for our children? How well has she performed on uniting the community to support D46 schools?" "
One-Taxpayer wrote on April 12, 2007 7:40 AM:
"I think the attacks here prove out what Mr. Ettling is saying. Whether or not Ms. Rand is an acquaintance, neighbor, or friend of Mr. Breseman or whether Mr. Ettling knows Ms. Kremer, who cares? They are not "controlled" by Mr. Breseman, as this all implies. I don't see how Mr. Breseman and the PG village can control anything with the district. He/They are not the majority in the community. Each of these people running have put forth their own reasons for running on www.district46.org. They have published their positions. The fact they skipped a public forum attended by only 33 people, over half of which were adminstrators and staff--some of whom don't even live in the district--, is of little consequence. These candidates still are putting forth their views so voters can decide. They have invited people to communicate with them via the blog and have answered questions on the blog so all can see. It would be great is all six candidates were equally accessible on an ongoing basis, not just in one meeting run by the League of Women Voters. "
EDUCATION FUNDS FOR EDUCATION ONLY
Not too many people mention this issue, though many cite monies misspent.
Each misspent education fund dollar means one less dollar in classrooms.
Less dollars in classrooms means just a bit less education for each child. For some children, this is a critical loss.
Children attend D-46 schools for only a short time.
Shortchanging them just a little every year adds up to quite a big of shortchange over the years they attend D-46.
Maybe that's why the "raised" test scores really average only a high D.
Maybe that is why the incumbents and their supporters don't want a change.
Maybe if there's a change, he truth will come out.
Think about it.
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 dgree 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.
Sharon:
It is refreshing in this campaign to see the absence of personal attacks on others as you present the alternatives you represent. Thank you for your clear presentation of where you stand on the issues. You have framed the choice quite well and in a civil tone. I think your professional approach will be an asset to the Board and the community. You have my vote.
Hi, Jim. I'm grateful for your kind comments and for your support. I hope that you will call this essay to the attention of friends and neighbors who may not have seen it, or who have been uncertain about the issues.
I feel that this election is a turning point for the D-46 communities in the sense that where there should be community control, there is none, but there can be.
With three additional votes on the board, we may not solve all problems but we'll take care of some very big ones.
And I want to continue to hear from bloggers because I know that if we begin to stray from where the commnity wants us to be, we will be able to count on all of you to keep us on track.
Thank you so much, you've made my day.
Vote for change.
Rand, Etling, Rogowski
Forward together.
THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!
Post a Comment