Friday, January 13, 2017

Listening posts are for listening

I enjoyed last night’s school board listening post on the facilities master plan at Kirkwood Elementary School. About twenty people (and several district staff members) came out on a cold winter night to exchange views and ideas about the district’s building plans. (It was almost caucus-esque!) Two more listening posts are scheduled next week.

One thing I wish had been different, though: A listening post on the facilities master plan should not be preceded by a twenty-minute commercial for the facilities master plan. I understand that it’s helpful to present some information at the outset so people can have well-informed discussions, but it should not be presented in a way designed to influence the opinions we’ll hear from the participants.

The hard question facing the board is just what it takes to create a bond proposal that has a reasonable chance of attaining 60% approval at the polls. I was very curious to hear people’s opinions on that question last night. Of course, people who attend the listening posts may be particularly likely to favor the bond, but even those who most strongly favor the bond have to think objectively about how to maximize its chances of passage. If they voice their opinions only after sitting through a lengthy pro-bond argument, without hearing any of the likely counterarguments, they’re going to be in less of a position to realistically assess the prospects of different proposals.

Similarly, the group activities should not involve leading questions. (“Please share a short story of how the facilities project(s) have impacted your students.”)

I’ve written before about how our district sometimes seems incapable of soliciting public input without trying to manipulate it. Why walk right into that criticism?


amy said...

Yes, it's a serious problem, not least because it so seriously underestimates this community. A year or so ago I was talking to a City employee who'd been warned/told before she took her job that Iowa City people are *difficult*. Will show up, will read, will argue, will form committes, will question everything you do. And that's true. An admin that seeks to manage conversation just looks like it's in a defensive crouch.

I genuinely do not understand what this admin's playing at, frankly. The request started out gargantuan, truly fantastic, with no recognition whatsoever that this was, for lack of a better word, insane, as was the shocking paucity of well-put-together data backing up the request. I help put together requests for money for a living, and nothing like this would ever pass muster with any agency I've ever heard of. For a request like this, or for a request like the proposed revision, I should be looking at a binder a few hundred pages thick, something that's a real chore to read. Instead I see a "detailed Plan" that's really a TOC.

Do I believe it's possible that the district really needs $200M for buildings over the next 8 years or so? Yes. Do I believe it's likely? No. In the end, what I see is a bump-up of 2000 kids, projected -- which could happen -- and some repairs and sports stuff, and some HVAC. Forgive me, but this does not say to me two hundred million dollars. In a word, I'm unpersuaded, and I'd like very much to know who put the budget-line numbers together and how. I'd like very much to know who the expected recipients of $200M are, and what their relationships are to the people who designed the FMP. Particularly since one of the people who helped to put the plan together is notoriously dishonest. And it's a lot of money regardless of how it's sliced.

I'm struck, too, by the fact that this is merely about *buildings*. It's not about anything that goes into the buildings.

And I keep coming back to the idea that we have trouble getting kids to and from school, but we're all set to spend $15M+ on sports facilities, most of which will be used by small minorities of the students. We are not a Chinese Olympic wrestling camp, and we seem to have reasonable enough facilities to host area competitions. How many millions of dollars does it take to roll around on the ground in a circle? I can't in good conscience vote for a thing like that. A track/xc setup at NWJH -- my kid goes there, I ran track, I've been a runner for over 30 years, and if we had money to burn I'd say okay. But we don't. And you don't need a fancy setup for running; that's part of the point of running.

I am guessing that what we actually have here is, at a minimum, one heck of a wish list with beyond-retail prices. But I'm also concerned about the ability of this admin and board to handle as much bond money as they're looking for, here, in part because of how they already seem to need to steer and manipulate the conversation. If this is how it is now, how does it go if something goes wrong? We'll assign stars to curated comments?

Anonymous said...

How to explain the huge pay raise for a superintendent who is dramatically unresponsive to community input, who wants to put the burdens of school integration on those least able to bear it, and whose administration is under investigation for mismanagement of special education, and who has cultivated a culture of retaliation against whistleblowers? This doesn't represent the values of Iowa City community.

The obvious explanation is that there's corruption involving contractors/developers, the school board majority group, and the superintendent. $200 million to support this? No.

I've always supported school funding votes, but not this time...no more money for this train wreck. Housecleaning is direly needed.

Anonymous said...

