_________________________________________________________________

Monday, January 23, 2017

School board agenda for Tuesday, January 24

Some of the things on the agenda for this week’s school board meeting:

  • A report from the Student Climate Survey Task Force


  • The 2016-17 enrollment, demographics, and class size report


  • The results of the district’s drinking water lead testing, including some results that were “notable”

At our work session, we’ll continue to discuss the facilities master plan and related bond proposal (info here and here).

The full agendas are here and here. Please chime in with a comment about anything that catches your attention.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can you tell us more about the special ed survey follow up - are district employees checking for retaliation?

Anonymous said...

I noticed WHS had a PE class with only 13 students in it. Why does the district allow such a small class to exist? Isn't this a waste of teacher resources?

Betty Jane said...

Chris, does the district have any policy about what slogans or symbols student athletes are permitted to wear when they are representing their school in a competition? I was really surprised to watch the video in the tweet Craig sent out over the weekend, and hear the reporter lead with a question about "Trump socks." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWHLdqh8tZg&feature=youtu.be

I would not expect to see a student wear any piece of clothing with any image or slogan other than their own school or another ICCSD school at a competition where they are representing a school in our district.

Anonymous said...

Chris, are there more boys than girls in special ed? If so, has anyone looked at why this is happening?

Anonymous said...

Chris, regarding the GO proposal what are your thoughts on the $200 million one time proposal instead of two or three separate proposals?

I note that Chris Lynch proposed the multiple bond option, but then was quoted in the paper today as again supporting the large one, and that in a memo also dated today in tonight's meeting information once again proposes the smaller bond option? Why the flip flops?

And is that memo from Chris something that he actually wrote or is he just the messenger for what the administration wants? It sure doesn't look like anything he would write.

Karen W said...

Disappointed to see a recommendation to take TREC renovations out of the FMP on tonight's work session, with an eye towards closing it in the future. I suspect parents would have turned out to listening posts to speak on this issue if we'd known it was on the table before those meetings. Space for programs for all students need to be adequately accounted for in the FMP.

Anonymous said...

Anonje 8:51

Why does City High have an English class with only 12 students, a science class with only 12 students, and a SS class with only 10 students? Waste of resources or just some scheduling issues? Wow, big issues with large class sizes at NCJH. Class sizes at some elementary schools are very small.

Anonymous said...

What's going on with Roosevelt/TREC? What are the age groups of the kids in the programs there that they are moving to West? Will they be a good fit with West High?

What's going on with Tate needing a gym? Aren't the Tate kids part of West and City? I'm hearing that the school doesn't have much in the way of academics. Will this get fixed?

Karen W said...

TREC houses six or seven programs that serve kids in grades 7-12. It also houses the homeschool assistance program that serves students in K-12 and needs adequate parking for parents during the school day. It isn't clear from the FMP note which of the programs are scheduled to move to West High.

amy said...

Is TREC Roosevelt? If so, are we all the way around the track again on this dream of selling the place? We went through that. Nobody wants it. The board at the time had itself all convinced that it was a gold mine so please let's not with the fantasy again.

Also, Betty Jane, it's a public school, not a military academy. The kids have actual rights. Tinker v. Des Moines is the case you're looking for, I think.

People seizing up about class sizes: your kid should be so lucky as to have an English class with 12 kids in it. Your kid might even learn how to write. If you're desperate to think of how it works out as a moneysaver, consider what the writing courses cost in college. I teach those kids who were 30 to a room in grade school, and it's a long way from where they are to cogent thinking and well-constructed writing. They all had reasonable grades in K-12, too. Still can't write because nobody had the time to stop and teach them. Too many kids in the classrooms.

Anonymous said...

People/developers wanted the TREC site, just not with the board's restrictions. It's a great big site for a dorm/condos/medical building.

If grad students move into the big apartment complex on Riverside, they might have kids that need to go to school. TREC building is the closest.

Chris, can Murley tell us what he is doing with Roosevelt/TREC or will this just be another Hoover situation?

Anonymous said...

When did the board approve another high level position? Did an administrator get taken out of the central office?

Press-Citizen reported "Fry said Special Education Director Carmen Dixon recently moved into an administrative support role at Alexander, Grant Wood and Hills elementaries, where she is helping with work including behavior-related programming."

Anonymous said...

What's with board president Chris Lynch flip flopping on the size of the bond? First big then small then big again?

Anonymous said...

Anon 1/25/17 @ 9:11am.
I assume it's because the East Side crew has persuaded him to keep it as one big bond. If you'll notice the names on the letter that was sent to the board are all folks that heavily supported Paul during his campaign, support tearing down Hoover to build new tennis courts and baseball fields (or is it going to be a parking lot) for CHS and busing Alexander to WHS away from CHS. My guess is that the folks that signed the letter are concerned that CHS won't get the addition that is in the original FMP due to updated enrollment numbers and they will be moved further down the list for completion.

Anonymous said...

Just sad District Parent Organization co-president willing to spend money for buildings without dealing with problems like special ed.

www.press-citizen.com/story/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2017/01/25/response-deprosse-and-dieterle-piece/96361338/

www.press-citizen.com/story/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2017/01/25/response-deprosse-and-dieterle-piece/96361338/

Anonymous said...

Anon 3;57... of course she supports the bond and current FMP and chooses not to see Murley in a negative light. She was one of the biggest supporters of Alexander going to WHS and was telling the Hoover PTO that their property values would decrease if Alexander attended CHS. It's all about CHS and the majority of the board is all about following the east side agenda.

Anonymous said...

The latest Save Hoover post (http://savehoover.blogspot.com) makes it sounds like there’s some scare tactics being used over there. Makes me wonder if all those people who signed Hayek’s letter knew what she’s been saying. Talk about embarrassing.

Anonymous said...

Did Mary Kate Hayek and her HAC group really call people who disagree with her provincial and an embarassment? Say it isn't so! I simply don't believe it. Oh the horror!

And now she and developers are committed to a full bond? Did any free and reduced lunch families even sign that letter the bond supporters sent?

Anonymous said...

Chris, I know this comment may be late; however, why does the district hire an outside company to check its fences? Why can't the district's own maintenance employees check the fences and arrange for their repair if or when needed? A lot of these fences are new. Wasn't the whole point of bringing the physical plan people in-house to save money?