Margo. Just to clear the record I have yet to receive the packets with the petitions you mention. I received an email from from John Manford on Monday - I was at the School Board Law Conference all weekend. I did email him back Monday and tell him I would attempt to call him. I got busy reviewing information that Amanda Woeger and Mike Nivison sent me and didn't make contact. That could be an excuse, but I do actually listen to what people have to say - whether I like what they say or not. I would still welcome the opportunity to review the material, however, I can tell you after talking to numerous people at the law conference and some additional friends there is no way to simply fire our superintendent - as the petitions request. I know that is not the answer people want, but right now that is the reality people must face. That doesn't mean I'm spineless or don't have the guts to speak up - that means I want to ensure we aren't paying two superintendents and an assistant.
Our "assistant superintendent," which is a misnomer because she actually was our director of curriculum and testing, has been moved to the special ed director. This was done last week.
People also need to take a hard look at HB 212 to better understand the place school board members are in with regard to what they are entitled to do.
Tonight (Wednesday, June 15) I posted on my Facebook page and my blog asking for feedback on the 4 day school week. I am asking for people's feedback because I want everyone to understand that by remaining with a 5 day school week we will be forced to RIF two or three additional teachers - which I think is also a bad situation. As I've said previously this is a bad sandwich and everyone has to take a bite ... we just have to figure out which bad taste EVERYONE wants in their mouths.
Do we have hard facts to support the savings we hope to gain? NO. (I don't think any school district can realistically give us those facts because not all districts face the severe winters we do. Last year we received a federal stimulus grant for $150K that covered our propane ... this year that grant isn't coming.)
Do we know if this will cause us to lose children? NO. (I will tell you there is rumor Alamo and numerous other schools in NM are looking at going to a 4 day week. I can also add that more than one Alamo parent has expressed interest in bringing their child up to Cloudcroft because of the potential 4 day week.)
And lastly ... Is your school board going to make a decision not everyone likes? YES. Answering any other way would be foolish. At this point, we must make decisions that will not be popular. In my opinion, we are ALL in a lose-lose situation and worst of all our children are going to be affected ... regardless of whether we have a 4 or 5 day week or we have a superintendent and asst. superintendent.
http://cmsbearsinfo.blogspot.com/2011/06/special-school-board-meeting-scheduled.html
I found your blog! :) A comment I posted on Margo's blog and am re-posting here.
ReplyDeleteArlan,
I too thank you for being so open. I do not know the address of your blog, but would like to have it, would you please email it to me?
I am sure that you already understand that board members are elected into office and thus are representatives of the whole community. Regardless of what your personal opinion may be, our concerns are legitimate and should be given the chance to make them known. This is the reason why the Administrative Code is written the way it is.
This is also a reason why the board must be able to document support - not through an anonymous survey, but through ballots and votes - I hope you will keep this in mind for the Monday meeting.
The board and superintendent have yet to demonstrate in numbers the actual savings they expect to gain - based on real data. Such numbers would be helpful in winning over community support. The savings have been quoted at $50,000 (see Mr. Hancock's "Fact Sheet" on the CMS website) - which does in fact amount to one teaching position. I agree with the $30,000 that could be saved in utilities/propane, however I disagree with the savings in substitute teaching costs. All you have to do is look last year's budget and the budget you just passed to understand what I mean. Last year (2010-11) $20,000 were allocated to substitutes and in the 2011-12 budget $15,000 are mentioned. That is only a $5,000 savings from the 178-day, 5-day week to the 155-day, 4-day week. This would be a total of $35,000 in savings going to the 4-day. My alternative proposal for a 155-day, 5-day week would still save around $32,000 in utilities (maybe more due to the long winter break when propane is high / and because school would be in session for about 3 weeks less than under the 4-day proposal). The 5-day proposal is a compromise (reduced number of school days, but a 5-day week) I hope that you and other board members will at least have a look at it for consideration.
(I know that teachers have written off a long winter break because it takes students time to get back into the swing of things, but this time could easily be made up by adding 1 more week in May - which could also cover the possibility of snow days).
Additionally, I will also argue that the same number of students who may want to come to Cloudcroft because of the 4-day week will leave Cloudcroft because of it. Rumors shouldn't carry the weight they currently do in this debate.
Again, I thank you again for your comments and thoughts on the matter. I assure you that I only want the best for my own kids, and for this reason I stand up. It is my deep feeling that the 4-day week cannot be a benefit to my or any child's education. This is of course an opinion, since there is little to no scientific research that shows how the condensed year affects student achievement.
Respectfully,
Amanda Woeger