tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post3514163133390376635..comments2023-09-29T06:32:16.005-04:00Comments on My School Committee Blog: Comparing Massachusetts School UnionsCatherine A. