No Fury Like a Daycare Provider Scorned

Have you had trouble finding a daycare provider in the Sauk Rapids-Rice area?  Well, it will probably become even more difficult.  During these challenging economic times, when both parents may need to work outside the home to make ends meet, Daycare providers are getting a hit from the school district.  Why?  Transportation.

The school district could have avoided this issue had the district listened to the taxpayers.  More responsible belt tightening and accountability rather than a money grab for the 2.8 million levy which the Superintendent defended by stating that they had come to this amount because, “It is the maximum we can ask for.” 

PART II: VOICING OUR VISION, PUBLIC INPUT AND OTHER MYTHS

 

In the Herald, May 21, 2008 “Superintendent Vandal will also complete preliminary plans for future activities involving the “Voicing our Vision” initiative which was begun this school year but temporarily halted due to budget reconciliation deliberations.” 

 

We realize that some of you may not know what “Voicing our Vision” is or what it is about.  You may want to take a few moments and go back to the Board Watchers August 2007 ARCHIVES articles “You are cordially invited” and “A Foggy Night in August.”  The superintendent and board sent out approximately 100 invitations to specially selected individuals, rather than creating a forum of true public and community input, and held what was essentially focus group sessions in an effort to send out like-minded individuals to influence the levy…ah eer…host a series of community conversations…

 

“….Vandal will also complete preliminary plans….”  What does this ‘Edu-speak’ mean exactly?  The truth is between 55 to 60 individuals showed up for the “Voicing our Vision” sessions and already came to a consensus on a vision for our school kids and district.  The group came up with items such as ‘rigor’ in the classroom and ‘a focus on 21^st century learning.’ 

VOICING OUR VISION, PUBLIC INPUT AND OTHER MYTHS (Part I)

Did you happen to notice an agenda item on the Sauk Rapids-Rice School Board Meeting Minutes posted in the Harold, May 21, 2008?

Agenda item: DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
“Discussions continued regarding the prospect that a new format might be considered for public input at Board meetings….”

The key deceptive word here is “at”…The way in which it is written is misleading and insultingly dishonest. One is lead to believe that the board is simply making a minor change to the format of public input at public school board meetings. Wrong. If the board and superintendent have their way, YOU (parents, students, taxpayers, community members) will NOT be allowed to speak at future school board meetings. In fact, YOU will NOT be allowed to address the ‘ENTIRE’ school board…EVER.

The new and improved format will be called a “LISTENING SESSION” and the superintendent has been very careful to make it clear that there will never be a quorum at any of these so called “LISTENING SESSIONS.” These sessions will be held before the regular school board meetings, in front of three board members (no quorum), and only by reservation. Essentially, anyone wishing to voice a concern or issue will be required to make an appointment. Otherwise, there will be no ‘listening session’ and no public input allowed during the regular meeting, in front of a quorum of board members.

The following are a few of the Boards delusional justifications for “LISTENING SESSIONS” in lieu of the current format for public input, which already has major flaws in the SchoolBoardWatch opinion:

• Engages the public more
• Individuals not as uncomfortable talking in public
• Easier to share concerns
• Assigns accountability
• A method to track resolution
• Opportunity to exchange with public
• Board can respond before official meeting
• Can remove emotion

In addition to the above reasoning stupidity, the Board Chair Holthaus stated that the ‘listening session’ would help eliminate “….fears and concerns about retaliation…” She amazingly acknowledged the very real fear parents have of reprisal.

Solarz stated that the ‘listening session’ would…”Help us do a better job.” Do a better job? Please, Solarz, tell us how you believe taking away a democratic process, not allowing parents and taxpayers to engage DURING the public meeting in front of a quorum of board members is going to help YOU do a better job?

The Board Watcher gives Woggon kudos for being the only school board member to question the whole change. Woggon asked, “Why do we need to make a change when we open it up to the public for two seconds and no one speaks?”

Exactly! Unfortunately, the Board Watcher has to take back the kudos as quickly as it was given. Woggon, as usual, backed down to the pressure to cooperate. Influence by Vandal was too great and once again Woggon failed to be an advocate for the people who voted her onto the board.

