I was reading some other local blogs and I'm just amazed at how one particular blogger continues to perpetuate misinformation. Mrs. Monte responded to a poster who had expressed her feelings about keeping 9th graders in the middle school and Mrs. Monte said that was being looked at "The possibility is that with declining enrollment, if the trend holds true, a switch to 10-12 could be temporary as a way to avoid building classrooms that would not be needed in the future."
I just find it amazing that Mrs. Monte, especially as a member of the CRT, does not understand that moving 9th graders into our middle schools would require the building of classrooms. The district would be approximately 575 seats SHORT if they added 9th graders to our middle schools. Aslo, she claims that moving 9th graders into our middle schools would address the Freshman failure rate --- really? How would having 9th graders in middle school "address" the Freshman failure rate? Does she not know how that rate has been dramatically reduced by what the high schools have done to address this? This is not to say this is not still an issue but much has improved already. How would this bring equity to our elementary buildings? What would the operational savings be by doing this, or would it increase? To jump on any idea out there just because someone suggested it doesn't make sense to me.
I just wonder how many people out there really want the facts and how many will just believe anything they hear or read?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I find it amazing you are able to go through life with such poor reading skills. Mrs. Monte did not say, at any point, that the configuration you are referring to was being looked at.
What is on her website is:
"Thank you, SB, for your insights. The reasoning I have heard for going to 10-12, at least for a few years, was to address freshman failure, high school disparity and overcrowding, and allow enough room for block scheduling.
The possibility is that with declining enrollment, if the trend holds true, a switch to 10-12 could be temporary as a way to avoid building classrooms that would not be needed in the future. Just a thought."
Where is it stated that any other configuration but K-3, 4-8 is being discussed by the committees or administration? Where, anywhere in the thread, are administration or the committees mentioned?
I have seen that configuration suggested on Oshkonversation as a discussion topic.
I want to know, from a so called expert as yourself, why it is okay to build 100+ classrooms, several multipurpose rooms, and rebuilding schools in scenario 7 but not okay to build for any other, possibly less expensive scenario idea? Seems hypocritical.
If anyone has a right to complain about misinformation, it is anyone who reads this blog. Don't be a sore loser, Mrs. Thiel. Your constant harping and finger pointing at Mrs. Monte is classless.
Feel free to delete this, I am sure you don't want anyone to read something contrary to your opinion.
Ms. Monte herself advocated for putting freshman in our middle schools during the campaign and said then that we would be 88 seats short... wrong we would be 575 seats short. AS a candidate she also received the administration's answers to 30 or so questions asked by the board and the community -- one of those questions being "pulling 9th graders into our middle school" and the detailed answer that explains that we would be 575 seats short so how that translates to doing so woiuld be a way to avoid building classrooms is beyond me.
The issue here is not the value of building classroom for K-3 , 4-8 configuration vs. 9th graders in our middle school --- the issue is Mrs. Monte saying this configuration would avoid building classrooms -- that just isn't true unless you plan to over crowd our middle schools by 575 students.
I will continue to point out misinformation that is spread where ever it is spread.
Thank you for that, Teresa, because we've all seen where Mrs. Monte says one thing in one place and something different in another. I think her choice of words and answers is based on the crowd she plays to.
Did anyone else catch how when there were a lot of students around she'd use phrases like saying something "sucked?" How immature is that? And what's the sense of pandering to students who can't even vote? The woman is a mass of contradictions and even though she lost, we still have to monitor what she's saying because she's back to writing those stupid "minutes" and continues to weigh in on district issues. That way when she runs again, and she will, we can blast her out of the water with all her past ramblings.
Mrs Thiel...
Is the administration that says we would be 575 seats short in the middle schools the same administration that wanted to close one of the middle schools but then realized that they "miscounted" and changed plans?
I think Monte has some merit with a scenario that LOOKS at the idea of 9th in the middle (jr high). If you pull the sixth back to elementary, there shouldn't be a shortage and it would better utilize our current school configuration. No need to close schools, no need to build more rooms, no need for more busses, etc. Then the district could put a referendum on a ballot that makes sense to FIX WHAT WE HAVE and the amount would be less.
Why spend $3mil for a $1.5mil savings? Poor economic decision.
Quit being so closed minded and at least listen to other possibilities. You think that because a "Monte" said something, it is crap. What have you done lately?
Most of what a Monte says is crap. That's been numerous times, especially in the past few months. They have become more irrelevant than they were before they ran.
Anonymous 9:48 -- The district does not have room in many elementary schools for the 6th graders to stay in the elementary schools... that would require anywhere from one extra classroom at a school like Lincoln or Green Meadow to 4 or 5 classrooms at schools like Traeger and Oakwood and I know those schools (Traeger/Oakwood) don't have any extra classrooms much less 4 extra rooms so again, it is incorrect to say such a plan would avoid building classrooms. Also, just keeping 6th graders in our elementary schools and putting 9th graders in our middle schools would save ZERO in operating costs and would probably increase those costs.
{You say "You think that because a "Monte" said something, it is crap." }
Where you get that from is beyond me, I do think that when misinformation is out there someone should correct it and I have decided I'm not going to stand by and let misinformation be spread. Why is it you choose to believe things that are factually incorrect just because a Monte said it?
{You also said "Then the district could put a referendum on a ballot that makes sense to FIX WHAT WE HAVE and the amount would be less."}
I believe the district should have a 2 question referendum one question about "fixing" those schools worth fixing (as determined by the experts hired by the district) and a second question about making our buildings more equitable.
When I attended both the focus groups and the Sat. large group meetings there was a consensus that people were willing to pay to make our buildings more equitable, the 2nd question would see if that is still true. That is where the majority of the cost would be in any referendum proposed.
POSTS MOVED TO NEW THREAD ---
The above "deleted" posts have actually been moved to a new thread entitled "The City the School District and the Facilities Plan"
That thread focuses on what impact the school district's facilities plan would have on the city and property values.
Post a Comment