During an open house at Noyes Elementary, former Webster Elementary student Makayla Dering spots the name of a friend who will go to school with her. Several area schools held open houses for new students and their parents Wednesday.
"This place looks like a lot like Webster" were the first words Madison Rockstead uttered after stepping into Edison Elementary School Wednesday afternoon.
Madison is finishing up her last few days as a Webster fifth-grader before she transfers to Edison next fall.
Wednesday evening, all 16 of the remaining St. Joseph School District's elementary schools held open houses for next fall's new students. According to Brian Schindorf, assistant director of elementary education for the St. Joseph School District, about 1,400 students will attend new schools next year. The open houses were a chance for the parents and children to see their new schools and meet some of the faculty.
"People are just a little apprehensive about the change that's occurring," said Annie Rhoad, who is returning to teach at Edison after three years as a paraprofessional. "We just let them know that we are excited that they are here ... we know we will love them just as much as we love the kids that are leaving us."
Edison will see the largest increase of any elementary school, with an approximate net gain of 120 students, according to Principal Jennifer Patterson. About 90 students will leave the school, and 200 students - 100 of those coming from Webster - will begin attending next fall. The district transferred one teacher from Neely and hired five more to accommodate the new students at Edison.
About 50 of the new students showed up at Edison's open house. Ms. Patterson said many students and parents had already called or stopped by.
"With an event like this, you catch the ones who definitely had burning questions and needed to see the building and put a visual in their mind," she said. "I think it was a good turnout. Every parent we talked with who walked out the door felt positive about the fact that their child will be well taken care of."
Rob Schmidt can be reached at robschmidt@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.
mitmit1969 says...
I found out at open house where my child is said to be going thru the district, that the kids that are leaving the school to go to their school in their district is almost the same number as the new ones coming in. I don't understand why make this change?! It is sad that my child has been going to lindberg since 1st grade and is going in 5th grade has to change schools,because they said so. So we punish the children by taking them away from their classmates and friends? It was very ignorant of the school district to close down the 2 schools, because they are OLD?! When Humbolt is one of the oldest schools around?! It is to be said that Humbolt used to be a hospital in the civil war. Hmmm maybe I am dumb, but, this makes no sense to me and others at all.
May 28, 2009 at 2:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
What happened to the idea that 5th graders who had been in a specific school for most, if not all, of their elementary education, wouldn't have to switch for their 6th grade year? I was almost positive that I'd heard that from the district leadership early on. I know, if it were my child, I'd be VERY unhappy if he were forced to leave a school he's been attending since kindergarten or 1st grade, and forced to go to a new school for his 6th grade year. VERY unfair.
May 28, 2009 at 6:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nrs4life says...
My daughter happens to be one of those 5th graders Pops! I AM very unhappy! Especially since we actually live one house south of the boundary line! I am planning to move my daughter into the Savannah district and get out of this mess! Look at the rankings for Savannah schools versus St. Joseph schools: not even close. St. Joseph schools are so far behind and I am not waiting for them to catch up any longer.
May 28, 2009 at 7:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lamplighter says...
It's interesting to read the district has hired 5 new teachers for Edison. I thought the district was forced to make job cuts because the levy and bond issues failed to pass. An article in yesterday's paper about the decrease in property taxes quotes the district as saying they had to cut 37 certified teaching positions. Are these new teachers not certified? Why didn't they transfer 5 teachers? Am I missing something..
May 28, 2009 at 7:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
parents should take note that schools which have failing scores for two years are required to allow transfer to any school which is not on the jeopardy list. a parent who as had a child transferred into a school which they are not happy with should stay on top of the scores as they come out later this summer. if any school is in their second year of failing scores, you will have the option by federal mandate to transfer to the school of your CHOICE with transportation to it.
for instance, edison is on the AYP list as being in jeopardy with their last year's scores. if they come out with another poor year, any student can transfer to their school of choice. four schools in the district had unsatisfactory scores in '08.
i know that most teachers just want to teach, and am not trying to cast stones. i think parents should be aware of the option, though.
May 28, 2009 at 7:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
lamplighter, one would think that the teachers from webster would have been the first on the list to transfer with their former students to edison. perhaps the word "new" only meant that the teachers would be "new" to the particular school, but then there is the mention of the teacher transferred from neely?
i believe dave mason stated some time ago that the district has a policy of using new teachers as a cost savings methodology. one would think that experienced and certified teachers would be at a premium?