Let’s just take a brief look at a 2007 Minnesota Statute:

120A.03 MISSION STATEMENT.
The mission of public education in Minnesota, a system for lifelong learning, is to ensure individual academic achievement, an informed citizenry, and a highly productive work force. This system focuses on the learner, promotes and values diversity, provides participatory decision making, ensures accountability, models democratic principles, creates and sustains a climate for change, provides personalized learning environments, encourages learners to reach their maximum potential, and integrates and coordinates human services for learners. The public
schools of this state shall serve the needs of the students by cooperating with the students’ parents and legal guardians to develop the students’ intellectual capabilities and lifework skills in a safe and positive environment.

Let’s recap: The Mission of public education in Minnesota includes….”an informed citizenry”…..”provides participatory decision making”….”ensures accountability”….”models democratic principles”…”creates and sustains a climate for change.” And this one is a favorite….”shall serve the needs of the students by cooperating with the students’ parents and legal guardians to develop the students’ intellectual capabilities and lifework skills in a safe and positive environment.”

The Minnesota Supreme Court stated three purposes of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law….one of the three purposes was “to afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body.” Does that mean before the public meeting, during or after? Common sense might indicate during.

One might also ascertain that the so-called “Listening Session” could be classified as a ‘Serial’ meeting. “The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the open meeting law applies only to a quorum or more of members of the governing body or a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of the governing body. Serial meetings in groups of less than a quorum held in order to avoid open meeting law requirements may also be found to be a violation, depending on the facts of the case.”

The SchoolBoardWatch advocates that while the superintendent and school board members may not be breaking the law (walking a fine line) by eliminating the time allotted for public input DURING the school board meeting in front of a quorum of board members, but are in fact violating the “intent” of the law. The Open Meeting Law does not force the school district to provide for public input, but it also does not preclude it.

Stay tuned for PART II: What Happened to ‘Voicing our Vision’??

New Report on Math Curriculum and Teaching

This report just came out from the United States Department of Education National Mathematics Advisory Panel.  We recommend that anyone interested in education in SRR needs to download and read this report and then take a look at the mathematics curriculum in our district.  

For those that have posted here in the past regarding the institution of a traditional algebra course for 9th graders, this is too late for most interested in Engineering, Sciences, Mathematics, computer science, information technology and the Medical fields. 

Also take note that SRR is not offering the traditional Geometry course in 2009, which would be the logical next step for those students that were taking the traditional Algebra course.  We challenge anyone to please find evidence in this report that we should be encouraging the CMP and IMP math curricula that are currently in place.  Much more to come on this issue in upcoming posts….

National Mathematics Advisory Panel Report 

Never Saw an Idea I Didn’t Like……

This just in….I mean just in….the Sauk Rapids Rice Superintendent has introduced a proposal for the district to enter into the

“Sauk Rapids Rice Integration Plan”  

Yes, this important socal engineering project comes complete, well not quite complete, with the $370,000 it would add to the district budget.   Only one third ($120,000 or so) would need to be funded through a local property tax levy.  And oh, what about that pesky inflation that would soon swallow up this new initiative.  If it sounds too good to be true?

Did I miss something or did we not recently inform the district that we were not interested in increasing property taxes?

And what exactly is the purpose of this newly essential program?

It’s stated purpose is:

To address the growing academic and social-emotional needs of both majority and nonmajority learners in accordance with the Minnesota Desegregation Law (It should probably be Rule).

Seems we’re not the first to find this interesting approach to ripping off the tax payers.  Apparently our district is simply trying to keep pace with the other districts already feeding at the trough like Stillwater.   I’m sure that Stillwater must be strugling to educate that underprivledged minority population in their district.  Is it possible that this high dollar district needs state aid to help educate minorities.

 As a member of EMID, the Stillwater Area Public Schools received approximately one million dollars in state funding for the 2006-2007 school year. 

Yep you heard that right, 93% white Stillwater is ripping the state off for a cool Milion to implement it’s “desegregation plan”.