Rob Schmidt/St. Joe Now
Brian Shindorf, assistant director of elementary education for the St. Joseph School District, explains the proposed redistricting of elementary school boundaries that the board of education will vote on Monday night.
Johnny might have to make some new friends next school year. A plan for the redistricting of school boundaries was unveiled during a joint board policy and curriculum, instruction and assessment committee meeting at St. Joseph School District offices Friday afternoon.
The new school boundaries, which need final approval by the board of education Monday evening, would move roughly 1,400 students to different schools next year, said Brian Shindorf, assistant director of elementary education.
He said about 525 students would move due to the closing of Neely and Webster elementary schools for the 2009-2010 school year. Another approximately 925 students would have to move due to redistricting caused by the failure of the school bond and levy issues on April 7.
There are 11,500 students enrolled in the district this year. Substantial growth in the northeast sector of town and overcrowding at Coleman Elementary School also played a role in the reshifting of boundaries.
"It's kind of a counter-clockwise shift," Mr. Shindorf said. "If you will take the city and just put it slightly above Midtown, it really is kind of a counter-clockwise shift down and also a clockwise shift upwards. There are two different shifts that have population."
The issues of transfers will also be discussed and decided upon during Monday night's board meeting, Mr. Shindorf said.
"There are a couple of different issues," he said. "Can we facilitate transfers, kids who are on hardship transfers, and can we facilitate allowing kids who have been through school to remain in sixth grade?"
A group of parents, community members and organizations met with the district boundary committee to give recommendations. The overall goal was to affect as few children as possible, Mr. Shindorf said.
"Probably the biggest point of contention from people who came in and looked at the map and studied what we got was just the fact that it was individual preferences - it was the fact that their child had to move to a new school. They didn't like it and we understand that," Mr. Shindorf said.
Stacey Sample, who has two children at Coleman, was with a group of parents looking at the new boundary map. She wasn't sure if the redistricting would place her children in a different school.
"It affects everybody, no matter if they move or not. It's going to affect all these kids, regardless of if they're staying in the same schools," she said.
The board of education will meet at 5:30 p.m. Monday at district offices located on the upstairs level of the Downtown library at 927 Felix St.
Alonzo Weston can be reached at alonzow@npgco.com.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. We do not review every post or respond to every removal suggestion. Comments that threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin, religion or disability will be removed. Comments containing abusive, vulgar or sexually-oriented language will be removed. Comments that spread rumors or lies will be removed. Please discuss only what has been factually proven. Comments posted in all caps will be removed. Stay on topic! Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatant cutting and pasting is not acceptable. Comments must be kept under 250 words or less. Stjoenews.net moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy. Click here for our full user agreement.
kidsfirst says...
How embarrassing is it to live in a segregated community. These boundaries have always been a joke. The district has done a poor job of assuring the public that the quality of education is high in every building. People who believe that the only way that their students will make it is to go to Coleman or Eugene Field then Bode & then Central are plain wrong. And the District needs to combat these myths. Also the Local Real Estate Association should investigate on the ethics of a few of its members for their recent actions involving this issue
May 9, 2009 at 8:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
it is really a tease to show the photo of the ribbons on the new boundary map. why not share it with the general public? why is it not posted on the sjsd site? did i miss it?
May 9, 2009 at 8:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
kidsfirst, what? How are these boundaries a joke? The district has no power over where folks choose to live. I picked my house in part based on the grade school. I probably paid a little more for that choice. There is no reason why anyone of any color could not live in my neighborhood as long as they can pay for their house.
May 9, 2009 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhoisJohnGalt says...
Heritage, I looked at the website this morning and the old maps are in place. I suspect they will not be changed until the vote is finalized Monday. That said, it would be nice for the NP to publish the proposed boundaries. A couple more days will not make that much a difference I suppose, this is a done deal.
I will bet there will be some Gerrymandering involved. Call me a cynic ..........
May 9, 2009 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
heritage, you are correct, but this is the working map and perhaps the district has not had enough time to get it is a postable form on their website. At least this photo is high enough quality to zoom in. The map on the district site is not (I'm told they will fix that).
May 9, 2009 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
duh, i am SUCH a dolt, i just found a high res link on this article. looking now....