May 28, 2009 at 7:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
whatever says...
heritage, you make very good points but I am new to all of this. how do i find out these scores and where do i look? Are they posted on sjsd website? my child is going into the 6th grade next year and is faced with leaving hosea to go to lake and I am 110% against her going there. Any input you can give me would be deeply appreciated.
May 28, 2009 at 7:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BKS says...
Kids transfer to different schools all the time. Don't you people remember the new students in classes every year. My sister and I went to Bessie Ellison and transfered to Eugene Field when we were little because we moved, we got over it just fine.
The school buildings are not getting any younger. This issue was going to happen sometime in this century, if not now-then when?
May 28, 2009 at 7:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sidamo says...
It is my understanding that the teachers added at Edison and several other schools were transferred from Neely or Webster or another school. Neely had some fantastic teachers, so the other schools will be well appointed. In addition many teachers have decided to retire after this mess, so the displaced teachers have another job source.
Where can one find the "AYP" list of failing schools?
I am curious to find out what happens to the few thousand Neely PTA dollars that were not allowed to be spent.
May 28, 2009 at 8 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
go to http://www.dese.mo.gov/planning/profi...
click on the school you want to look at, and look at the AYP scores ( at the top in red) . the words Not Met mean that if the scores for the school are also found to be in that range for 2009 ( information not yet available) you can request transfer to another school.
one of the parents here, lyndon berry, is a wizard at deciphering the data. if you read back through his postings, he has provided very pertinent information. for those who are new here it might be good to go to the bar at the top of the page here and click on "special reports" for a complete impression of the school issues over the last year. if you click on any person's name you will get a complete list of their postings.
May 28, 2009 at 8:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lamplighter says...
go here: http://dese.mo.gov/planning/profile/a...
May 28, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
AYP = adequate yearly performance
May 28, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
ack, adequate yearly progress. sorry
May 28, 2009 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lamplighter says...
Heritage..I'd like to believe the teachers were transferred, but when I read that one was transferred and five were hired, I read the statement to mean new hires.
Sidamo..good question about the Neely PTA dollars. Where are those funds and how will they be allocated?
Regardless of how anyone voted, the redistricting has turned into a mess affecting the community. I think the school board / district administration should take a good hard look at themselves and realize they are a big part of the equation for the levy/bond failure..They have lost credibility with most of the public..and that translates into lost votes.
May 28, 2009 at 8:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biggieroth says...
nrs4life...good point on the fact that savannah schools are ranked much higher than St. Joseph. One of the reasons that the schools are much better is that they pay for it. It is truly a shame that we did not pass the bond and the levy.
May 28, 2009 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grandma8445 says...
i am just glad that my kids are out of school,but i will be keeping track because of my grandkids.i just hope everyone can find a school that their child is happy with,that is what should matter.i know transfering schools can be hard on a child because it was hard for me when i went to school and had to transfer.
May 28, 2009 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lamplighter says...
Apple,I don't think anyone was asking you to answer where the Neely PTA dollars are going and I don't think anyone was suggesting a PTA is part of the school district. I can only speak for myself in wondering where the money will go since the school is closing..proportionate with students transferred to another school, back to the parents, where? It's just curiousity. I wouldn't read more into the question than what is asked.
May 28, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mm1967 says...
This is a school district ran on the good ole boys club concept, they take care of a few select few and crap on the others.I really cannot understand this concept of uprooting 1400 children this will have major affects on these children and their grades will suffer as well and anybody that does not think this is going to affect the children need to look at studys about children moving from school to school, but the district just does not seam to get it and they call themselfs educators please.This also does not have anything to do with the levys not passing they were going to close schools either way. But instead of keeping the one school that was still ok to use they closed it and it makes no sence(Webster) this would have also allowed less children getting uprooted.We will be looking to have our children attend private school or either be home schooled (which is legal under Missouri State Laws) our children next year but it will not be st joe school district schools, our children got moved out of a good school and sent to a school with lower education levels and this is unaceptable in any account people live and bought homes where they wanted their children based on what school their children would attend not where the district wants to send them. I hope they all lose their jobs and the board is replaced as well, we need new people in these positions.
