What do we get for our money?

            At our October 3^rd Board Meeting, Jim Shrawder rose to speak once again about our High School’s poor PSSA performance, and continued to link this performance to the high cost per student in our district.  I concede the accuracy of both his points, but I have a hard time following his cause-and-effect logic.

First, I agree that there is a problem at the Senior High.  In fact, I decided to run for a spot on the School Board six years ago because I could see the problem developing.  I fail to see the logic, however, in suggesting that low PSSA scores justify spending less on educating our children.  Common sense would seem to dictate that you would want to devote more resources to a troubled area, not less.  Of course, those resources need to be used wisely.  We should be having a discussion over how best to use them, not about whether they should be provided at all. 

            Perhaps it is an acceptable business practice to take resources away from a troubled facility, declare it bankrupt, and shut it down.  It may even be very profitable.  However, I would hope no one is seriously suggesting we employ this practice with our schools.  I guess we could shut down the high school and pay the surrounding districts to take in our students, but I would much prefer that we try to restore the excellence we once had.

            Second, we do have a high per pupil cost.  Remember that we are not discussing whether or not we can afford this expense – a discussion I would very much like to have.  Instead, it seems that Mr. Shrawder has looked at one piece of data, the eleventh grade PSSA scores, and concluded that we are wasting money on failing schools.  He does raise a fair question, however, what are we getting for our money?  Here is a partial list.

• Grades 1 through 8 have astonishing PSSA scores.  Discounting them would mean that the only purpose of the education received in early grades is preparation for later ones.  As a retired ninth grade teacher I would challenge that it is the only value. 
• The High School’s Advanced Placement program, which, for a small school, offers a large variety of such courses, has had remarkable success.  All our students do well, but I am most aware of the success of our Chemistry and Calculus programs, where we consistently have 90 – 100%  of our students scoring at the highest possible level. 
• We consistently send students to the national level of the History Day competition, to say nothing of the success we have had at the local and state level. 
• Our Science Olympiad team has a long record of success.
• Let us not forget the success of our music program.  Not only do we have stunning performances by all the participants, we very often place our most talented students in the regional and state chorus and orchestra.
• Most importantly, on a test that, unlike the PSSA, has significance for the students themselves, our kids were second in Berks County on the SAT (College Board) exam.  (Reported in the Reading Eagle on October 12^th.)
• At the other end of the academic spectrum, we have a reputation throughout the area for our success educating students with special needs. 
• Our provision for the academic support of struggling students, and the opportunity presented by the Pyramid tutoring period are unique in this area. 

Admittedly, for the past few years, we may not have utilized academic support and Pyramid to their fullest potential.  We should be looking at ways to rejuvenate these programs.  In fact, a remediation plan was proposed by our Language Arts teachers a few years ago, but the cuts made in the High School staff have made this renewal impossible.

            Does anyone besides Mr. Shrawder seriously believe that we can eliminate almost thirteen teaching positions and still continue the successes listed above?  One of the major factors in that success was the time and attention our teachers had been able to devote to individual students.  Given the reduction in staff, there is too little time and too many students for even our most dedicated teachers to continue providing the same level of individual attention.  We have brought our student-teacher ratio, and our cost per student, closer to the state average.  I hope no one will be surprised if much of our students‘ performance follows our 11^th grade PSSA scores, and becomes merely average as well.

New Start

After Jasper Ho’s “dream team” went down to defeat in the primary, I decided to take a break from this blog, and perhaps restart it as a “Majority Report” when the new Board takes office.  When the current Board Majority voted to eliminate almost thirteen teaching positions from our schools, words literally failed me.  Nothing could be said that would change that decision.  The primary was over; the public had spoken, but, with their usual arrogance, the current lame-duck Majority decided to go ahead with their ruinous reduction in teaching positions.