I attended last night’s listening post, and there were two major problems: one immediate and one more long term. First, the immediate. It was clear from the beginning that the board president had no real interest in, well, listening. Just lots of cheerleading. Our group was able to discuss one question for about ten minutes and report out. The rest of the time was Lynch and his PowerPoint. This was not a listening post – it was propaganda. Before asking people to make time for something like this (and people are very, very busy these days), please give it an accurate name. If it’s a pep rally, call it that. But don’t waste my time, inviting me to something on false pretenses.

Second, the long term. Because this pep rally was called a listening post, it will now go down in district lore as part of the administration’s efforts to listen to the public, to engage community members, and to really (I can barely type this) listen. (Some) board members will talk about these meetings like they do the meetings about the FMP: we built consensus through discussion, supported real dialogue, you get the picture. What that particular picture leaves out, though, is that the public widely disagreed with the prospect of closing schools, and yet here we are.

I suspect I’m not alone in saying that I’m tired. I’m tired of the district saying one thing and doing another. I want to support our schools, but the level of disrespect that bait and switch events like this are built on is just so defeating. My hope is that the board and administration realize, at some point, that they will need the public’s support, whether it be through bond passage or a new revenue purpose statement vote (I was pretty surprised to hear Lynch hint that we might not need a new RPS, by the way). And, that inviting that public to a listening post, only to preach at them for an hour and a half, is not the way to get it.

Anonymous said...

I don't see how bond can pass with current superintendent and facilities director in charge. Does facilities guy still live in Des Moines?

How did bond go from 119 to $200 million to breaking up amount to make it look smaller?

I don't like having older schools torn down in favor of urban sprawl. Iowa City schools should not be building schools in corn fields.

Vote No!

Anonymous said...

There would be more capacity in classrooms if the district got rid of its time out rooms. If a board president can't follow rules and listen at a listening post...

Anonymous said...

I attended the Grant Wood listening post last night. I have never attended anything like in my 30 years of being involved in public education. I had to bite my tongue in half to keep from interrupting Chris Lynch when said that over 2,000 people responded to the school online survey about the bond. He said that in Cedar Rapids and other districts, they NEVER get that kind of public comment on school board issues. He said as a point of pride, like "Look at the thousands of people who we are listening to."

I so wanted to jump up and yell, " Dude!You are completely missing the point!No one wants to be involved in school board issues. They want to vote for competent board members who will do the right thing, so they don't have to worry about. The fact over 2,000 people are taking the time to do your survey means there are over 2,000 people who can see a train crash coming and they are trying to stop it. The fact that NO other district has this level of public involvement, means that their schools are fine and no one is worried."

Luckily, I am a lady and so I said nothing. I will be speaking with the power of my vote in September. I will vote NO on this horrific bond and I will not vote for any of the school board members running for reelection, including the board president, Chris Lynch.

Also, I sat at a table where people were seriously arguing that knocking down Hoover elementary (a 60 yr. old building that has HVAC and needs NOTHING in maintenance) so City High can expand their parking lot, is a perfectly rational use of taxpayer money. I have no idea where the retired folks at my table made their millions of dollars in pensions, but in the real world where I live, it is nonsensical to tear down perfectly good assets to pave a parking lot.

Anonymous said...

ThoughtExchange is a propaganda tool. Lynch and Murley aren't listening to negative thoughts about the bond.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if all this hoopla over an unnecessary bond is a way to detract attention from what really is an underperforming school district? Many of our kids would be better off going elsewhere for their education. Sure, for those who want unlimited AP classes, trips abroad, to attend an Ivy league school, etc things are great. But if you want to be a carpenter or electrician, ICCSD is not the place for you.

Anonymous said...

I attended the listening post at Grant Wood last night as well. What a joke. I felt like Lynch stood up there trying to convince us to join a cult. I went in with the mindset that I was voting NO to the bond and left feeling even more confidant with my decision to vote NO. Sorry Lynch, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid on this one. Here's the deal, do some of these schools absolutely need renovations, HVAC, more classroom space? Absolutely, hands down, YES. However, I'm not confidant that administration is doing things in the right order. Right now we are in the process of putting in an 8 million dollar tennis court at west high---WHAT? When was the last time we were dismissed early from school because WHS's tennis court wasn't up to par? How did that project jump ahead of some of the more needed projects? The district has made the mistake of working on a lot of the wants/elective needs instead of focusing on the real needs of this district. Tearing down Hoover and dumping 4.2 million into Roosevelt (which remember they decided to close a few years ago) is crazy to me. Also, attach the updated enrollment numbers to the projects. Will we still need as many additions to schools if we look at the enrollment numbers now that we have new boundaries as of May of this year? I honestly just don't get the rationale behind any of it. Oh and let's not forget about spending money to unnecessarily bus kids to schools further away from their homes. Unfortunately, the kids at these schools that desperately need these upgrades will be the ones to suffer but I cannot in good conscience vote for something that Murley or Lynch has anything to do with because I absolutely cannot trust them. Lynch and Murley act like the money the district has is their money to do as they please with. Unbelievable.
Chris—what will happen to the new Hoover building if the bond doesn’t pass?

Anonymous said...

Any reason why the tennis courts at West had to get done now ahead of air conditioning? Will City and Liberty get tennis courts like West? At what cost?

Amy said...

This whole show is bizarre. If this is what's going on, I'm tempted to go just to record it and put the recording online so that people can see what's being billed as "participation".

The fact that they're trying *this hard* to sell this bond without giving reasonable detail about the plans says to me that something's going off the rails. And when someone's trying to hustle a not-very-large community into a $200M decision without actual conversation and meaningful documentation, and the cast includes a suspended-license lawyer, a supe with a shady consulting deal, and a school board president who's happy to edit the conversation and call it roses, then I'm very disappointed to say that for the first time in 25 years' living here, I'm thinking "kickbacks" when I think "school bond".

I mean it could just be sheer incompetence in communicating with the public, but if they're that bad at it, they have no business managing $200M anyway.

Chris, this whole episode's also made me wonder about how the district's managing money that's parked temporarily. In '08 we saw many districts in trouble because their finance directors had gone galloping off after yield, in desperation, and bought into deals clearly too good to be true, and gotten the districts into serious trouble. Ruin, some of them. If you look at the Regents' financial reports on the hospital and universities lately, you'll see the same tendency, with money in higher-risk investments. So I'm also wondering what the plan is for the borrowed money inbetween "borrowed" and "spent", and what restrictions exist on how that money's parked. I've not been able to find anything about that in the board docs. Do you know anything?

Recovering Bond Lawyer said...

Amy, federal law guides how bond proceeds may be invested before they are spent. In simple terms, entities are allowed to earn a limited return on those funds. Anything they earn beyond what is allowed must be rebated to the federal government. There's no incentive to get risky with those proceeds.

Anonymous said...

With Liberty guaranteed to fill up in the next few years why force kids in the 9th and 10th grade to go to Liberty if they want to stay at West? There is no possibility that Liberty isn't off the ground and hitting its stride in 5 years. Why that lack of flexibility during the transition, Liebig? Some families have a myriad of reasons for wanting to stay at West and they will have no impact on where Liberty ends up in 5 years. Why do you feel the need to control those families?

BTW how many City High teachers/administrators are leaving City for Liberty? And other than Alexander being bused away how many City High elementary schools are being peeled away to feed Liberty?

amy said...

Thanks, RBL, that's good to know.

Anonymous said...

9:50 a.m. Both City and West should lose teachers to Liberty. Isn't Liberty getting students from both City and West?

Chris, can you explain why City needs another addition when West is going to have lots of space.

Amy makes some good points.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1/19/17 @ 9:50am. I'm confused as to what you are trying to say. Do you mean why would WHS 9th and 10th graders have to go to Liberty? I would assume it's so they have students on day 1 that they are open and the secondary boundaries indicate this is the school they are to attend . And the myriad of reasons of wanting to stay at WHS...welcome to how Alexander and Kirkwood feel being forced to go to schools further away from their homes. Can't blame Liebig for the Alexander and Kirkwood issue though. We can thank the majority of the board for that delightful decision.

Anonymous said...

There is way too much controlling of who goes to what HS school in this district. There are going to be plenty of seats at the HS level.

It's not that complicated. Zone students to their home HS. Then if a family wants to go to another HS and if they can get their child to that other HS and if there's space at that other HS let them go.

And if a board members rationale is that they are worried about Liberty getting enough students they need to stop thinking that way. All the growth projections show Liberty is filling up.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:59, Good points. How much will the tennis and baseball facilities on the Hoover Elementary site cost and will they be scheduled ahead of critical AC or capacity needs?

Anonymous said...

Why is the majority on the Board hesitant to address the overcrowding they created at NCJH and Liberty? Why are we discussing building another junior high while dragging feet on the needed addition at NCJH? Once the addition is built, additional junior high capacity won't be needed for 10+ years. We don't have the luxury of excess dollars to build or staff a building that is not needed now. We have too many other updates and capacity needs.

Anonymous said...

Chris, what is going to happen with the Hoover Elementary site. Is it tennis and baseball fields? Doesn't City High already have tennis and baseball fields?

amy said...

Okay, I'm not interested in the perseverations about Hoover or east/west paranoias.

I am however interested in how the people in charge of the district think about money when they're coming around looking for $200M not that long after asking for a very sizeable slice of money in, what was it, 2013? So I went and had a look at how Steve handles his own money. I went to the Recorder's website and looked up his mortgage information, and it gave me some pause.

When Steve got here in 2010, says the Recorder's site, he bought one of the more expensive houses available in Iowa City. Nothing crazy for a family of five, but still very nice, and the purchase price was $337K. To buy that house he took out mortgages -- two of them -- worth nearly the entire purchase price of the house -- about $320K. Almost nothing down. How he managed that two year after the economy melted down over risky mortgages, I don't know, but he did.

He refinanced in 2012 at $272K, which is reasonable enough, given his salary. But then in 2015 he refinanced again to $279K, meaning that after 5 years he's paid off only $41K. Now, that sounds considerable until you look at what he's being paid. His take-home has to be in the range of $10K per month. He'd had five years' mortgage-paying, so he'd managed to whittle that loan down only by about $8K per year.

If you or I were bringing in $10K/month take-home, I think we'd probably do considerably better than that. I think we'd probably be looking at knocking a good $100K or more off that loan in five years, because we'd probably manage to knock $2K a month or better in principal payments off that house loan after the usual mortgage payment, or about $25K per year. At something like $6K per month in the bank after that, even with three kids, I think we'd all be feeling pretty nifty. But Steve didn't do that. All he's managed is that anemic $41K in five years on the large supe salary, which he's still felt it necessary to supplement with some decidedly odd consulting gigs.

That says to me one of four things. Either:

1. Steve is terrible at managing money; or
2. Steve is of a mind to play games with buildings and loans, rather than regarding buildings as things you actually use and live in, and loans as things you try to keep as small as possible and pay off as fast as possible; or
3. Steve has some very expensive personal/family issue, which would of course be personal; or
4. there's some less harrowing explanation for the giant loan balance after five years that involves doing the house-is-piggybank thing, which would be curious anyway given the nifty disposable-income stream -- business or recreational, maybe, but, again, personal, if worrying in the direction of (2).

If the reason for the low payoff rate for the massively-mortgaged house is either 1 or 2, this isn't encouraging. I do not think that someone who's either bad at money or inclined to play games should be encouraged in asking for $200M in public money. Just plain don't.

Now I am sure that there are people reading this, possibly including Steve, who are all flavors of indignant at this discussion, which I certainly understand. However, when a man comes around beating a drum for a 200 million dollar loan, I do want to know how he thinks about loans, and I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to talk about.

Are there prudent people on the board who can explain in reasonable detail what all this money's supposed to be paying for? When I say "reasonable detail", again, I mean one of them big fat binders with explanations of where the estimates are coming from and who the likely recipients are and Ambien-quality prose about what the expenditures are going to be, in some detail, and why we need all these things exactly. Because I am still not finding any such thing handy.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Why did West High get fancy tennis courts before some schools got air conditioning?

Anonymous said...

The bond is a big jobs bill and there will be a lot of money made selling and building houses and commercial development around new schools. Developers and anyone who does business with developers will support it. The rest of us will pay taxes for it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous January 23, 2017 at 9:26 PM: Yes you nailed it. Follow the money...leads straight to the contractors and developers. And we are left to wonder whether those beneficiaries then reward the decision-makers in some way.

This kind of money trail is the only way it makes sense to close a strong functional school which is located right in the middle of a diverse population of families. Hoover is really a model school in many ways. The school district has had a very difficult time coming up with any justification of the closure that doesn't seem completely fabricated.

And to the prior poster, yes City High already has baseball and tennis facilities.

I am proud of our schools, and would like to support them as I have in the past. But this superintendent and his rubber-stamp lackeys in the school board majority have got to be voted out first... I will not vote to dump $200 million more into their scheme, which has nothing to do with student success and everything to do with sweet deals for contractors and developers.

Anonymous said...

Amen to 12:16. You've nailed it!
Not being able to state what is going to happen with Hoover is just pathetic.

I support our schools too but the spending is out of control.

Anonymous said...

