Some of the items on the board’s agenda this week:
We’ll vote on resolutions supporting students and families impacted by immigration enforcement and creating a task force to plan additional supports.
We’ll hear a legislative update.
We’ll get an update from the committee that is considering transportation issues (such as the provision of activities buses at the secondary schools).
We’ll consider the superintendent’s recommended fiscal year 2018 budget and 2018 physical plan and equipment levy (PPEL) life cycle budget.
We’ll get an update from the committee addressing the issue of the district’s use of seclusion enclosures (see these two posts).
We’ll examine the draft ballot language for the district’s $191 million bond proposal.
There are several other items of potential interest as well. The full agendas are here and here. Please chime in with a comment about anything that catches your attention.
22 comments:
I hope everyone realizes that this vague bond language does not specify what if anything is to be done at each school. Indeed, there is no requirement that the district do anything to any particular school.
It's a classic setup for a bait and switch.
Do you trust the administration to do what it says it will do? I don't, especially if they are not willing to state what it is they will do on the ballot.
Exactly - They can pick and choose which projects they want to do and based on past actions this is what will happen. I don't think it really matters because there is very slim chance that the bond will pass. I do not supporting it and will not vote for it and probably 90% of those that I have encountered are not in favor either. I don't know how the administration thinks this will pass.
Hasn't the administration been telling us that there would be a set amount per project in the bond? That is nowhere to be found. Agree classic bait and switch aka FUBAR!
So is that Petition link supposed to be the language that what would appear on the ballot? If so why would ANYONE vote for that the way it is written? All it has is a gigantic number to spend and then a list of schools. It couldn't get much more vague than that.
When is the board going to look at the relationship between increased use of these archaic seclusion boxes and our top Administrators' plan to reduce disproportionate suspension of African Americans in the ICCSD.... face it, we can do better. Suspensions down, box use up and since no one knew about the boxes the solution worked... until the community found out about the boxes... get rid of the boxes and watch suspensions go up again. Administration needs a better plan or we need better administration.
Anonymous 12:18pm - Yes! To retort by saying, "but suspension rates will increase!" is still absolutely no reason to justify the use of these boxes. Apply some evidence - based practices and follow federal recommendations in order to support children who may be at risk of being suspended or have other behavioral concerns.
Even if the petition link is not the language on the ballot, the purpose listed for the bond is so vague, the administration can practically do anything it wants to with the schools as far as spending money on infrastructure.
We may not need to build any new schools. If the open enrollment out of iccsd trend continues the way it has and we can just keep sending more and more kids each year to other districts we will soon have plenty of capacity. There was a net 415 students open enrolling out of ICCDS last year compared to 103 in 2007-2008. What does this trend tell us? I think Murely needs another big raise - then maybe he will have enough $$$ to finally fix our problems.
07-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Open Enrollment In 178.8 149.4 149.0 131.0 123.0 120.0 138.0 117.0 97.0 85.0
Open Enrollment Out -282.2 -285.4 -364.0 -409.0 -418.0 -445.0 -454.0 -461.0 -482.0 -500.0
Net Open Enrollment -103.4 -136.0 -215.0 -278.0 -295.0 -325.0 -316.0 -344.0 -385.0 -415.0
I'd be interested to see how the open enrollment breaks down, i.e. how many are special education students? Anon. at 3:50, do you know? I understand that open enrollment is no longer an option in Solon and 3 of the 4 CCA elementary schools, because they reached capacity.
Bond language has disaster written all over it.
Schools in the past were promised projects with bond money that were not done.
This will be more of the same. Vote NO to this bond and make them come up with something that spends our hard earned tax dollars more wisely (on truly needed projects - not a bunch of art and music room additions), more efficiently (containing costs as much as possible), and with more specific language of what will be done and when it will be done. If that means multiple bonds, then let's do multiple bonds.
Chris, I'm glad to see this clarification re immigration inquiries/interrogations. I think it's the right thing to do. Thank you.
If the bond fails, and I believe it will, the proponents of the bond should resign from the Board.
So what is the deal with adding all of the activity buses. First they take away any possible bus routes that they legally can and now they are adding a bunch of activity buses for "low SES" schools? That doesn't even make sense. It is okay for a first grader to walk a couple miles on potentially unsafe routes by themselves in the winter just to get to school, but "low SES" get front door delivery for extracurricular activities. There are plenty of school activities I would love to have my kids in, but I can't get them there because I have to work - so they don't participate. It appears like ICCSD is all consumed with topics: "low SES", diversity, illegal immigrant students and passing a $200M bond and not so much with actually educating our children and curriculum. Don't get me wrong, those things are important, but after attending board meetings those topics seem to consume about 95% of their time. Performance in ICCSD is declining and it has little to do with spending $200M to add music rooms or chromebooks.
Anonymous 8:19. I agree with you. In my opinion the reason for having all the additional SES buses is to compensate for the fact that our highest administrators don't have the technical skills to help/direct/provide resources for the teachers who are teaching these SES kids. These administrators know how to assign buses and so we get more buses, but unfortunately they do not know how to teach or what our teachers need to do their jobs.
We really need a new superintendant who truly values and understands education. A no vote on the bond is probably the only way to get one given the board's current makeup.
All this administration knows how to do is throw money at problems to try to fix them - except right now there isn't much money to throw around. They don't have the skill set to actually diagnose and fix problems. It is like a car mechanic that has no diagnostic skills and just keeps replacing parts until it works again. Not a good use of our time and money. Time for change at the top - what we have now doesn't work.
There's more money than the administration is telling us. It makes no sense to cut all that bussing and then to keep adding bussing back. Either the money was there or it wasn't. It always seems to be there for consultants.
I hope Murley is not trying to buy votes for the bond by giving people what they want.
They are doing the activity busses because of the bs bussing for balance scheme that will impact the schools they are screwing with. Let's not forget the additional bussing that the district will be responsible for next year also as a result of the bussing for balance scheme. At one point the bussing for balance scheme was going to cost an estimated $250,000 a year in additional bussing costs.
The playground situation at Shimek the board approved is horrific. Once again, children with special needs are shafted. I can't understand a board that constantly votes for things sight unseen. That poor mother with the child in a wheelchair told the board the new playground would not be accessible to her child! What else to does the board need know to stop and request a look at the plans to make sure it is fully ADA compliant and will be equally fun for ALL children?
Seriously- the majority of this board is heartless when it comes to children with disabilities.
The board majority should not have approved a playground at Shimek where all of the playground equipment is not accessible to disabled children. What a terrible message to send to kids! Why can't this district be inclusive not exclusive?
So are they getting rid of the existing wooden play structure and adding two new non-compliant play structures? Will there be other compliant play equipment at Shimek that can be used? At other schools in the district what is the percentage of existing play equipment is compliant and also what percentage of new purchase equipment (say in the past 5 years) is compliant? Is there any kind of legal issues with this, does a certain percentage at a school need to be compliant?
Isn't Shimek the the well known "arsenic" play house? The structure that has arsenic-treated wood, that all the smart people in town avoid? Wouldn't want to poison our kids with chemicals.
Believe kids played on the Shimek playground this year and last. Hard to understand why district administration is going to have a child in a wheelchair watch while other kids play on the new playground. That's wrong.
Post a Comment