            I have restarted this blog, however, because I have since come to believe that this reduction, advocated most vocally by Amy Faust, was actually conceived by Jim Shrawder.  He is the only member of Jasper Ho’s dream team to win a partial victory – taking the Republican nomination in Region 3.  In deciding how to vote in November, people need to be aware of the harm this plan has on our children’s education.  Now that school has been back in session for about a month, the effect of the reduction in force has become clear.  I will be reporting on this situation in future posts. 

            Jim Shrawder refers to the current majority as “fiscal conservatives,” but, by their own words, cutting costs was not the issue.  Without dissenting comment by the four voting with them, Jasper Ho and Amy Faust made eliminating teaching positions a desirable end in itself.  Fiscal conservatism had nothing to do with their action.  By their logic, small classes and multiple electives must be bad things.  Remember, they are not saying we cannot afford to keep these positions, they are saying they do not want them.

            In fact, Mr. Shrawder has stated that since PSSA scores at the High School have dropped while the student-teacher ratio has decreased, we may assume that increasing that ratio should improve those scores.  This would be a logically correct statement only if the small class size of a low student-teacher ratio somehow caused the lower test scores.  Logically sounding nonsense seems to be Mr. Shrawder’s specialty.

            I made a study of PSSA scores over the last ten years and presented it to the Student Achievement Committee on September 12^th.  I compared the scores a class of students received in eighth grade to those they received in eleventh grade.  Based on this study, there is no doubt that there is a problem at the High School.  However, determining what that problem might be is not as simplistic as Mr. Shrawder would have us believe.  The scores I used were those supplied by both the Department of Education, and Mr. Shrawder’s favorite site, schooldigger.com.  While accurate, they do not give near enough detail.  While they allow for a comparison an entire eighth grade’s scores to those the same class received in eleventh grade, these are not necessarily the scores of all the same students.  During the intervening three years, students leave the district and others enter it.  How much this affects our scores is not revealed by the gross data available to the public.  How much effect did special needs students have on the overall score?  What about gender effects?  (These might be available on the Department’s web site.)  Is there a particular educational experience that influences scores?  Most importantly, do the declining scores represent an actual drop in achievement and learning, or reflect instead the attitude students have about the test?  The publicly available data does not give us the answers.

            As a result, I have asked the administration to track the progress of individual students across their years in our district.  That data might reveal the reasons for our declining overall scores and point us toward solutions.  It is always best to draw no conclusions until the data is examined, but I very much doubt that it will tells us our problem has been small class sizes.

            As soon as I can figure out how to do it, I will try to put a link to my study in a future post.

Don't Forget to Vote on May 17

            The shoe finally dropped.  About a month ago Mrs. Faust remarked that it was not about cutting costs or taxes, but that somehow reducing the number of teachers in our district was a goal with its own reward.  Ignoring the rest of her rhetoric, and expressions of what may be true heartfelt distress, this is what it comes down to.  In seems that reducing the number of teachers in our district is a good thing.  It is not something we are forced into doing despite its educational consequences.

            This view has the support of Mr. Ho, who remarked that, “ We must take this opportunity to reduce staff.”  Yes, he actually used the word “opportunity.”  He has said on several occasions that we need to reduce our schools to the “bare-bones” of basic skills.

            This is not a new position for these individuals.  For about the last fifteen years they have opposed almost every attempt to innovate, improve, update, or in any way change public education from what they believe is the right way of doing things.  Whether they were on or off the Board, Outcome Based Education, computers in the classroom, the one-to-one program, all day Kindergarten, the Learning Center approach, to name just a few, would always find Jasper Ho and Amy Faust speaking in opposition.  Unfortunately, they have been joined by Jeri Carroll, Leon Smith, and Craig Schroeder, and are now using the power of the purse to get their way.

            Our teachers will, of course, try their best, but there are limits on what can be accomplished with increasingly limited resources.  Fortunately, the community can express its outrage at the ballot box.  Both Jeri Carroll and Leon Smith are up for reelection.  Do not vote for them!  Unfortunately, regardless of the outcome of the primary, the current Board will hold office until December 1^st.  Hopefully, the damage they do will not be irreparable.