May 9, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
There is absolutely no reason, whatsoever, why other schools in the district can't be Blue Ribbon Schools, just like Coleman and Gene Field. What's the difference? Parental involvement and volunteerism. The teachers at Coleman and Field Elementary are no better than teachers elsewhere in the district. The same goes for the staff and administration. Kids aren't smarter in those areas. I believe it's all down to parental involvement and volunteers. I would like to give kudos to Field Elementary administration, though. Ms. Dishon is an incredible leader for that school, and strives for excellence, and pushes her teachers and staff toward excellence (not that there's a huge push...they're ALL excellent). I'm sure the same could be said about Coleman. It could certainly be said about ALL the schools in the district.
May 9, 2009 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ksmith says...
kidsfirst I totally agree with you. Also, everyone needs to remember the boundaries would have changed with or without the bond and levy. They we closing two schools to build 2 more or not so, they would have had to change boundaries anyways.
May 9, 2009 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
itstimeforchange says...
heritage, there is a picture of it in the paper on a different page, not the one with Mr. Shindorf on it. If you find a link on line, please share.
May 9, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
Link is on this page to the left of the start of the article.
ksmith, the plan was to close FOUR schools and build TWO. Boundaries were going to have to change but not as soon and not as drastic.
May 9, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
http://npgdigital.net/images/schooldi...
May 9, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
itstimeforchange says...
Never mind, need to get coffee, found it...
May 9, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhoisJohnGalt says...
Hey Pops, I marked this day on the calendar! I agree with you. ;) That was well stated.
May 9, 2009 at 10:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Orliandor says...
You're correct, pops. It all comes down to the values parents instill in their kids and their willingness to follow through.
May 9, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
apm, your are correct Jo (and Molly at Coleman) work hard and are excellent administrators with great staffs. They are greatly augmented (as they will tell you) by parents and volunteers that work tirelessly for the success of the school and its kids. What irks me is that some folks seem to believe that because these two schools succeed (not to say they are the only successes in the district) and others do not that these two should be denigrated.
Part of the issue is the measure of success. I am friends with a teacher at Edison. Based on many conversations I would summarize the kids at Edison as falling in two camps. One camp does succeed. The other fails. The best analogy is that these kids start in a hole, a deep hole. The teachers at Edison do a great job of digging them out of that hole. Problem is that the parents (or folks they live with) keep digging the hole deeper.
Some parents do things like not feeding the kids, keeping them up until all hours, not doing homework, drinking/drugging around the kids, beating the kids (not spanking), ignoring their basic needs .... It goes on and on. Teachers can only do so much. I don't mean to single out Edison but that is the at risk school which I have the most familiarity.
May 9, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
Let me amend my comment. The work is tirelessly for the kids. If the kids succeed the school succeeds. A school is only successful if its students are successful.
May 9, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
238er...I'd "AMEN" everything you said. Every school in town, from Neely to Gene Field, have incredible teachers, administration and staff. The students CANNOT, and WILL NOT, succeed, unless the parents are involved and ready to help them.
Someone mentioned kids being "beaten". I don't know about the rest of you folks, but that makes me VERY ANGRY!! If there are parents out there reading this, and you BEAT your kids, shame on you. What I'd LIKE to do is give YOU the beating, and let YOU see how it feels. Oh...and don't worry...I AM very capable of doing it to you, too!! I think there are others in this forum that would agree with me...and help!! Kids don't deserve that sort of treatment, but abusive parents DO!! At least that's my personal opinion!!
Some time ago, I saw a mother, in the store, get angry with her child. He appeared to be about 4 or 5 years old. I don't know what the child did (really...it doesn't matter!), but the mother backhanded him, and knocked him completely off his feet. I was right there, and indicated to her what she'd done was horribly and terribly wrong, and I helped the kid to his feet. She told me to mind my own business, and that how she chose to raise her kids was HER affair...not mine. I disagreed, and told her I was going to find a phone and call the police...and I did (back then, no cell phone). When I got back, she was gone...nowhere to be found. People like that don't deserve to have kids. There's no excuse whatsoever for hitting a kid so hard they can't stand up!!
That said, children DO need discipline, but there are MANY ways to discipline a child without resorting to violence.
May 9, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
longarm45 says...
SOME OF THESE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ARE NUTS!!!
look at Lake contrary, stretching across 4 districts north to south,as just one example.
I am not a minority, and have no kids or grandkids in school, but these district lines are have run amok!
If this is the BEST the district can do, then they must start over:
First, the criteria should not be minimum movement of children AT THIS TIME, but minimum movement over the foreseeable future. That kind of thinking is what got the district into poorly maintained buildings and a $32 mill surplus in the present, and why the district elected & appointed officials have no credibility.
blow that map up, take a hard look, and see where it is headed!
