|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Education |
|
Urbana School Board Meeting Turns Surreal |
Current rating: 0 |
by Faith Swords & Sascha Meinrath
(No verified email address) |
08 Apr 2003
|
Today the newly elected Urbana School Board was officially seated. However, events were anything but "normal". Front-runner Carol George (who won the popular election) stepped down from her position as the new School Board member from the second sub-district as the newly elected members were being asked to take their oath of office (but after they had been recognized by the existing School Board). No one on the School Board was entirely sure how to proceed and what followed was an interesting experiment in "covering the bases" proceedurally.
The current make-up of the School Board is now:
Sub-district 1. Joyce Hudson -- 4 yr term
Sub-district 2. Jerry Moreland -- 4 yr term
Sub-district 3. Ruth Ann Fisher -- 2 yr term
Sub-district 4. Cope Cumpston -- 2 yr term
Sub-district 5. Mark Netter -- 2 yr term
Sub-district 6. Steve Summers -- 4 yr term
Sub-district 7. John Dimit -- 4 yr term |
|
Phyllis Clark, Elected City Clerk, contested Carol George's seating on the Urbana School Board stating that, Ms. George's "entire candidacy was invalid." Ms. Clark's main concern was that Ms. George was not a resident of the City of Urbana for the requisite amount of time prior to running. Ms. Clark further stated that Ms. George "misrepresented her intentions" and that the existing School Board was mislead by "Ms. George's antics." Ms. Clark made an eleventh-hour appeal that Ms. George not take her seat. A second citizen who spoke before the School Board mirrored these sentiments. Aaron Ammonds, Ms George's husband, refuted the issue of misrepresenting. He stated that people shouldn't believe the mainstream media who "are trying to destroy the character of my wife."
"This Board is required to approve" the election results, stated School Board member Mark Netter. Mr. Netter voiced his concern over the election of Carol George, "there is the right thing to do...and there's the law." John Dimit motioned to file a "quo warranto action" to determine whether Ms. George could legally represent the district to which she was elected. Mr. Dimit instructed the staff to fully co-operated with that investigation. Laura Haber and Tina Gunsalus abstained, and the motion passed 5-0.
Before Laura Haber swore in the newly elected School Board members, Carol George asked to speak. She gave a powerful and moving speech, stating that her "purpose in running for the School Board was to give representation to those who didn't have it...I have never misrepresented anything in my life. Being an example for my family and my children is the number one priority in my life," Ms. George stated.
"I will vacate this seat of my own free will. I will not stop pursuing justice for these children, whether I'm on this side of the table or that one. Many people told me to lots of things, but I will only do what I believe is right at this moment and I will vacate." Jerry Moreland, the runner-up in sub-district 2, accepted the position vacated by Carol George, and the newly elected Board Members were sworn in by retiring School Board Secretary Laura Haber.
Following the swearing in of the new Urbana School Board, a motion to accept the pledge of vacation of office by Carol George passed. A second motion to appoint Jerry Moreland to the position of representative of sub-district 2 was then passed and Mr. Moreland was sworn in a second time. Phyllis Clark pronounced the proceedings as "legal and appropriate."
Thus, the new Urbana School Board, as of 04/08/03:
Sub-district 1. Joyce Hudson -- 4 yr term
Sub-district 2. Jerry Moreland -- 4 yr term
Sub-district 3. Ruth Ann Fisher -- 2 yr term
Sub-district 4. Cope Cumpston -- 2 yr term
Sub-district 5. Mark Netter -- 2 yr term
Sub-district 6. Steve Summers -- 4 yr term
Sub-district 7. John Dimit -- 4 yr term
Retiring School Board members Laura Haber and Tina Gunsalus were recognized by the School Board. Superintendent Gene Amberg presented to Laura Haber a plaque for membership and excellent performance on the Urbana School Board for the years 1995-2003. Ms. Haber spoke about her experiences as a School Board member, commending the staff for their hard work and patience.
Mr. Amberg then presented to Tina Gunsalus a plaque for her position on the Urbana School Board since 1991. "It's been an honor and a privilege to serve," said Gunsalus. She also advised the remaining Board members that they remember what it's like to be a new Board member, and be as helpful as possible to the new Board members.
Deb Tuttle stated that is was tradition to send a letter of thank you and that a book would be donated in each of the departing School Board members' names. Mr. Amberg stated that there would be a tree planted for each of them also.
Joyce Hudson was elected president of the School Board. John Dimit was elected Vice President. Ruth Ann Fisher was elected Secretary. And Mark Netter was elected to the position of Secretary Pro-temp.
|
Comments
|
Re: Urbana School Board Meeting Turns Surreal |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: -1
08 Apr 2003
|
No,
It is the Urbana School System that is surreal. Question: Do Liberal Profs who have children and oppose school choice, send their kids to Uni High?
Did President Clinton, Al Gore, and virtually every Democrat politician (who oppose school choice) send their children to public or private schools? They oppose choice for schools for everyone but themselves. This is one of the many reasons people flee Urbana.
Jack |
|
School Choice In Urbana? |
by Mink!
mink (nospam) tcp.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 5
11 Apr 2003
Modified: 02:30:53 PM |
|
I don't doubt that many professors (both "liberal" and "conservative" do their utmost to send their kids to Uni. Professors in Champaign compete equally fiercely to do the same, and there are certainly issues about "lab schools" generally.
That said, surely you realize that Uni High only serves grades 7 (well, subfreshman level) through 12? Other than Uni, which is not quite a "regular" public school (as it requires the exam and recommendations to get in, and doesn't only serve students from the Urbana district), there is only ONE public middle school and ONE public high school in Urbana. Thus, regardless of whether Urbana allows "school choice," non-Uni kids from Urbana will go to Urbana middle school and then Urbana high school.
When it comes to elementary school, Champaign offers "school choice" while Urbana doesn't. However, plenty of people in Champaign (liberal and conservative, professors and otherwise) still don't bother with the public schools, and instead send their kids to places like Countryside and Judah Christian. Countryside in particular is really hard to get into, really prestigious among a certain segment of the faculty at U of I, and charges insane tuition. It's viewed as a stepping stone to none other than... Uni High. Now we're hearing that in order to attract some of that similar population to Stratton, they feel a need to have a full six-year "gifted program," in other words, pretty much a school within a school.
The desire for some people to keep their kids out separate from other kids while not caring about the general state of the schools (or tracks!) their kids aren't attending is hardly limited to Urbana. I do think it's a sad state of affairs wherever it occurs.
I would be interested to hear people's opinions on school choice among the elementary schools (of which there are several, so it would actually have an effect) in Urbana. How's it working in Champaign? Are the programs really different enough to make it worth it? I know some of the schools are year-round, but I'd be interested to learn more.
Yeah, yeah, I know, I should look it up...
|
|
School Choice, Just One More Thing |
by Mink!
mink (nospam) tcp.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 5
11 Apr 2003
|
|
I do want to make it clear that I don't think a desire for separation or any other "bad" reason is the only reason people might choose to send their kids to private schools.
|
|
Re: Urbana School Board Meeting Turns Surreal |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
20 Apr 2003
|
Funny you did not mention St. Matthews or Holy Cross? Anti-Catholic or just jealous of the results?
Jack |
|
Re: Urbana School Board Meeting Turns Surreal |
by Mink!
mink (nospam) tcp.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 Apr 2003
Modified: 09:21:31 PM |
|
I'm not sure just what you're getting at here. Both of the schools you mention are private schools - how would having school choice in Urbana affect these schools? School choice is about students being able to choose between a variety of PUBLIC schools in a district, regardless of what sub-district they live in. It has nothing to do with attending private schools. There is still only one public middle school in Urbana, and one ordinary public high school (Uni is technically public, but is not required to serve all comers, nor is it restricted to serving students residing in the Urbana district).
Of course some people, liberal and otherwise, faculty and non, do send their kids to Holy Cross and St. Matt's. In fact, I have a coworker with kids in Holy Cross. He lives in Champaign.
The fact remains that "school choice" policies (as distinct from voucher policies) are about choosing one of a variety of public schools to attend. Champaign has school choice, Urbana doesn't. Kids from both cities attend private schools. School choice in Urbana would allow elementary kids to choose between schools, but would do nothing different for older kids, as there are simply not multiple schools in the district.
School choice OR not, kids who can afford it are free to attend private schools.
And heck, while I'm at it, Happy Easter.
|
|
Re: Urbana School Board Meeting Turns Surreal |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 1
21 Apr 2003
|
Mink,
Happy Easter to you as well. A voucher system would allow public school kids access to a myriad of private schools. That's the whole point. Catholic schools have consistently out-performed the public systems and spent less money per pupil from races in all areas. If the Urbana school board would support such a system, Urbana kids would enjoy the same opportunities that the wealthy have.
Jack |
|
Vouchers: Rhetoric Versus Reality |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Apr 2003
Modified: 06:47:49 PM |
One of the more interesting studies of voucher systems for education is by the well-known lefty outfit, the RAND Corporation. Titled "Rhetoric versus Reality," it evaluated evidence of educational effectiveness in these five areas:
- academic achievement
- choice
- access
- integration
- civic socializaton
The study found that the only clear benefit was for academic achievement for African-American children and that was _only_ if the voucher system was explicitly designed to help low-income students. Thee were no clear differnces for the other four factors the study assessed.
Evidence in the report suggests that "large scale unregulated choice programs generally lead to greater stratification" and "should be funded through direct grants rather than income tax subsidies."
The resources required for the limited positive results like these generally run counter to the aims of those who promote such programs, who tend to favor tax credits as the method of implementation (of little help to those with low incomes) and are designed to strangle the resources available to public education. The results generally seem to require that more resources need to be invested in schools before any real improvement can be expected, even if vouchers are suggested as a solution.
You can read the complete study (requires PDF reader) at:
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1118/
Many of those involved with religious schools want nothing to do with government funding, which will inevitably bring greater government regulation of religious schools because of the need for accountability, as in any other publicly funded institution.
As a taxpayer, I have real problems with funding religious schools. There is that small thing called the Constitution (which magically shrinks smaller the longer Bush stays in office and may soon no longer be all that relevant in the eyes of our rulers) that provides for no establishment of religion by government. Having attended Catholic school myself, there is no way in my mind that government funding of religious schools can be anything but the establishment of religion by government fiat.
Public education is a bulwark of American democracy, such as it is. Those who attack it, either directly or indirectly through ill-considered voucher plans, etc, instead of properly funding it, are people who have more faith in the law of the jungle than in the rule of law. Democracy requires an educated citizenry and the fact that a majority of Americans thought that the recent war on Iraq was related to the tragedy of Sept. 11, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support such a conclusion, is but a minor example of the tendency toward a well-cultivated ignorance as the primary objective of those who support policies that have left Illinois at third to the last of the fifty states in funding its schools. Both major parties share the blame. For more on this, see: http://governing.com/gpp/2003/gp3il.htm |
|
Re: Urbana School Board Meeting Turns Surreal |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 2
22 Apr 2003
|
ML,
You will getting in trouble for answering a troll won't you?
It seems to me, your only answer for education is more money. Blacks overwhelmingly support a voucher system that would allow their kids to escape the perpetually poor performance of Urban Public schools. Why not take that money that was to be spent on the kid anyway and let the parents send them to a school of their choice? Catholic Schools have consistently shown that they can educate more kids, with less money and get better results. Other private schools have displayed similar results. If public education is a strong as you say it is, would parents with a choice, not select them anyway? I think we both know that many would not. In order to survive, the non-selected schools would have to change and compete for students. This would benefit everyone. Competition brings excellence.
I thought you guys were all Pro Choice, or does that simply involve child birth?
Just Asking,
Jack |
|
More Reality Versus Rhetoric |
by S.V. Date and Kimberly Miller
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Apr 2003
|
TALLAHASSEE -- Florida is diverting $50 million in tax money this year to send more than 14,000 children to private schools.
Which children? Don't ask state Department of Education officials. They don't know.
Which private schools? Don't ask that, either. Officials don't know.
Don't ask them what sort of curriculum the school is teaching, whether the teachers are certified, how well the students are doing, or even whether the state -- as originally promised -- is saving any money. They don't know.
Because the law was written to please a Tampa businessman who gave $100,000 to the Republican Party, legislative sources say, the state does not have the right to know.
What's more, even though the proposal was sold as a way to help "lower-income" Floridians, the wording of the law makes fully half of all elementary and middle-schoolers in the state eligible for a voucher.
"This was never marketed as an equitable system," said Senate Democratic Leader Ron Klein of Delray Beach. "Proponents say we don't need to have standards because accountability rests with the parent. It's not that simple. You're still spending taxpayer money."
Despite these objections, the Republican-controlled legislature is poised this spring to increase the cap on a program that gives corporations tax credits for the money they donate for school vouchers.
The House wants to double the ceiling to $100 million and create a new $10 million pot for military children. The Senate wants to raise the $50 million to $75 million. Both chambers plan to vote on their proposals before the May 2 end of the legislative session.
Voucher supporters plan a rally Thursday on the steps of the Old Capitol to press their case with lawmakers. Earlier this year they pushed to increase the $3,500-per-child voucher to as much as $5,500, but were told that would undermine their argument that the vouchers save the state money.
Senate President Jim King has called the program "wildly successful" and takes the credit for introducing John Kirtley, the wealthy proponent of the idea, to then-President John McKay in 2000.
McKay already was a voucher supporter and pushed Kirtley's proposal through the legislature in the spring of 2001.
Republican sources who spoke on the condition they not be named recalled the situation more specifically: Kirtley wrote a check to the Republican Party for $100,000 in return for GOP legislators' support of his voucher plan. He gave the check to King, and King turned it over to McKay at a luncheon at the Westshore Marriott Hotel in Tampa in September 2000, the sources said.
Kirtley, who describes himself as a venture capitalist, did not return numerous phone calls, but state campaign finance records show he gave $100,000 to the party on Sept. 22, 2000.
King, who in 1999 had given an impassioned floor speech questioning the use of school vouchers in Gov. Jeb Bush's education plan, called the check a contribution and said it was not a payoff for supporting Kirtley's voucher plan.
"There's no connection at all," King said. "There was no agreement. He didn't need to sell me, anyway. I'm not a convert necessarily to the program. I supported it because it helps poor and underprivileged kids."
McKay, now retired from the Senate, said Kirtley's donation had "not a bit" to do with his pushing the idea. That sort of thing "didn't happen on my watch," McKay said.
The new law started giving dollar-for-dollar tax credits to corporations for sending money to nonprofit "scholarship funding organizations."
Kirtley's Web site pitches it to potential donors like this: "This is very different from an enterprise zone credit, as a dollar given to that cause would still cost you 50 cents. Making a payment to us would have no cost to you.... Many CEOs we have talked to say, 'This is too good to be true -- we can help lower-income kids get a better education without it costing us a dime?' But it is true."
In the 2001-02 school year, the nonprofit groups in turn doled out vouchers to parents of children who wanted to move their kids from a public school into a private school.
Each corporation was limited to a $5 million tax credit, and the total program was capped at $50 million.
Each voucher was limited to $3,500 -- parents would have to make up the difference at schools with higher tuitions. Parents could also get a $500 voucher to pay transportation costs to an out-of-district public school, but so far those account for about 1 percent of the total. Proponents promised a savings to the state of $2,000 per student -- the difference between the $3,500 voucher amount and the approximately $5,500 that the state allocates per public school student.
Promised savings unlikely
Republican lawmakers used that $2,000-per-child difference, multiplied times 14,286 children who could receive vouchers if the $50 million in tax credits were entirely used, to come up with a potential savings to the state of $28.6 million.
That total savings assumed that every child receiving a voucher would leave the public school system. If the vouchers had been allowed to go to children who never intended to attend public schools in the first place, then those children would actually each cost the state $3,500 rather than saving it $2,000.
Yet that's exactly what happened in the spring of 2002, through language slipped into a massive bill that went unnoticed until the final days of the legislative session.
That language permitted first-time kindergartners and first-graders to use the vouchers. With that change, children whose parents intended all along to send them to private schools became eligible for vouchers. How many children are in this category? The state has no way of knowing.
The law does not give the Department of Education any record-keeping role regarding the vouchers. Nor are the voucher-dispensing groups obliged to give the state or the public any statistics on which or how many students are in what grades.
Sally Simmons, who runs Maitland-based Children First Central Florida, which awarded 4,250 vouchers this year, said she doesn't know how many of those children are enrolled in kindergarten or first grade.
"We really don't keep statistics like that," she said. "It's just not something we dwell on."
The largest voucher-giving group, Miami's Florida Child, provided statistics showing that 3,110, or 41.4 percent, of the 7,508 children who are receiving its vouchers this year are enrolled in kindergarten or first grade. Florida Child President Patrick Heffernan said the group does not survey its parents to see how many would have sent their children to private schools even without a voucher.
According to a Palm Beach Post analysis, if 36.4 percent of the children who receive vouchers at the current price levels would have attended private school regardless, then the state stops saving any money.
That 36.4 percent break point translates to 5,194 students, under the current setup -- meaning that when 5,194 voucher recipients would have gone to private school in the first place, their extra cost of $18.2 million balances the $18.2 million in savings from the 9,092 children leaving the public schools.
Anything more than 5,194 students starts to cost the state money. If 40 percent of students getting vouchers are those who would have gone private anyway, it costs the state $2.9 million. At 50 percent, it costs the state $10.7 million.
No oversight
In addition to the costs, critics are unhappy with the lack of oversight over what would have been tax money were it not for the new law. In public schools, students are taught to statewide standards and are tested annually from grades three to 10. Students who don't pass the 10th-grade test cannot earn a diploma.
Some of these requirements remain for children who receive vouchers to escape repeatedly failing schools. The approximately 500 children who receive such vouchers must take the annual public school tests, and their schools must accept the voucher as full payment of its tuition.
The corporate tax-credit vouchers, in contrast, can be used as partial payment at any private school in the state. The corporate vouchers also don't require testing of their recipients, and the state does not regulate the educational standards of private schools. While many private schools belong to accreditation groups with varying educational requirements, others are not accredited by anyone. Of the state's 2,591 public schools, for example, 1,490, or 58 percent, are accredited by the prestigious Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, which mandates certain standards of teacher certification and curriculum among a host of other criteria. Of the 1,736 private schools, 110, or 6 percent, have SACS accreditation.
The only requirement for a school to receive the voucher is that it must have been in existence one year -- and that can be circumvented with either a letter from an accountant saying the school is financially sound or a surety bond showing the school's operators have enough money to get through the school year.
If problems, financial or otherwise, are alleged at a school, the law gives the state no authority to investigate. The law also does not require that voucher-dispensing groups follow any impartial criteria -- like a lottery or a first-come, first-served basis.
Vouchers for all
Democratic critics said Republicans pushed through the voucher law without any such safeguards because that's they way Kirtley and other supporters wanted it. The critics say the ultimate goal is to allow any parent of any income to get a private-school voucher worth the full amount of a public-school education -- a charge some Republicans concede privately.
According to Kirtley's Web site: "The Florida School Choice Fund (Kirtley's group) started giving out scholarships about two years ago, helping a broader range of children. Its more immediate mission, however, is to encourage the formation of new schools in Florida (or expand existing schools' student capacity). By doing this, we can thus broaden private and religious school capacity. And this, in turn, creates more opportunities for choice across our state."
Voucher program supporters say that monitoring the schools is the parents' job.
"I guess I will quote (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld here: Freedom is messy. It is full of risks. But that is what has made America great," said Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala and one of the plan's most vocal House proponents. "If you are making a choice, you have to do your homework."
Besides, there probably are only a handful of bad private schools out there, reasoned Florida Child's Heffernan.
"Are there going to be some bad apples? Sure," Heffernan said. "There are more than 900 schools using these scholarships and if one or two proves to be shaky, then that's just a few thousand dollars. It's really making a mountain out of a molehill."
Democrats lash out at the reasoning, pointing out that it was Bush and GOP lawmakers who in 1999 pushed for such stringent "accountability" measures for the public schools.
They also accuse Republicans of hiding their true goal, vouchers for all, behind the fig leaf of helping lower-income Floridians. They point out that by adopting the federal free- and reduced-lunch criteria, the state has made 52.3 percent of all elementary school children and 45.9 percent of all middle-school children eligible for vouchers.
According to those standards, that would include a two-parent family with three children and a household income of as much as $39,183 a year -- which is $364 higher than the state median.
"They sold it as trying to affect just the folks with the lowest income, but in reality it's reaching a huge part of Florida," Florida Democratic Party Chairman Scott Maddox said. "If you choose to send your child to a private school, that's fine. But you should not ask the rest of Florida to pay for it."
Staff Writer Marc Caputo contributed to this story.
Copyright © 2003, The Palm Beach Post. All rights reserved.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com |
|
Re: Urbana School Board Meeting Turns Surreal |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
23 Apr 2003
Modified: 07:23:38 PM |
Dear S.V. Date and Kimberly Miller,
The fact remains that a vote against vouchers is a vote for the status quo. That means failing public schools, failing teachers, and worst of all, students who fail.
The free market will weed out schools that do not perform. Unlike now, where a failing school is actually rewarded with additional funds to the same teachers who fail to teach anyway. It is not all of their fault. Parents who fail to get involved in their child's education will have a failing kid.
We have had Public Education for nearly two hundred years. I suppose that for the first 150, it worked pretty well. The only people who really oppose the voucher system, are people who work for the current monopolistic school system or people who are afraid of the kind of student (color) it may recruit.
Private schools have never shied away from the unwanted student. First it was the Irish, Italian, Polish or whatever, the foreign immagrant was at the time. Today they accept all comers. If they do not achieve the desired results, parents do send their kids to it and it closes.
I believe they call this capitalism.
Jack |
|
