Valparaiso Community Schools are some of the strongest in the state.
What do you consider most important in maintaining the standards for education in our community?
What should VCS focus on over the next 5 years to move from strong to exceptional?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
To go from strong to exceptional, Valpo should recognize what a fantastic resource it has in its smaller neighborhood schools. The school board should reject outright the foolish notion that old means bad and start thinking of these great little schools, nestled in walkable neighborhoods in the heart of a small city, as amazing assets rather than regrettable liabilities. VCS should protect, and invest in, these assets, rather than hurriedly closing them in favor of cheap and disposable big box schools on the outskirts of town. Don't give us schools that future generations will scorn--nor take away schools that future generations will mourn!
Naive' and over simplistic. To assume that school size is the primary over-riding factor in school and or student achievement is foolish. This is protectionism to promote an agenda perhaps of only protecting one of our many schools... not looking for the best possible solutions, WHATEVER they might be... for ALL schools.
I am sure there are many "small neighborhood schools" in many locations that fail miserably. Why? Because you are overlooking and/or over generalizing the physical building "Size" as being the contributing factor toward student achievement. What about societal or economic factors, the strength of the family unit, parental involvment, facilities within the classroom, and the number of children within the class, not to mention consideration for special needs students as well....
To promote an outright rejection of the report, and attributing some "old is bad" mentality, to VCS Board (Which has NEVER said anything like this at any of the meetings or statements I have heard ) is to dismiss the many hours of effort and work done by the Task Force (which included teachers as well as parents )which made the recommendation...
Your use of terms like "Hurriedly closing" "Cheap and disposable Big box schools" as opposed to "nestled in the heart of the city" is nothing more than inflamatory emotionalism... not based on analysis
Keep in mind, schools like TJ Elem Memorial, and Cooks Corners at the time THEY were built were also "on the outskirts of town". I would hardly consider Hayes Leonard, considering its location next to US 30 and a long way from a "Neighborhood" to be considered to be "Nestled" anywhere...
Consider the High School in 1972 was in the middle of Cornfield NOWHERE... especially compared to BF which is where it was up until then.
There were likely many who thought at one time that having K-12 in a one room school house was the best education, because the older kids could help teach the younger... (And thats how THEY were taught)
Get off the "size is the only thing that matters issue" and start looking at the things that will really matter to the children of Valparaiso's future.
Ward and June Cleaver dont live in the 21st Century. Our kids will have to..
This issue isnt just about school size and acheivement. It is about other things like busing vs walking to school (which will increase with loss of neighborhood schools), its about environmental and economic stewardship as longer distances for busing or for parent based transportation will increase with the loss of the neighborhood schools. The issues also include safety issues and organization issues. Smaller schools are generally safer and more organized.
The issue also includes redistricting which is never accomplished without political issues and usually favors those with political ties.
But what is the real issue? Children. Our Children. The current school system is highly rated, safe and the children are learning. The current system is not broken with exception of the special education component which is not being considered in the existing plan. So why change it?
This school system is not progressive as far as parent involvement is concerned. It is closed and the process used with a few public meetings dominated by school employees shows that. I am a certified facilitator and can tell you that I would have held 5 facilitated meetings before recommending any decisions.
I believe a fair, facilitated process without a predetermined outcome will help to resolve the acrimony associated with this issue.
So is valpo's perspective officially endorsed as the perspective of VOICE? It's quoted right on the front page of valpovoice.org with a "Well said!" in front of it. I have to say, I find myself agreeing with many of the criticisms anonymous made (though I perhaps would have said it more gently?). Is Flint Lake a "cheap and disposable big box school"?
Who wrote that endorsement on the front page, by the way? Who's running the show here? I certainly hope I don't get criticized for remaining anonymous when the people moderating these comments and publishing the website(s) are themselves anonymous.
Dear Anon #1: I did not say that the school board believes that "old is bad"--I said that the school board should reject that as an automatic assumption, and I have confidence that, when they finally weigh in on this matter, they will. We may still need to replace an older school here or there; but not JUST because the buildings are old. But more to the point, why must you be so antagonistic in response? Better a June Cleaver than a Meat Cleaver, when it comes to the way we treat one another, even in a blog. Why not try to persuade by vision rather than viciousness? Please enlighten us as to what YOU think excellence consists in. In your view, what criteria should guide future improvements of VCS elementary education? I think the school board did a good job of starting that conversation last night. Let's continue it!