May 9, 2009 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
longarm, what??? The Lake Contrary boundaries are hardly changing. A bid chunk of that territory is industrial.
Surplus has been debated to death.
May 9, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
falcon says...
Will there be district lines for middle and high schools, or will elementary feeder schools be strictly designated?
May 9, 2009 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
pops, i think that every parent whose child is not achieving should be mandated to participate in the Parents As Teachers program ( not going to happen , but it is a nice dream) . honestly, i agree with you that parents have to participate, but we have parents who are 1) still "children " themselves, 2) move three times in a school year due to their extreme poverty, 3) have never seen a single example of what you and i might deem remotely adequate parenting themselves. i know i am going to get flamed, but in a LOT of these cases, it is just not the parents fault entirely.
all teachers do their best. i do believe that there are those who are better suited to dealing with the title one problems than others, whether by personality, personal experience, or educational structure.
it is a very difficult situation. the hard truth is that this community must identify the most efficacious way to draw our most at risk children forward, to show them that their lives CAN be better. parents are a huge part of that equation, yes, but in the life of a child there are windows of opportunity. we have to throw open those windows and endeavor to let each child sit in the light.
i think everyone who has had a positive scholastic life can point to moments in time when they had a choice. i know that i never realized in second grade that my teacher, Mrs. Beech, was going to be the ONE. i thought she was a "meanie" . by sixth grade i realized the gift i had in having that "meanie" for a teacher. i hope that our system can provide every child with that one moment in time when they can look Back and know that their ability to move Forward was, in part, because of that singular effort.
May 9, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DaMan says...
POPS - you are right, every school is a blue ribbon school. Let's get them all the award and then we can come up with the red ribbon award to show achievement. Ridiculous argument here.
St. Joseph, you failed the bond/levy... Okay, so perhaps you're not ready to admit that a new school needs to be built, BUT WHEN ARE THE SCHOOLS "EVER" GOING TO ASK FOR LESS MONEY? I ask you why the sunset clause is even an issue. So you would have approved it had they said okay after five years we'll run it again and ask for more money?!?! Are you serious?
May 9, 2009 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
DaMan,
Absolutely, I'm DEAD serious. Personally, I feel the district has wasted money, and squandered opportunities to be more efficient and trustworthy in the past. Of course that's my opinion, although it's shared by many others. Now...is it fair to judge the current district administration for the "sins of the past". Don't know...maybe not, but I've lived in this town long enough to know that right now, new leadership or not, they haven't earned my trust. Without the sunset clause, the levy is a blank check, and I'm unwilling to give them that. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but please don't insult my intelligence by denigrating my position. It's just as valid as yours. I've made my positions known in these forums for quite some time, and I don't feel I have to go over all that again. Suffice to say, I have my reasons for wanting the sunset clause intact, and it would appear the majority of the citizens in St. Joe agree. However, I'd make this bet with anyone: if they district puts the exact same levy request on the next available ballot, and includes the sunset clause, it WILL pass. THEN....the current administration will have a 5-year window of opportunity to prove themselves trustworthy. For now, they must understand that trust is something to be earned and gained...not demanded.
May 9, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
The fact is, apple, the district didn't use the levy for the past 5 years to operate...they put it in the reserve. How, then, can it be they can't operate, now, without it? If you're making $2000 a month to pay your bills (and they're all paid, month to month), and you have $500 a month coming in that you just stash in the bank, how could you insist that if you lose the $500 a month, you're going to go broke? I understand expenses have no sunset clause. I also understand they've been operating without that levy in the past. It seems to me the sunset clause hasn't HURT them in the past...why not leave it there. Here's another way of looking at it. Would you rather have the additional levy $$ WITH a sunset clause, or zero levy $$ WITHOUT a sunset clause? Personally, if they're seriously desiring to have the levy pass, put the sunset clause back in, let the voters pass it, and let's move on and get past this speedbump....fair enough??!!
May 9, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Well...then I gurss it's time to just agree to disagree. It's ratjer obvious neither of us will change our minds. I'm sure I'm right...as are you. Now, let me say this...I didn't mean to insinuate that I feel the district put all the past levy money in the bank. I understand that didn't happen. HOW the levy was spent, though, is still hazy. Do I feel it was responsible to put that money in the bank? Sure...absolutely! What irks me, and causes me to take pause, is the district's insistance they can't operate without the levy...and I'm sorry...that just "ain't" so. Even the district's own records show that to be the case.
