Renee at Patch sat down with Decatur Superintendent Phyllis Edwards, who responded to many of the issues swirling around the recent bell schedule. Here’s just one question and answer to give you a taste…
Q: Did you listen to parents, SLT members and students and their needs throughout the [bell schedule] process?
A: Yes. I believe I did. That’s how I work. I would be happy to have a group of folks interested in this issue and work with them and take this on at a later date. But let’s look at it. Just because 100 or more made up their minds that they want it a certain way and the board has voted a certain way, I don’t get between that. If this is what they want, to revisit the issue, I agree. At a later time, let’s have a longer time discussion and we can do this by midyear next year. We can get all the answers to all the questions. Let’s also make sure we are talking to not just some of the people, but all of the people. Let’s hear what the parents have to say. Let’s poll them. But let’s give them enough time.
The Decatur School Board meets tonight at 6:30p at Westchester, where Board Member John Ahmann has stated that he’ll try to get the bell schedule back on the agenda.
How long have we known we were opening two new schools and would need to visit the bell schedule? Why wasn’t that enough time?
Also, why do it wrong now and then do it right starting next year in mid-year?
Where does he plan on getting the 3 votes from?
Who knows? But all he needs is for the absent member from last time (Seals) to vote his way, plus one of the 3 who voted in favor of the bell schedule last time. Now that there is a proposal on the table that seems to address the cost worries while pushing the DHS start time later, I don’t see why somebody couldn’t change their mind and decide that the newly proposed schedule is actually for the best, after all.
Correction re meeting time in DM’s post: The CSD Board’s general meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. (not 7:30p.m.), and it will be preceded at 5:30 p.m. by a “bill of rights” meeting addressing the proposed millage increase.
Ack. Thanks Don.
“Let’s hear what the parents have to say. Let’s poll them. But let’s give them enough time.”
Might have avoided the controversy, had this process been followed in January. Instead, a major change was pushed, with zero input beforehand. In fact, I believe I recall the superintendant’s letter stating that such issues would be decided by admin, and that it would not be appropriate to consult the SLT’s.
Dr. Edwards pushed for the vote in April with the rationale that the Certificate of Occupancy required an approved bell schedule. Except that, upon further questioning from the BoE, no such thing was required.
At the May meeting, Bruce Rhoaden was asked specifically if he had consulted the DHS SLT, and he answered that they were fine with the 8:00 am start. Except that, according to actual members, they had NOT done so.
Two such glaring inaccuracies would be enough for anyone to question the process.
So, at tonight’s meeting a millage increase will be proposed? CSD wants more money to spend when they refuse to look creatively at more efficient use of buses. As long as we run 16 buses (special needs not included) in a 4-sq.-mile town, we are NOT managing the public’s money very well at all.
FYI Dr. Edwards’ letter of March 7th is still posted on CSD’s site. Click on “Hot Topics” and scroll down to the “Start times” heading.
Read it and contrast with the statement made to “Patch.”
THanks for pointing to this. I was beginning to think I made this all up. From that note:
“Please understand that there is no action item on the Board of Education agenda. This is an administrative decision not a policy decision and one that I have made for several
years now. It would also not be feasible to go to the School Leadership Teams since the start and end times for school all impact other schools’ start and end times. We only
have so many buses to move between the elementary and the middle/high school students. I am currently looking for ways to reduce the CSD budget and had hoped that with the new K-3 at Glennwood, most k-3 students might walk or roll to school.”
I know both sides of this issue, but I don’t understand why we went from the above to where we are now. It’s this process I don’t get.
The only thing I “get” for sure right now is that Dr. Edwards seems to be talking out both sides of her mouth. I’m starting to understand why some posters have difficulty believing what they’re told by CSD’s admin.
It certainly doesn’t jive. We can debate motivations of key players here until the cows come home, but this aspect of it is what really makes me unsettled.
Clearly, this issue was not addressed with the community. It was “decided by admin” and there is a great sense that CSD had little interest in community input on this topic. This is not in character with this school district. If CSD does not listen to the community, November is not far away.
I still can’t figure out why we have 12 or is it 16 buses?.. in a 4.2 square mile community that has deemed it a priority to be more green, conserve more, use less energy, burn less fuel etc…not to mention money put into walking/biking paths plus programs to promote walking/biking to school. I see large buses with few students riding around as is already…
Dr. Edwards has perfected the art of politic-speak. Which is to say that statement is quite circuitous. “Yes. I believe I did. That’s how I work. I would be happy to have a group of folks interested in this issue and work with them and take this on at a later date. But let’s look at it. Just because 100 or more made up their minds that they want it a certain way and the board has voted a certain way, I don’t get between that. If this is what they want, to revisit the issue, I agree.” Huh? Assuming that Renee quoted her accurately, this statement says NOTHING– and everything. And by the way, in this town, and in this small school system, 100 or more is a lot of voices. So it’s not so good to ignore that.
185 signatures were on the petition as of last night. Note, the petition was online for only 8 days in the middle of Summer break. -No one to my knowledge went knocking on doors. It was signed by students, graduates, teachers, community members, parent school volunteers, PTA, PTO, and PTSA executive board members, a past DBA president, and members of many of the School Leadership Teams (SLTs) including those affected by the proposed amendment. If that is a minority, it is a minority which is over-represented by the folks who represent community engagement.
The original April proposal and the Transportation Fast Facts had stated that more buses would be needed. So I want to recognize the Central Office staff for looking harder at the problem and coming back with a better solution. It may not be the schedule I would prefer, but it represents a real improvement over the original recommendation. The current bell schedule, if I understand it correctly, will use 10 regular buses and 2 special needs buses next year. This represents 4 fewer buses than we currently use.