SLV School District Perspectives |
|
|
Recall Intent Notice Analysis, page 3 Failed to provide the safest and most productive learning environment for children as all children will be placed into campuses with construction zones when alternate sites are available. Failed to acknowledge community concerns that presented over 1,000 signatures on petition to re-examine the decision of children in construction zones. It is true that all the open school buildings except White Oak (including the high school and junior high school) will, at some point in the next few years, be undergoing some construction. I personally do not favor having kids near construction when alternate sites are available. On the other hand, I recognize that shuffling everyone back and forth would also be pretty disruptive, and there would be some additional financial cost as well. In any event, if this decision is truly so important as to be one of the litmus tests of competence on the part of the school board, we'd have to "give points" to Susan Weber and Jeff Bidmon, who voted to have the kids stay at Quail during SLE construction, and "take points away" from Bob Fultz, who did not. As for "acknowledging community concerns", this was done. In the May 6, 2003 school board meeting, the petition and its request were both discussed. However, acknowledging concerns is obviously not the same thing as changing one's mind. Even one board member who initially voted for the students to stay at Quail did not favor reopening the issue. More community input was both sought and heard at that time. Happily, construction companies who work on schools which still have children in them have developed methods for minimizing the impact on the children. It's far from ideal, but it's not a catastrophe either. Failed to gain Taxpayer support for Measure-A by effectively assessing polling data or addressing Taxpayer concerns. This isn't very specific, so it's difficult to assess. A study about Taxpayer support for Measure A was done, and follow-up and campaign planning were done in conjunction with a specialist, partly using that data. All the school board members who were able to discuss the issue publicly and emphatically supported it, and some actively worked on the campaign to attempt to bring it about. There are probably many reasons why the measure didn't pass (most similar measures statewide did not pass), but to blame the board for this borders on mean-spirited, in my opinion, and leads me to guess that "addressing Taxpayer concerns" means "addressing a small group of Taxpayer's concerns" - namely, the ones calling for the recall. If they meant something more specific, in my opinion they should have said so. Share YOUR perspective! Read the Guidelines, and then Send a Response! |