Here's another thought....wouldn't it have been WONDERFUL had the feds decided to give every school district in the entire USA the $800 billion they gave the banks? Imagine the stimulus that would have created!! According to the 2002 census, there were 13,506 school districts in the United States. That would have amounted to just under $60 million per district, were it distributed equally across the board. If you add in the money wasted on the auto industries that are going bankrupt ANYWAY, the money would have been even higher. How better to have spent that money than into education?!
May 9, 2009 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Wow!! I guess I need to proofread my posts more thoroughly! That should have been "rather" in the first line...not "ratjer"...
It's getting late in the day, and the coffee's wearing off....
May 9, 2009 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
pops you forget that the levy then also extracted additional money from the state under the school finance formula. So if it was a dollar for dollar match, the district got 12 million additional per year, spent half and saved half. Now the district loses both.
May 9, 2009 at 5:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wildwest says...
The sunset clause should have been eliminated years ago if this appears to be the way most communities in the state operate their school districts, and the fact that it was not in past initiatives only helped to hurt the cause to attempt to do it now. Among some other aspects of initiative campaign platforms. We need to take a hard look at the past and I bet there are answers there as to why it failed now. In a previous post when I brought this up it was mentioned Dr. Colgan had no insight or forward vision to remove the sunset clause in the past. Well if that was the case, then those that were here back then who adiminantly believe the way to move forward is a permenant levy in my view should have moved much more aggressively then to challenge that element and had the sunset clause removed then. That did not happen, the status quo was accepted and promoted. That has indirectly helped to create the situation that occured now.
May 9, 2009 at 5:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
teeter59 says...
I am so disgusted with this whole situation. First of all, get off it about the Better schools being Coleman and Eugene Field. The teachers are what matters, and the availability of learning materials, not anything else. That is crap about parent and volunteer involvement. This town caters to the well to do, always has, probably always will. The kids at Neely and Webster may not dress as nice, or may have more kids on free lunch, but they are just as smart and just as deserving as the stuck up East enders who always think that they are the best. Next, why close the schools at all? Why? If the District had used the money they waste and hoard to fix the schools up as they went along, maybe they would not have gotten in disrepair. A manhole in the basement of Neely, that still just gets me. So what??? The kids are there to learn, not look at the interior decoration of the Learning facility. I went to Neely school and I have a College Education. I also attended Lake Contrary, Humbolt, Eugene Field and Edison. We moved a lot. The manhole in the basement at Neely never hurt us, we didn't even know it was there. Scrape the walls and repaint. Ever hear of that? The kids go to school in third world countries without even sanitary conditions and they thrive. In the old days, we were glad just to have a school close enough not to have to ride a bus. I cannot get over how we are so spoiled that we think if it isn't just perfect, then it is NO good. It is not true. The school district is doing their same old same old. We didn't get our way, so we are going to whine and stomp and cry and throw a big fit and punish punish punish the mean dirty rotten tax payers who didn't give us what we think we had to have. Maybe they should remember, we VOTED and spoke our mind. We do still have a right to do that right? Just because they disagree they dont have to act like they do. If half of them took a MUCH NEEDED salary CUT then NO teacher would have to lose their jobs! They blow up that losing teachers angle to reach into our already over taxed pockets to make people feel bad. They hold the children up in front of us to try to guilt us into a decision that clearly many were not in favor of. They refuse to live on the same budget we all have to live on. I am sick of it and will be glad when my last child is out of this defunct system!
May 9, 2009 at 6:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
noneya says...
falcon, from what I have been told, none of this will really make a difference on the middle and high schools since they are pretty much spread out in the city and will have the same feeder schools as usual. I was also told transfers will NOT be revoked to middle and high schools, you can still go to which ever school you wish to...that may change but that was the last i was told just very recently..hope this answers your question
May 9, 2009 at 7:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wildwest says...
I just gotta love the slamfest. 3 weeks into this and rocks still fly!
May 9, 2009 at 7:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhoisJohnGalt says...
ww, this is great fun. Again, the vandals just want to hear the glass break. ;)
May 9, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
teeter59, thanks for making my points for me. You are the illustration from Webster's Illustrated Dictionary of the reason to vote for an increased levy and bond issues.
May 9, 2009 at 9:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
teeter59 says...
Because I don't agree with you, my points MUST be invalid. I do have a Bachelor degree, but I suspect you two that want to attack me personally, are from the East side of the City.