Dear valpo: Anon #1 may have been a little vicious... but a little right, too. You're arguing against points nobody is making. Is someone promoting "the foolish notion that old means bad," or is that just a strawman that's easy to knock down? Has someone proposed building "cheap and disposable big box schools," or is that just easier to argue against than what is actually being proposed?
Perhaps you implied more than you intended in your opening post in this thread?
Well maybe I posted on the wrong blog question, but this is what makes Valpo Schools great:
TEACHERS!!!
We need more of them. And we need smaller class sizes. Why is it ok for our children to be in classes with over 25 kids in it? That is just not a best practice in education.
I know quite a few teachers, alot of them young and eager to get hired in a school system. Valpo Schools has turned alot of my college friends away when they apply for positions. They said there would 20-30 applicants interviewing for the same position against them. So the problem isnt that there arent enough teachers...why isnt Valpo hiring them and getting the class sizes down?
As far as Anon#1's remarks about neighborhood schools: Who said that a rural community, or a community on the outskirts of town isnt a neighborhood?
Now, I dont know much about this proposal, but it seems there is a lot of obtuse opinions being thrown around here.
The ones that are loosing in all of this are the students!!
Why cant you figure out how much can be afforded to fix these problems, do something about getting the class sizes smaller, and fix the thin gs that need repaired. Oh! and get some up to date technology.
Although, technology should be an ongoing investment in the schools. I know I get a new computer about every 3 or 4 years. Now there are smart boards, which can be affixed almost anywhere.
There has to be grant money for some of this stuff. Hey!That is one way to save some money...get someone writing grants and getting donations for alot of this stuff!
So thats another thing Valpo should focus on over the next 5 years.
Here it is: hire more TEACHERS, reduce the CLASS SIZE, improve TECHNOLOGY, and hire a FUNDRAISING SPECIALIST!
I am glad to hear from yet another Anon above that s/he does not support the "old is bad" notion. Unfortunately, it was in full evidence to anyone listening carefully at the Task Force Forum in May and at the June board meeting. It showed up in statements that "these buildings are over X years old," as if that is a problem in itself. And obviously "big box schools" is hyperbolic--but I would ask, are the proposed sister schools built to last one hundred years? And if not, why not? A "cheap and disposable" mentality has taken hold in so much of our society--I would be glad to learn from VCS reps that they intend to think outside the (big) box, but no evidence as yet. (Of course, we don't really know what they think yet. Or, do I detect, in some of our fellow bloggers, the school board members beginning to play their cards?)
I'm not a school board member. Just an anonymous participant. :)
Old doesn't necessarily mean bad. But old schools DO mean:
- Ever-increasing maintenance costs.
- Classrooms that are too small for current class sizes plus computers plus pull-out areas for kids needing help with a volunteer or aid. (This is a BIG one, since it's not easily fixable without totally tearing down and rebuilding a building.)
- Buildings that aren't accessible to disabled children.
- Serious security issues, with offices nowhere near the entrances (halfway down the hallway or on the 3rd floor).
So old doesn't mean bad. But old does sometimes mean that required renovations are so extensive or expensive that it's cheaper or easier to simply tear down and rebuild. And when some schools' sites are too small to rebuild in the same place... you get a recommendation like the one presented by the Task Force.
Based on your bullet points, I would say you are an architect or engineer well-versed in the field of building reuse and renovation.
To Anonymous:
"Ever-increasing maintenance costs." - You mean like the complete re-roof Valpo's only "high performance" big school required this past summer? All facilities require on-going maintenance. The task Force never looked at comparative data showing the on going maintenance costs of new vs. old schools.
"Classrooms that are too small - This is a BIG one, since it's not easily fixable without totally tearing down and rebuilding a building" - Completely unsubstantiated by anything in the Task Force report. In fact, they clearly stated that they in no way looked at adding-on or renovating existing facilities to accommodate changing educational needs.
"Buildings that aren't accessible to disabled children." - True, and in most cases fixable.
"Serious security issues, with offices nowhere near the entrances " - Again, unsubstantiated and a red herring. What security issues are you referring to? Electronic door locks and security cameras could easily provide enhanced security no matter where the office is located.
"old does sometimes mean that required renovations are so extensive or expensive that it's cheaper or easier to simply tear down and rebuild." - Once again, your assertion is not supported by the facts. The Task Force never looked seriously at the cost and effectiveness of remodeling/adding-on vs. building new.
“And when some schools' sites are too small to rebuild in the same place... you get a recommendation like the one presented by the Task Force.”
You get the kind of drastic recommendation made by the Task Force when you ask few questions and look at even less data critical to informed decision making.
You get that kind of overly simplistic recommendation when you fail to involve the neighborhoods, instead misleading the public with loaded language and innocuous invitations to participation.
And you get the kind of backlash we're seeing of late when you present an informed and engaged community with the false choice of only a costly and drastic gutting of what has worked well in Valpo for so many years.
To interested bystander:
Parkview (and I think all the elementary schools) have electronic door locks and security cameras. Ask their office staff (the ones who buzz people in) how they feel about buzzing in delivery people, family members, etc., based on a tiny image on a screen, knowing they'll walk past several classrooms (and children working at tables in the hallway, and children going to the bathroom) before getting to the office.
I have been doing some research on the topic of neighborhood schools vs. larger consolidated schools. I wanted to post what I think is a useful link on the topic The page is part of a Historic Preservation site, which is probably not neutral on the topic, but neither are the school building consultants, as always, you have to consider the source when reading on-line. Although I doubt most of our schools would meet "historic" criteria the the other links on the page to research and articles about schools are very informative. While we might have gut reactions one way or another on closing schools or building new, I think it behooves us all to learn as much as we can on all sides of this issue to provide the best input for the future of our kids and community. http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/historic-schools/
Why is it that For having SEVEN Elementary SCHOOLS, the most vocal, condemning and militant persons involved in this so called "Community Backlash" are all people involved at only ONE school? ... Central ...
I hope you come to Flint Lake School on October 15th.. there are a lot of us parents at Flint Lake who would be happy to show you around our BIG BOX School...
It looks like this was a pretty short-lived blog... Too bad!
I know that some folks from VOICE were at Flint Lake for last week's neighborhood conversation. I'd love to hear some impressions! (I also know that not very many people showed up for it, sadly.)
I live in the Northview area and wanted the person posting Anonymously on Oct. 14th to know the concerns are not just coming from Central parents but from the all over the larger community.
As a scientist and researcher I have to add that we absolultely must try to examine as much evidence as possible before making decisions that will effect so many. It is wise to review all the issues involved, many of which have already been mentioned. Naturally, the instruction our children receive is one factor and there are many factors imbedded within the deliver of instruction (class, size, technology, teacher quality, etc.) The financial burden to tax payers is another obvious issue. Clearly, we need to actually see estimates for both building new buildings and renovation of older buildings. However, we must also examine the non-fiscal costs. For example, what happens to the fabric of the community when part of the community (the schools) are closed and students are placed on a bus to attend larger schools. What happens when attending a school function (school play, game, etc.) becomes simply another event parents attend and not an event that is experienced as genuinely "shared" among the neighbors. The social sciences can speak to the potential effects of such actions on the sense of community. One's sense of community is a shared social and psychological experience of belonging. There is something quite valuable in maintaining this sense of community and it seems we should pause and consider the implications for this community should we proceed with eliminating one of potentially many "threads" of this fine "fabric" of Valpo community. I could not say definitively that the sense of community would diminish but I question: what happens to our sense of belonging when our children attend larger schools at greater distances from home? What happens if the sense of "community" is lost?
This is obviously an important matter before us. I appreciate the Task Force's efforts, but I hope we can respectfully engage a process that truly examines as many factors as possible.
Is the sense of community lost by the many families whose children attend Flint Lake? It's a larger school where almost none of the kids can walk (must ride a bus or be dropped off by car). Seems to me we have a test case right in front of us -- and have had it for years.
If it's working at Flint Lake, why wouldn't it work at the new schools being proposed by the Task Force?
Some parents at Flint Lake have gone on the record to say that Flint Lake is working for them, but many parents at the smaller neighborhood schools have also gone on the record to say that they cherish and want to keep what they have. Why is it that the testimony of FL parents is treated as rock solid evidence, whereas the testimony of parents coming from other schools is greeted with argument and skepticism? Apparently not all parents are created equal.
Post a Comment