            The primary is Tuesday, May 17^th.  All candidates have cross-filed.  Completely unsolicited, and perhaps even unwanted, here are the people I hope will win

REGION ONE:  Borough of Kutztown

            Four Year Term  (Vote for two)

                                               

Alan Darion                                                                        

Carl Zeigler

Two Year Term  (Vote for one)

                        Kurt Friehauf  (unopposed)

REGION TWO:  Maxatawny Township and Borough of Lyons

            Four Year Term  (Vote for two)

                        Randy Burch

                        Caecilla Holt

REGION THREE:  Greenwich and Albany Townships and Borough of Lenhartsville

This race has gotten personal and ugly.  As an outsider it is best that I stay out of it.

What Will Be Cut?

            In my last post, I indicated that I believed some members of the Majority Block were using the economic difficulties we face to pursue a personal political agenda.  At our Facilities Committee meeting on February 28^th, there was a good indication, given the evidence, that is so.  At that meeting I moved to have the Board hold a public hearing to discuss the closing of the Albany school.  Please understand that does not mean I advocate doing this, but if all measures of saving money were to be discussed, then this should be included in the mix.  Laying off teachers, cutting programs, reducing maintenance, and other such savings, do not require a public hearing.  Closing a school does.  For this action to even be considered as part of next year’s budget, the hearing had to be scheduled immediately.   The motion failed when all six members of the Majority Block, including Sally Sunday’s replacement, Jerri Carrol, voted against it. 

            Let me repeat myself (as even retired teachers are prone to do).  I would probably not been in favor of closing the building.  To do so would have required moving 5^th grade to the Middle School, and the population may still be a bit too large.  Some students who had moved from one school to another last year would be forced to change schools yet again.  None of these changes are good; I simply wanted the Albany issue on the table with the rest of our program.  The fact that my motion failed is not as troubling as some of the reasons given for a “No” vote.  Most troubling was the remark made by one of the School Directors opposing my motion saying that, “Saving money isn’t everything.”  Although this Director (I am avoiding names so as not to be accused of making personal attacks) may have sincerely meant that we must also consider the impact our actions have on kids, it also indicates that saving money may not be the driving force behind many of the budget cuts the current Majority may force upon us.

            Repeating my remarks in a previous post, questioning a person’s motives can be problematic.  However, refusing to even consider the closing of the Albany school is revealing.  The preliminary budget passed by the Majority has already established a ceiling on spending without ever considering the effect that ceiling might have on the education of our children.  They have now determined that nothing compares to the harm that would be done by closing Albany.  This actions indicates to me that some members of the Board have already determined the reductions in spending they want without an open discussion of their educational impact.  I believe that some of the members have personal and political agendas, and are using our current economic difficulty to pursue those goals. 

            I am not sure what these goals might be.  I suspect that the members of the current Majority  each have different goals, but will support each other in order to reach their own ends.  Some may want to cut particular educational programs – not for objective educational reasons, but because they, “Don’t like them.”  Others may have a particular target in mind that would be hit by mass layoffs.  A few might be part of the national movement against teachers in general.  Unfortunately our kids’ welfare does not seem to be part of these agendas. 

The way the Board chooses to use the funds we will receive through the sale of Apex will be particularly revealing.  I do not yet have exact figures, but it is over one million dollars.  I also do not know how much is a “once-and­–done” windfall, and how much can go toward ongoing operating expenses.  The debate over this revenue should be instructive.  Listen carefully!  The May primary is coming up.

OOPS

Oops!  When I left the January 27^th Board meeting, I thought we had agreed on a preliminary budget.  That budget included far more spending than we would include in the final budget, but it would have given both the Board and the public an opportunity to examine the cuts we would have to make, and weigh them against the impact they might have on the education of our kids.  Unfortunately, my vote was needed to actually pass the proposed budget at the February 7^th meeting and I was absent.  Without my vote that budget failed to get the absolute majority of five votes it needed to pass.  The Board majority then reformed and imposed an arbitrary limit on the money we will spend on educating our kids without first considering the effect that limit will have.

It is always difficult to question the motives of public officials – a point Vice President Joe Biden has repeatedly made.  However, future events may reveal that at least some Board members are using the current economic situation to pursue an agenda that has more to do with personal politics than it does effective education.  Stay tuned as these events unfold.

At the February 222^nd meeting, the most heated discussion was over student/teacher ratios and the related class size.  Dividing the total number of students, 1536, by the total number of teachers, 146, indicates that there are about 10.5 students per teacher.  It would be difficult to justify spending tax payer money to support an average class size this small.  However, as individual teachers reported, their class sizes are well above that figure.  Several factors go into explaining this discrepancy.  At the risk of being accused of engaging in “fuzzy math,” here is an explanation.

Kutztown has a large number of special needs students.  The minimum number of teachers required by law to serve this population is 28.  Unlike the situation of many years ago, in which special education was conducted in self-contained classrooms, all these students now receive some, if not all of their education within a regular education setting. Special needs students occupy two teachers, their special education teacher, who provides them the extra support mandated by law, and the regular education teacher in whose class they are also assigned.  A more accurate picture of class size should only count the regular-ed teachers, all of whom have both regular and special education students in their classrooms.  Finding the ratio of students to regular-ed teachers gives us an approximate figure of 13 students per teacher.  While more realistic, it is still too small.  This would be the average class size if teachers had no preparation time.  If each teacher had just one prep period per day the average class size rises to 15.  We are getting closer.  We have not considered the “specialty” teachers (art, music, and health and wellness) or our librarians, or our nurses.  Removing these teachers from the total brings us close to the minimum reported by several teachers, 17.  The overall average is a bit higher.  I would attribute this to the time many teachers are assigned the duty of providing support to students having academic difficulties.  The class sizes reported by our teachers did not include these assignments, nor that of monitoring study halls.  The numbers given the Board are the average size of the classes in which they provide their subject area instruction.  These are certainly smaller than they were thirty-five years ago, but they are comparable to, and perhaps a bit larger than, surrounding districts.  If “No child is to be left be behind,” then a class size in the low twenties is a big as it can get. 

There are ways of raising the 10.5 students per teacher figure without impacting class size. We could:

• Reduce the number of special education teachers risking law suits and fines.
• Eliminate preparation time.   From my own experience this would reduce our teacher’s effectiveness if for no other reason than fatigue. 
• Eliminate music, art, and health and wellness.
• Eliminate academic support and leave some, if not many, children behind.

Finally, much has been made of the student/teacher ratio of 10.5 being below the state average, implying that this average is a goal we should seek.  I wonder if this is also the goal we want for our students’ achievement.  Understand that if our average achievement level is at the average for the state, then in a normal distribution of scores, half our students will be below average.  Is this really our goal?  If we truly want our students to be above average, then perhaps we need to provide them with resources that also exceed the average provided within our state.

My Budget Position

            I have not posted anything for a while because the only controversial item discussed lately has been this blog.  (More on this later.)  The only vote of substance that was not unanimous occurred at the October 4 meeting when, over the dissent of Mrs. Faust and Mrs. Stevens, the Board voted to approve the purchase of 25 computers for the Middle School lab.  Mrs. Stevens voted against the motion because it did not include the purchase of new computers for the Middle School library, or provide a software upgrade on older computers to make them compatible with our newer ones.  A motion to include these items failed when the Majority block, except for Mrs. Sunday, voted against it.  While I agreed in principle with Mrs. Stevens’ position, I believed replacing the computers at the Middle School lab was essential.  I am not sure of the reason for Mrs. Faust’s negative vote.  It would seem that she is either opposed to having computers in our schools, or she is particularly opposed to using Apples.

           

            I expect that controversy will again erupt when we begin discussion of next year’s budget, but before the debate starts, I would like to explain my basic position.

            Balancing the needs of our kids against what the taxpayers can afford should be the most difficult decision each School Director must make.  Both factors need to be considered in finding that balance.  In other words, both the cost of an item and its educational value must be taken into account.  It is often difficult to judge educational value in monetary terms.  What is the value, for example, of having a class size of sixteen instead of twenty-one, or instead of twenty-eight, or thirty-five?  The value of the smaller class size compared to the expense of achieving it is a valid subject for debate.  However, I will not accept the premise that there is no value.  Nor will I accept a predetermined level of what the taxpayers can afford.  While this determination is a subjective judgment based on personal circumstances and that of our neighbors and friends, it is not absolute.  There are some obvious boundaries.  Using class size as an example, I believe that regardless of its value, limiting the size of every class at every level to twelve or fewer students is not affordable.  Similarly, a class size of thirty-five or more, especially in these days of “No Child Left Behind,” should be unacceptable regardless of its cost.  The gray area in between is another subject for discussion.  In these debates I admit to taking a position that leans more heavily to the side of educational need and less toward the side of limiting costs.  It is a debate I have no trouble losing if the final result does in fact strike a balance between needs and costs, even if that balance is not at the point I initially felt it should be.

However, to assert, as the Majority did last year, that there should be no tax increase before looking at the cuts necessary to achieve this goal is completely irresponsible.  In the debate over last year’s budget, the majority position seemed to be that reducing the number of teachers at the High School would have no effect on the educational program.  In a past posting I outlined the negative impact the budget would have on the High School program.  Events have shown that despite the efforts of our teachers to minimize that impact, some harm was inevitable.  And yet the belief persists that the budget for our schools is full of waste, that, despite rising costs, we can refuse to raise taxes without harm to our kids’ education.

“Don’t raise taxes.  Cut waste!” is a cry we here in every political debate.  To their great credit, the Kutztown Taxpayer Watch Group did not just complain.  Last year they apparently looked at the proposed budget line-by-line, and questioned possible sources of waste.  Here are the expenses they questioned and the answers they received.

• $419,000 for Tech/Health Assistants.  This turned out to be confusion over the way expenses were coded.  The funds were actually for the salary of our secretaries. 

• $264,000  for Technology Hardware Rental.  The major portion of this expense was the lease of the one-to-one computers at the high school.  A smaller portion was the lease of computers for student use at the Middle and Elementary Schools.

• $138,000 for Nurses Services.  This was for the salary of our Nurses.

• $50,000 for purchased Technical Services for our principals’, superintendent’s and business offices.  These funds were for services such as design and support of the district’s web sight; our automated phone notification system; hosting for various programs such as those for accounting and budgeting, student attendance, locating substitutes, etc.

• $67,000 for Maintenance Supplies.  This was money set aside for the replacement of normal wear items such as valves, pumps, light bulbs, etc., as well as items needed to make repairs such as lumber, hardware, etc.

• $98,000 for General Custodial Supplies.  This was for mop heads, cleaners, paper towels, toilet paper, etc.

            Unlike the findings of the accountant in the movie Dave, all of the questioned expenses were accounted for.  There seems to be little waste.  The goal of a zero tax increase was achieved, but at the expense of the educational program at the High School.  Some may believe that we cannot afford to continue to provide the same level of education as we have in the past.  I disagree, but it is a belief that is worthy of serious debate.  I cannot accept, however, the premise that cutting staff, increasing class size, and eliminating programs will not harm our kids.  I expect the debate on next year’s budget to begin shortly.

            At the Board’s last meeting several questions were asked of our solicitor attacking this blog.  I prefer to believe that it was the presence of the solicitor rather than my absence that led to the timing of these questions.  Like all public bodies the Board would prefer to make decisions in private, but, like all public bodies it should be prevented from doing so.  This blog is intended to inform whoever reads it about actions the Board has taken.  Admittedly, it expresses my point of view about those actions.  Newspapers may present a less biased view, and we have had excellent reporters at our meetings, but their articles are limited by the size their editors allow.  The best unbiased view would be your own.  If you can afford the time, I would encourage anyone interested in the proceedings of the Board to attend its meetings. You should be aware, that in addition to the regular meetings on the first and third Mondays of each month, in meetings advertised as a “committee of the whole” the Board may take the same actions that it might at a regular meeting.  As boring as these can sometimes be, public scrutiny is always a good idea.

Elementary School Computers-- new enclosure link

(Same as last post, but I am trying again on the enclosure link)

I have been away for a few weeks, but the last few meetings did not have any great controversy.  If anyone would like to comment on the September 7 meeting please send it in.  When I left, the majority was refusing to re-equip the elementary schools computer labs with new computers. (In the original vote Mrs. Sunday broke ranks with the usual majority and voted in favor of the plan.  However in a later meeting she recanted and said she would now vote against it.).  To understand the effect this refusal will have on our children’s education, we need to examine the two different ways computers are used in education. 

One involves instruction in the use of the computer itself.  This can be anything from keyboarding to programming depending on the level being taught.  It is done in a computer classroom, usually called a “computer lab.”  In the beginning of the computer era, these labs often had fewer computers than students, requiring two or three students to share one computer.  Speaking from my own experience, that never worked well.  Computers cannot really be shared; only the student hitting the keys is actually learning.

The second use of computers involves employing them to aid in the instruction of the normal classroom curriculum.  In my science courses I used them to gather laboratory data in a more accurate and efficient way than more traditional methods.  In Language Arts, the continuous revision, editing, and improvement involved in the “Process Approach” to writing is ideally suited to composing on a computer.  Use as a research and presentation tool should be obvious.  Computers also provide individualized access to remedial and enrichment tutorials.  I am sure that since my retirement more creative uses have become available.  This use of computers is best done within the normal classroom.  Trying to schedule classroom instruction around the demands of the computer lab is almost impossible.

Presently, each elementary school’s computer lab is adequately equipped with MacMini computers.  However, they are four years old and out of warranty.  Any machines that might need major repairs will be taken out of service.  Admittedly, there is a good chance the labs will have enough computers to get through this year.  It is in the classrooms that we are lacking.

Kutztown Elementary School has a supply of these computers within the normal classrooms, but they too are out of warranty.  Albany Elementary School has several of the pastel colored iMacs that are 10 to 12 years old.  The classrooms at Greenwich Elementary School have even fewer of these, and many of those are used for “gifted” education. (There are several newer computers in the buildings, but aside from one in each of the Kindergarten classrooms, these were purchased with a grant that limits their use to serving students with special needs.)

As a result of the Majority’s action, our elementary students will not have access to the software package that would have come with the newer computers.  The classrooms will not get the computers now in the lab where the less vigorous use would prolong their life.  The enhancements to our children’s education that computers make available will be left to antiquated, slow, and unreliable machines.  Although I am sure they will try, it will be almost impossible for our teachers to incorporate into their curricula a program that would utilize them consistently.

I find the most disturbing thing about this situation is that the proposal was not rejected because the Majority believed we could not afford it.  The cost of this proposal was already contained in the zero tax increase budget.  Their objection, as Mrs. Bealer remarked, was, “Philosophical, not financial.”  I find this rationale very troubling.

The remarks of our teachers and administrators attesting to the value of computers as an aid to our children’s learning were completely ignored.  The six people in the majority seem to think that they know best how to educate all our children.  The fact that their “knowledge” is limited to their own experience as students or that of their children does not seem to trouble them.  The small scope of these “experiences” invalidate any conclusion they can reach.  Based on thirty-two years of teaching over four thousand students I believe I can state with some authority that every child learns differently.  In this era of “No Child Left Behind”  -- every teacher’s goal but a very new mandate in public education -- no teaching tool or method should be rejected for “philosophical” reasons.  Computers may not benefit every student equally, but there will be those, perhaps many, for whom it provides an opportunity to be found nowhere else.

I am not sure what the Majority means by a philosophy of education.  I have always believed it referred to the purpose or goals of the education being provided – valid concerns of a school board.   However, as they have used that term here, it would seem that their philosophical objection is actually to the manner in which instruction is delivered, not its outcome.  We ignore the advice of our teachers and administrators, who by training and experience are professional educators, at our peril. The Majority seems to believe our teachers want computers in their classrooms so that they woul not have to work as hard.  It was remarked, at least three different times, that elementary education should be based on the interaction between teachers and students.  Somehow, the Majority believes, two or three computers in a teacher’s classroom would reduce the obligation of our teachers to engage in that interaction, that children would be left alone in front of a computer.  The ignorance of the Majority as to what actually happens in a classroom is again apparent. They are probably unaware that developing an effective use for computers is extremely work intensive.  Further, learning centers are already used in our classrooms.  These allow the interaction that the Majority correctly believes to be important, to be with small groups of students at a time, rather than the entire class.  A computer based learning center would be another such center, but one that would be interactive and potentially personalized.  Teacher – student interactions would be enhanced, not reduced.

Another “philosophical” objection was made by Mrs. Sunday regarding the danger of introducing the complexity of a computer to children who are too young to deal with it.  She quoted accurately some of the findings of research into what is called learned helplessness.  I have read many of these same words, and in fact, I may have written some of them in my dissertation.  Unfortunately, Mrs. Sunday makes real the expression about the need to “Drink deep from the well of knowledge” and the danger of a little learning.  It is not the complexity of a task which induces a sense of helplessness, but rather a lack of control over its outcome.  One of the great values of a computer as a learning tool is that its interactive nature allows the user to have a sense of control over the process. 

In order to see the value of computers in our classrooms, one must assume that our teachers have the experience and ability to select appropriate tasks for our children, and trust them and our administrators to see that computers are used appropriately.  The essence of the difficulty the Majority seems to have with our professional staff is that they lack that trust.  The controversy over computers may be symptomatic of a much greater problem, but that will be a topic for a later post.  I will conclude this post with an e-mail the Board received from a parent, Melissa Leiby.

In the interest of fairness, I hope the enclosure link above will provide you with a recording of the Board’s proceedings, in which you can hear, in Mrs. Faust’s unedited words, the rationale for her opposition.  I cannot promise this will work.  I am very new to blogging, and, unlike our kids, "digital" is not my native language.

FROM MELISSA LEIBY

Good Morning to you all.

I would like to ask the board to reconsider the vote on the Apple lease for computers to be used in the middle and elementary schools.  At Monday night's committee meeting an informative presentation was given on the way technology is currently being utilized in our classrooms.  I have no doubt after hearing this presentation and talking with my own children that the use of computers in NOT interfering with learning the basics, or interacting with the teacher at the elementary level.  Instead the use of technology makes learning more engaging and addresses different learning styles.

If equipment that is currently being used is in need or repair or replacement to continue providing the level of education we are providing to our students, and would not result in an added expenditure to an already approved budget, why are those of you who voted against it, doing so?  I realize there is probably information that we in the public are not aware of regarding this matter that has an influence on your decision making.  I feel it would be good of you to explain this at Monday night's school board meeting since this decision is important to the continued quality of education provided at our district.

I would also ask that you remember that this issue is separate from that of the one to one laptop program which many ( including myself) question the value and benefits of.  Please keep in mind that the issue of the lease for use in the elementary and middle school involves using computers on school grounds, during the school day, under supervision.  I'd like to believe that these computers are NOT being misused for the downloading of music or chatting on social networks which is a concern of some who question the one to one program.  Again, to me, this is a separate issue.

Computers and technology are a part of society and education.  We need to make sure we continue to provide our students with the equipment and tools needed to move forward, not backward.  Please reconsider your decision.

Respectfully,

Melissa Leiby