May 28, 2009 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
it is worth noting that last year hosea was in their second year of sanction, and hall was in their first. any parent who found either of those schools lacking had a legal right to receive transfer to a passing school and the right to have bussing to that school. currently there are five schools in jeopardy of sanction if their scores do not rise this year. the district will try to put this off as another of their "scores are not the sole measure of a school" bulletins. the district is happy to crow when they receive an award, but when the tide is against them they cry foul.
what will happen if the worst case scenario of all five schools being sanctioned comes to pass? will there be enough room in passing schools to accommodate these students?
the district is also required to hire extra teachers to create a school within a school to remedy the violation. i understand that by 2011 the prediction is that not even our "blue ribbon" schools will meet standards.
since many here questioned how economic parity can possibly be achieved, i would submit that this is a federal solution to some of that inequity.
May 28, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
if the parents of children in failing schools have the chance to opt for a more successful school, yes, i think it is a darn good idea. it is voluntary, and the school which is sanctioned must take measures to bring that school up to levels.
May 28, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
kay bertels works with the DESE AYP Program (573-751-9437). she states that school districts that have schools that do no meet AYP must provide additional teaching staff that may not be fully funded by the federal government. with the closing of neely, we have four elementary schools that may not meet AYP in 2009. the district will Have to cover the costs to bus those students to other schools that Have Met AYP as well as hire additional staff to improve scores in those failing schools for the children whose parents CHOOSE to remain. this is by federal mandate. i have issues with NCLB, because of the unfunded mandate, but this is what i understand the nclb requires.
cheri patterson stated that even our blue ribbon Schools won't meet AYP by 2010. nclb raises the bar each year for academic standards.
please call either of these individuals if you want verification.
May 28, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lamplighter says...
NCLB allows for transfers when a school is failing for two consecutive years. The parent needs to request a choice of more than one school and they may not get their first requested school. However, the district cannot deny a transfer based on lack of capacity at the requested school. There is also a time limit placed on the parent for the request. But the district does have to allow a transfer when the criteria is met.
May 28, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
yes they can. the sole stricture i am finding is that if the first choice for a school is full then there is an allowance for a second option, as lamplighter states. in title one schools placement priority is given to students in order of their level of poverty on the guidelines.
technically, a school could go empty. the district knows this. they have a catch 22 here. in closing two schools they face having not enough room for the students who wish to transfer. if the schools do fail to meet the AYP guidelines, then the district will have also have to pay out considerably more dollars in meeting the mandate of additional teachers in that school which did not perform to standards.
and, since missouri was sanctioned two years ago for "cheating" on their reports for NCLB standards, they are even more behind the mark. the NCLB dictates a progression of higher standards. that progression is geometric. since missouri did not comply as a state ( don't know yet if our district was one of the under-reporting) the task of complying is even more daunting.
May 28, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lamplighter says...
NCLB dictates that the district must provide room in a school with no current capacity to accept transfers..for instance, Coleman will have to accept transfers from a failing school and add on classrooms, provide auxililary buildings and teachers if they don't have the room. Lack of capacity is not an excuse to reject transfers from a failing school. The district can offer SES to parents, but the choice between transfer and SES is given to the parent and not to the district. St Joseph has schools that will fit the criteria for failing this year. One of those schools is Edison, which failed in 2008.
May 28, 2009 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
apple, i am going to agree that unfunded federal mandates are not one of my favorite things, and NCLB can create snafus in this regard.
the philosophy behind NCLB is valid, imho. the children in schools which are not succeeding in raising their standards should at least have the choice to seek schools which could level the playing field. hence the name No Child Left Behind. in practice the program is difficult to administer.
this is exactly why the parents of webster children are so upset. the bulk of those transfers went to edison, according to this article. can it be that the intent has been to shuffle the deck all along? that is a prospect i would not like to even consider.
May 28, 2009 at 3:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nrs4life says...
I am upset with those who voted no as well, but I voted yes on both issues. Many of those "no" voters who I spoke with weren't even homeowners therefore it didn't even affect them. My 5th grader came home today and said out of the 27 kids in her class only 5 don't have to transfer next year! That is absolutely crazy!!! I agree that more money needs to be spent on our schools but I also agree that we need new leadership on the school board and in the district!
May 28, 2009 at 9:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nrs4life says...
So Heritage, if I am reading that site correctly, St. Joseph hasn't met their AYP for two years now! Am I correct?