So Carmen Dixon, the person in charge of the special education program which blatantly retaliated against parents and teachers who advocate for more services for the kids who need it, doesn't get fired but instead gets another job administrating the same special education program? Is that nuts or what? What does it take for someone to be held accountable in this district?

Anonymous said...

You are looking at a decade long attempt to redefine the school district via political leverage and the school board.

Making CHS less racially identifiable by moving Alexander away is important to their plan. They don't want CHS to be "that" school. No choice for Alexander students, they are going to be bused away from CHS. You can thank Roesler, Lynch, DeLoach, and Kirschling for this. And let's not forget that means Kirkwood is pushed out of West. You can thank them also.

Capitalizing on a divided West and North is part of their plan. Yes, their plan includes handicapping West and Liberty so CHS can have better. Better sports teams, academics, and reputation. Divide and conquer. This is why they don't want to give school "choice" to 9th and 10th grade students who want to stay at West. This is why they won't give CHS students (north shimek and north Lincoln) the option of Liberty. You can thank Liebig for this. Was introducing this and pretending to be surprised it passed his baptism as a born again east sider?

Why so slow to finish Liberty and add on to NCJH? Why are they spending more on the east side than anywhere else? SAVE, PPEL and the GO Bond combined are going to put more $$$ into the east than any other part of the district.

They are removing choice of school from students and they want huge amounts of money going into the east side and they want it first and they will use the later projects for West and Liberty as leverage.

The West and North areas of the district need to wake up. They have no power and they are sitting by idly as decision after decision is being made that puts them in last place.

What's going to become of West? Is that place going to become a shell of its former self? How is the morale at West today? Good luck to all those neighborhoods and property values that feed West. How long before McGinness and Murley move?

Good luck to Liberty with over crowded elementary schools and an overcrowded junior high and a partially completed HS. But you come after the east side. Get used to it, you have no say in the school board.

Anonymous said...

10:00 a.m. How can you complain about North Shimek and North Lincoln not getting the option of Liberty and at the same time complain that Liberty's elementaries are overcrowded? The solution to over crowding is to adjust boundaries not to spend more over everyone else's money building new.

Anonymous said...

Why can't Liberty zoned kids open enroll into West High next year as 9th and 10th graders? With so much population growth in NL and plenty of seats opening up at WHS it doesn't make sense for the school board to exercise so much control over every individual. Liebig showed no respect for relationships built over a lifetime when he proposed his hard line stance on this issue. Sure, he can say it was necessary for Liberty but not even the NL people are buying that one. The upside is that we have all gotten a good look at what an east side school boards decisions look like.

And maybe West has themselves to blame for not putting anyone on the school board (I don't count McG or Lynch cause of they way they voted). But don't be surprised if in 5-10 years CHS is running into more of the same problems they have been complaining about for the last 10 years. Their brand of leadership has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way and their school board control is living on borrowed time.

Anonymous said...

North Lincoln is currently scheduled to go to Liberty, unless of course they change things up again which wouldn't surprise me at all.

Anonymous said...

Everyone needs to understand what really is going on. The administration and a majority of the board don't want to prioritize needs. They want to give most more than what they need so that everyone receives something big (needed or not)by voting for the bond.

The simple fact is that there are needs in the district that are more important than others. For example, CHS (which my kids go to) doesn't need any more additions or changes.

There are critical space needs developing in the north which are far more important than any remodeling needs at CHS.

The prudent vote on the bond is "no" so that a new board can actually prioritize things and not give everyone a Cadillac when just some need a Ford.

And it would help if we had a superintendant that was respected and trusted.

Anonymous said...

January 26, 2017 at 10:17 AM--I think Chris had a post directly related to what you are saying in regards to the 9th and 10th graders having to go to Liberty and I think he explains why the decision was made.
In your comments "it doesn't make sense for the school board to exercise so much control over every individual. Liebig showed no respect for relationships built over a lifetime when he proposed his hard line stance on this issue." Did you argue for the Kirkwood and Alexander kids that had this same thing happen to them this past year when the majority of the board voted to send them to other schools rather than the schools closest to their homes? The majority of the board reason for doing this were crap however I think Liebig had actual data to back up the Liberty situation for 9th and 10th graders.

Anonymous said...

I've read all of Liebig's post. And I know his vote. What's done is done. What he did was another in a series of steps to secure the best position for 1/3 of the district. And that includes busing Alexander away from CHS and busing Kirkwood away from WHS. They are burning a lot of bridges while others are building their own.

Anonymous said...

Here's the link to the liberty situation you're referring to http://anotherblogaboutschool.blogspot.com/2017/01/follow-up-voluntary-transfers.html?m=1 the reasoning behind not letting kids transfer out which makes sense to me. Also of note, Liebig was NOT a supporter of the bussing for balance scheme that put Kirkwood at NCJH/Liberty or Alexander at NWJH/WHS.

Anonymous said...

Yeah I read it. Total bull. Liebig uses a motion he opposed (Alexander to WHS) as justification for more of the same.

Yet another east sider making a move to control what everyone else's kids have to do while CHS doesn't lose students, doesn't have sports teams divided, doesn't have clubs divided, doesn't have their jr highs divided (except for ostracized Alexander elementary).

Liebig = more of the same

In the future I won't vote for anyone with any known east side allegiance.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link 2:25 showing why Chris made his decision. I'll post again.


Chris makes a lot of sense. I like him sharing his reasons and keeping his blog open. Keep up the good work Chris!

Anonymous said...

The board was wrong to put two of the poorest and blackest schools in the district on buses to move them away from their current HS. None of which would be happening if CHS weren't so eager to push Alexander students away.
And now Liebig introduces a similar motion to limit anyone from Liberty's zone from opting away from Liberty and into WHS? And you like his rationale which is essentially "it's bad for some kids so it should be bad for all the kids."
No, you fight their BS plan at every turn, you don't add to it. Liebig caved. He gave up. He went to the dark side. Then again he could have been the east sides "play both sides guy." Either way it is what it is.

Not only is Liebig now complicit in the whole "moving kids around for spurious reasons plan" he is now an instrument of that plan. When the West and North get their crap together and bang down the door to the school board and send the east siders out on their asses we will remember how the east siders manipulated and played with the lives of thousands.

Anonymous said...

9:37: So you want your kids to go to school with the fewest black kids and the fewest poor kids possible? Is that what you are saying? And you think Liebig is on the dark side?

You should send your kids to a private school.

Anonymous said...

Hahaha. You sound like Maka. I laughed at her just like I laugh at you with that comment. And I kept on laughing at her when I saw that pathetic opinion piece she wrote in support of Roesler's election campaign. You call that study you cited "good evidence," Maka?

Name calling. Hahaha. That's what you got?....you big bully;-)

Anonymous said...

I think it is important to give people a sense of where the money for the proposed bond would actually be coming from. I am not suggesting that projects be prioritized based on this information. I just think it’s important to put it out there for sake of discussion. It might also help clear up some misconceptions that I’ve heard from the North Liberty contingent.

From the Iowa Department of Management website, here are the 2016 Total Net Valuations (without Gas and Electricity values) for the following communities:

Iowa City $2.8B
Coralville $874M
North Liberty $509M
U Heights $73M
Hills $47M

Based on this data, it looks like Iowa City will be contributing about five and one half times that of North Liberty. Or, looking at it another way, Iowa City will be contributing about twice that of Coralville and North Liberty combined.

It would also be great if one of the local news organizations could do a little investigating and reporting on the short and long term effects of TIFF on the District’s budget.

Anonymous said...

3:29 The problem with your analysis is that you are contrasting cities with a school district. Iowa City Community School District is its own government. If you are part of a school district, you should focus on all of the children within its borders and the management of the district, not cities.

There are still lots of reasons to vote for or against a bond.

I'd also like to see the TIF info.

Anonymous said...

Did you people read this? https://anotherblogaboutschool.blogspot.com/2017/01/follow-up-voluntary-transfers.html

It appears not.

NCJH and Liberty will be overcrowded due the to Board's decision to move Kirkwood to those schools, something Liebig was against.

Please look at the latest enrollment projections and you will see the capacity issues at those schools. The situation is even worse since the projections do not include the North Ridge and Donovan Estates developments. NCJH and Liberty don't have room for transfers; they won't even have room for the students already assigned there.

Anonymous said...

Liebig needs to step aside. He might be a good guy and if he is it's even more reason why he needs to step aside.
This board (and 8 years of school board) wants to put CHS and the east side first. The lack of respect being given to West and NL is going to come back and bite the east side in the rear.
When you treat people like pieces of raw materials in a poorly researched engineering experiment you are guaranteed to breed contempt. See Chris Lynch and Brian Kirschling as two prime examples of this. Kirschling and his boss at the U (Ed Stone) need to get back to playing doctor. Ed Stone had no business threatening to sue the district then writing the Equity Policy. Kirschling and Stone aren't educators and they have proven that with their long track record of BS.