May 9, 2009 at 10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rockhound says...
Off the SJSD's website:
"Neely Accelerated School was named after St. Joseph's first superintendent of schools, Edward B. Neely, who served from 1864-1904. Our building today is as solid as the day it was built and so is the education which can be found within."
I was just looking at the elementary school descriptions on the SJSD website and found the second line (the FIRST part of it) of Neely's description to be quite ironic.
May 10, 2009 at 12:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rockhound says...
To clarify - that the SJSD apparently does not now think it is as solid as the day it was built, since they are closing it as an elementary school.
May 10, 2009 at 12:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SSpride238 says...
@rockhound Neely's problem isn't structural its space, there are not enough classrooms and there s no room to expand.
May 10, 2009 at 1:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhoisJohnGalt says...
Teeter, that was not a personal attack. That was a reply to your statements about your personal education. This is the way the game is played on the internet. If you throw a card down, don't be surprised if someone trumps it. If you throw a statement out, don't be surprised if someone challenges it.
In the area of internet opinion, this place is surprisingly mild and well mannered. You ought to don a Kevlar suit and foray into some political message boards on AOL or Yahoo. You would come back to this little opinion board and thank us for being so polite. But I digress.....
The buildings mentioned are old, inefficient, and need to go. If you owned a Model T Ford, you could keep it, admire it, polish it on Sunday's, but you couldn't drive it back and forth to Kansas City every day. It just wouldn't work safely or efficiently. If you wanted to commute, you would buy a modern car. The School Board proposed a couple new Chevy's to replace their Model T's. Heck, they didn't even ask for Cadillac's.
As far as "punishing the voters", the voters were given a choice. This is what they chose. This is not brain surgery, this was an either or choice and the voters decided.
May 10, 2009 at 8:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rockhound says...
SSpride238-
Thanks for clarifying. I know I have heard that info before about Neely that you have mentioned.
It just struck me as surreal to read this glowing account of an elementary school that they are getting ready to close. I know the SJSD has a little blurb about each current school on their site, but it just was sad and strange to read these descriptions about Neely and Webster.
This whole situation with the schools is going to be tough on a lot of people in this city, no matter where they fall on the spectrum of how they voted for the levy/bond issues.
May 10, 2009 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
teeter, one of your problems is that your math just doesn't work.
According to the DESE there are 268 students per administrator in the district which results in 43 administrators. It was reported they make an average of 88,000 each. Lets give them a 50% pay cut. That 44,000 per head for a total pot of 1,892,000. There were 887 teachers in the district. So we take the pot divided by the number of teachers and you get a raise of 2,133 each. Not much and not enough to balance the budget due to the loss of the levy. This does not account for the fact that you would lose a great percentage of the administrators to other districts or that most teachers in our district can get a 25% pay increase by merely going to the KC area. BTW 25% is more than 2,133. Frankly under the teacher retirement formula our most senior and experienced teachers would be better off teaching in another district anyway for the last several years.
It does matter what the building looks like and how it functions. In your day handicapped children were treated like second class citizens. This is no longer allows.
BTW, under the school finance formula the district gets 38% of it revenue from the state while the average district gets 33%. The additional levy allowed us to leverage more money from the state. No more. We will fall below average.
May 10, 2009 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
falcon says...
noneya, thanks for clearing that up for me. I had been told by a teacher that no transfers would be allowed for middle or high school students, except for a final year in the same high school. Appreciate your clarification.
May 10, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
teeter59 says...
Ok, fair enough on my math, now lets go back. In my day, some mentally retarded persons were still kept in the State Hospital with the mentally ill, but aren't we going WAY WAY off subject here? Of course if I had a model T then i would not drive it all around, good point, but you missed mine. The school is not falling down as the district wants all to believe. When was the last time anyone was in Neely? I was there less than 30 days ago. It is no worse, nor better than many of the other schools. Also you say overcroweded? Ok, I will give you that, then why tear it down? Let the ones who fit go, and rezone, they are doing that anyway. It is cheaper to fix them up if possible then tear them down. also no one has mentioned the cost of moving the school children out of their neighborhoods to a location pretty far away from their homes. If you do that, then the neighborhood kids, you know the ones they build relationships with and get to know due to their being in close proximity of their homes and previous schools, may not go to their new schools. It is a huge impact on the emotional well being of the children. I was trying to stress that throwing more money to the district is not always the answer. Also, don't just take the district's word for things without checking it out. Why did they get so mad at Reeder for checking into what they were doing, why was the attitude so cavalier when responding it is none of Reeder's business what they had for meals on the tax payer dime. I think that if nothing is wrong, then they shouldn't mind anyone checking them out carefully. I also think that there are other ways to handle this and my main beef was that when it didn't pass, then they acted like spoiled children on TV and in the newspaper. Many live on a tight budget like never before. I work with this population, they don't have the money for food, or medication, more taxes just can't always be the answer. Trim off the fat from the district first, then people will be more likely to dig deeper. When I see hard working families who lost their good paying jobs and no new jobs besides fast food and restaurant jobs, where these men can no longer support their families then I get upset to see people blame citizens for not being so quick to want to hand out the cash they are able to make, to a school district that acted like they just acted. Times are very hard and they need to tighten their belts. That is what I meant. I am 50 years old, not 70. I am still with it, and I see what has happened in this town. Neely school was not so overcrowded, or so much in disrepair that it needed to be closed, and the cost to move those students is probably much more then the district is letting on. Those kids had pride in their school, and the families rallied to keep it and it all fell on deaf ears.
May 10, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
On ADA the district can not pick and choose which buildings to make compliant. All buildings have to comply. The building is obsolete.
People sure seem to have money based on the restaurants being full on Tuesday nights. People seem to have money to spend on pizza delivery.
The district is required by law to have a balanced budget. When a big chunk of your revenue drops off the only prudent thing to do is to cut your expenses. The district did it in the way they think best. The board is elected by the community to make those choices. Like it or not they made those choices.
May 10, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wildwest says...
The boat seems to be doing well also, especially on the weekends. Looks like half the city population base is down there on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday nights. Save an annual 30 to 40 on taxes, dump 200 every weekend on the boat.
May 10, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
teeter59,
Education has nothing whatsoever to do with economics. It has almost everything to do with committment. The only difference between Gene Field and Coleman, and other schools in the district is the level of committment from parents.
May 11, 2009 at 6:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
pops, if parents cannot read above third grade level, cannot do simple math, have never had a job, and abuse through their own ignorance, the child is handicapped. do you have ANY IDEA how many title one students arrive at their first day of school with NO skills? don't know their colors, shapes, not to mention little things like how to count to ten or how to write their names? these kids don't know their addresses because they have never lived anywhere long enough to learn them, even if their parents bothered to teach them.
every one does NOT start from the same line. imagine a track event where the start is at the same line on an oval track. who will win? the runner on the inside track.
May 11, 2009 at 7:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
heritage, your analogy is flawed. There are multiple factors which go into making a child a success. One is parents and another is the education received. Your basic theory assumes that it is unfair that my child receives the benefit of a stable home, reasonable meals, in bed at a reasonable time, a parent that read to him, etc. It is not unfair. Yes, these children start with a disadvantage and then tend to end up in schools which are not as good as others.
The problem is that the race begins at birth (or before) and what you want to do is restart the race again at 5 years old. So just how many times through their lives are we going to restart the race for these kids. Before college? Before graduate school? Is that what you want for the doctor who is treating you?
May 11, 2009 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
i did not use the word "fair". it is an inequity which can and should be addressed. the poverty in this city is our heaviest burden. unless we do everything in our power to raise all of this city's children up, we all fail.
you constantly harp on the handicap access issues. entire lives are being "handicapped" by the poverty here. it is inexcusable.
this is exactly why i could not support the bond issue. not a single effort was made to use current studies to address the needs of ALL of the students. the superintendent stated at a meeting of the NW republican club that not one consideration was given to the vision except for simple math as to "which" schools to build "where". that is just irresponsibly simplistic.
May 11, 2009 at 9 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MaggieM says...
"Neely Accelerated School was named after St. Joseph's first superintendent of schools, Edward B. Neely, who served from 1864-1904. Our building today is as solid as the day it was built and so is the education which can be found within."
We will miss our school...this is sad for all of the Neely students parents and teachers.
Sad for our neighborhood.
Neely & Webster will both be missed.
shameful
:(
May 11, 2009 at 9:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Swoflea says...
Redrawing the school boundaries is nothing new. Every so often the people downtown flex their political muscle to prove to everyone that they are in charge; not the parents, not the taxpayers, and not the citizens. They don't care about the pressure they have placed on parents and students who have to adjust their lives to the school boards whimsical decisions. Unfortunately the present school board and their administrative minions are more politically oriented then educationally oriented.
May 14, 2009 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )