In today’s The Journal-Times, there was a sort of point/counterpoint discussion of the recent RUSD annual report in the Opinion-Commentary section of the paper. The “pro-RUSD” side consisted of Kutz, Carlsen, Baumgardt, Nielsen and Warner; the other side was represented by Dey (the once lone maverick) and Bangs, who once was a very public supporter of RUSD’s administration. These separate commentaries paint two very different pictures of our district.
Frankly, I think any public commentary of the issues is beneficial to all. It promotes (hopefully) honest discussions of the very real problems our district faces. However, I do have concerns that this extremely public airing of ideas will have possible negative ramifications of the district and for its board, especially considering its recent track record. I suspect these separate commentaries were written shortly after Monday’s contentious meeting; the meeting included (yet another!!) very awkward and heated exchange between Bangs and Carlsen.
I found the “pro-RUSD” commentary ironic in their statement stating “…it is our individual differences that can make us effective in guiding our public schools” .This is a very different message than the one a few weeks ago when a board member was going to be disciplined in closed session for “expressing his individual differences”.
I also found it somewhat amusing that this same group is now claiming that the “annual report” was never intended to be comprehensive study of the district. Only last week the school board president publicly stated the report will give the “board and community the data and tools to measure whether progress was being made and what steps were being taken to reach the district's objectives.” It certainly sounds (to me at least) that she and the other board members were expecting a “comprehensive report”; they even invited all the local elected leaders in for a special presentation (which included food and drink for all!!).
I cannot help feeling that if this is the “line in the sand” Kutz expected the annual report to be, it is no wonder that our district has not kept pace with the other districts in the state.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I think the public airing of concerns is great for the community and needs to continue. So few people follow the school board as closely as you Brenda. The JT usually paints a rosy picture, although that appears to be changing, of what happens in RUSD. The people elected the nine school board members to do a job. If it's not being done properly, someone has to let the community know.
I agree 100%, but how can we stop the discussion from turning negative?
While it is sometimes amusing to see them fight, someone needs to remind them that there are still 21,000 children that deserve a quality education. They cannot, and should not have to, wait for things to get "better". We need action now!!
When will they learn to listen to one another and stop the insanity?
Brenda, you know as well as I do that when you look around the room at those board meetings there are very few people there for the kids. Its mainly a room busting with egos and agendas. Until people come to the table for the right reason...the same reason...THE KIDS, there will always be conflict and negativity. They say that "Every dog has its day." I will have mine, in April, the one day a year that I can hold my elected officials accountable.
I agree they need to think of the kids first, but that isn't going to happen until we bring a stop to the debacle that is Dr. Hicks and his consulting posse from mucking up the system. Dey and Bangs have only this venue and the JT blogs to air their greivences. If it's negative so be it, as long as the truth is out there.
I do NOT believe Dey and Bangs were negative in any way (in their commentary).
The negativity I perceive is when these issues are being discussed face-to-face at the board meetings.
The "five sheep" (as you refer to them ) are the ones who do not want to hear it and admonish Deys, Bangs etc for speaking "against" the district!
I view their words and actions as "for" the district, even though I think that there are some issues with egos.
In fact, the whole board has problems curbing their egos and agendas! While I think that should be expected, it should not be encouraged.
You guys are both right. Brenda, you mentioned the word "perceive". Perception is an interesting thing. I've heard it said that "its all about perception", and I think that it really is true!I agree with you that Mr. Dey and Mr. Bangs were not negative in their commentary. They simply stated the facts and wrote the truth. The truth is that the facts aren't pretty. No one wants to hear about the bad so therefore the commentary is perceived as negative. The commentary written by the "Fabulous Five" sounds great. Granted, it was missing the "Once upon a time" and the ever popular, "and they lived happily ever after", but nevertheless I felt all warm and fuzzy after I read it. People want to believe that everything is good and getting better. Therefore the perception is positive. The looming question for me is more in the timing of these debates. Does the emphasis on the perception of "wellness and recovery" have anything to do with a rather large referendum that awaits us in the very near future?
If that rather large referendum is for building/remodeling, don't you think it will pass?
There is no disputing that our high schools and middle schools are over crowded, and now we have 4 and 5 year old kindergarten.
Do I think it will pass?...hmm...I personally think that a referendum for facilities stands a decent chance of passing. I think that an operational referendum is DOA and will not pass. As for 4 and 5 year old kindergarten...I do not think that it is a bad idea, however I do think that the timing is wrong. I believe that they were irresponsible not to fix the current problems before they decided to add a new program to the mix.
Post a Comment