May 28, 2009 at 9:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
the district meets the standard, but a small proportion carries the failing schools.
i have to disagree with the notion that renters are not affected. their rents would go up, and they would also be subject to personal property tax. the district was insensitive to this issue, imo, and the constant mantra that the tax would only amount to a latte' a week did not resonate. jay kerner in the regular joe did NOT sound very "regular" to me.
i completely agree that the board and the administration is unresponsive, and generally did not work as a whole to put out a message which would sell with the public. there should be an examination of the entire structure of the board, and its responsiveness to the electorate. many of st joseph's long standing political entities are out dated.... the museum board, and the city charter come to mind. how long has it been since the school board has been re-vamped? while the council is far too subject to the vagaries of the public, the school board elections are on the opposite end of the spectrum.
May 28, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
posting now for the 1600th post!!!!!! i spoke with a NP reporter last week who was laughing With me about my epic participation here.
here's hoping that more verbose and opinionated( yep, thats me) people will Participate in the process and not simply "blog" away their time. this city is our home, we love her, and i am dedicated to helping this city to unite behind common causes. we Can be the shining city on the bluffs, we Can represent all who reside here, we Can speak with many different voices, but with one common cause.
i have such respect for this city and her illustrious history. let us ALL now commit to making our future as bright. transplants and natives, south and east, midtown and west, we all are joetowners.
May 28, 2009 at 10:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
apple, what are you Personally doing? besides "blogging"? i am really interested.
you have been personally invited to join another "team" in these comments. you chose to ridicule the woman who is working to find common ground. have i met you there and not recognized you? are you working with the other groups which are forming in this city to move forward?
i extended my hand to you, and made a heartfelt felt apology to you in order to move to a different level of discourse. i am looking for the rainbow.....and all i hear is naysaying.
May 28, 2009 at 10:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
if you don't participate in any other way than making critical comments on a message board and voting, then how do you personally feel that you are making any difference? seriously, i find the fact that you feel comfortable with being a negative nellie who is content to sit at your computer and snipe at others to be completely counterfeit. why should anyone listen to you?
May 29, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wildwest says...
For the record Apple, I disagree with you totally. The plan as it was proposed failed because there was a disconnect with the public pure and simple. And for everyday that is wasted on debating the merits of this, it is one less day being focused on coming up with another plan that will gain support, complete support from the community not just half way. Complete support for a plan means not having to spend over 100 grand to promote a cause because the confidence on getting it passed is already there.
May 31, 2009 at 6:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
Folks (not all) against the levy/bond often remind me of someone I have been dealing with lately. He constantly tells me I'm wrong on something, but when asked what is wrong (inclusion of certain figures) his response is always "you're wrong".
May 31, 2009 at 7:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wildwest says...
It does not matter to me where the money came from, over 100 grand to campaign on an initiative that had problems from the beginning. We should have never needed that kind of money to move a campaign forward. Buy in from the entire community should have been there from the start and it was not. Again each day spent debating on what failed is a day wasted on not trying to find other solutions that will address all buildings and funding issues and pass. My vote was yes for both, I saw the initiative as a tool to move forward, not an entire solution. However, the concerns with it outweighed the positive impact it could of had, and those concerns with the community need to somehow be addressed. Not by slamming everyone, but by re-evaluating and figuring out other alternatives that will accomplish similar goals with almost complete buy in from the public. In my view what should be included going forward is a thought out and documented plan that will address all buildings when their time is due for either retrofit or building new, not just a few. As a community, we should have the confidence to take any new comer to any school without concerns with how well the school teaches, old building concerns, etc. If we don't then that is a problem that needs to be resolved. We should never allow alienation of sections or areas of town. This is a wonderful community with alot of future potential, if it is not, then why are we all still here? As far as the levy goes, a levy without a sunset clause should have already been place ages ago and previous ballot measures that had the sunset clause should have been challenged as not being aggressive enough. But it was accepted as the status quo and all this information about levies being thrown around out there is not new information, many in the community already knew how other communities operated and nothing was done. The status quo was not challenged years ago and that is why it is difficult to get it moving now. In essence, newer people are being asked by the district to pick up the extra tab to catch up as a result of that. I have no problem with that, hell I even support tripling sewer rates where we have no say, however, I want to see my tax dollars go towards a plan to fix it all, not just bits and pieces.
June 1, 2009 at 12:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
ditto on the sewer rates WW. as far as the "donated" money for the push to advocate the Past effort, the largest single donation (last time i looked) was given by........ the bank which is holding the money on stonecrest.
June 1, 2009 at 7:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
Holding what money on Stonecrest???
June 1, 2009 at 7:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
northsidemom says...
Each principal & vice principal was told to put in $100 towards the campaign. I have a close friend who is a principal who told me when we where putting signs in yards what they where required to do.
June 1, 2009 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thewatcher24 says...
Understand you can apply for transfers in this town till you are blue in the face but nothing will be approved until the 7th school day of next year! that way the school they start in gets the money for your student being there thus if they try to transfer the new school knows they will recieve no funding thus they would not want the transfer! something for you to chew on
June 1, 2009 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
watcher, your point doesn't make sense. The district gets the funds from the state based on total enrollment, not per school enrollment. If there is a policy of the SJSD could you please point us to it.
June 1, 2009 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lamplighter says...
What saddens me about the SJSD administration is the lack of connection they have with the voters in St Joseph. Yes, some schools need to be replaced and yes, the district is in need of funds to make improvements, pay teachers a good salary and update items such as computers and libraries; but the adminstration / school board has blinders on when it comes to dealing with the public. I voted and vote in every election because it is a right given to me by the US Constitution and I believe every vote counts. So when the people in charge of our local, state and national government don't listen, I have a right to complain. The SJSD is not taking the pulse of the public. A good example is Melody Smith and Cherie Patterson both taking vacations this past week. While open houses were being held throughout the district for children / families displaced by redrawing of school boundries and parents were calling the district office and their local school, they were on vacation. When two schools were being closed for good and teachers were unable to pack up their classrooms for the season, they were on vacation. Where's the leadership? Before anyone complains that the above named individuals are entitled to a vacation, I agree they are entitled, but question the timing. Could they have postponed their plans until the last day of school? Where's the leadership and where's the communication with the community?
June 1, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
http://www.stjoenews.net/news/2009/fe...
this was an early article on the campaign finance. i am unable to access the full ethics commission report because i am computer spastic, and admit it. the information appears to officially unavailable and labeled terminated as are the two websites that i know of which represented the yes/yes coalition.
i further grossly transcribed in my brain the names stonecrest and greystone. they all sound the same to me....... and i humbly admit that i was wrong.
nodaway bank is the bank i meant to refer to and they are indeed involved with the finances for greystone (not stonecrest).
so.... both apple and i were mistaken, there are more than one bank's names on the list and i used the name of the wrong development.
June 1, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
238er says...
This bank is one of the most responsible lenders in town and one of the few willing to finance developments. It is locally owned and managed. They have shown themselves to be very involved in the community. That said, I seriously doubt that they donated money to this effort based on a loan to a customer.
Not many banks in St. Joe are willing to lend to subdivision developers and only two that do this kind of lending have the capacity needed for this scale of project. And you sure don't see our locally owned banks applying for TARP funds.
June 1, 2009 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ttwsyf says...
apple - the district is constantly 'asking' their employees to do things without compensation. I am not sticking up for district employees but I know for a fact they are constantly being 'asked' to work without pay on numerous occasions. It would not surprise me that donations were also 'asked' for. You would be surprised!
I don't have first hand information and would like to find out if it is true that some of computer and science labs that were contructed as part of the last $30 million bond levy are now being converted to classrooms. If so, it bothers me these items were approved by the voters and now are being taken away. It will be hard to vote on thngs in the future if they are going to be taken away later.
June 2, 2009 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wildwest says...
No deals Apple, you have on other posts called people including council "stupid" "idiotic" etc and that appears to be your thought process when policies or agendas do not move in your favor. In my view about past events, the past needs to be looked at in order to move ahead successfully and to gain support for initiatives that are supposed to move the entire community forward, not just pieces of it. Past arguments with school issues in my opinion have hurt the present cause, not the Reeder factor. As far as campaigns go, I know fully well it takes money to run, promote and market a campaign, however, if there was a high confidence level this was going to pass without worry, it would not have been needed regardless of whatever
Reeder or any others against it through at it money wise to to try and stop it. If the initiative had credibility from the start along with strong buy in from the public that this was the way to go, it would have passed with no worries about anything. Contradictory statements and arguments from the past also put a dent in that. I disagree with the "first step" philisophy. If the initiative had addressed what is going to be done with every building as time goes on and had more of a long term approach, it would have flown by. The present initiative alienated over half the community. And we still do not get it overall. We continue to stick with the mindset half the community was "uninformed" etc. As to why we still stay, poverty stricken is not a reason. Everyone has the ability to move anytime they want, it is the will to do so. Alot of highly educated and middle to upper income people live in this community and they have tended to stick around regardless of its issues. Even outsiders have come in in recent years. There are reasons for that, this is not a bad place to be in spite of its issues.
June 4, 2009 at 2:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )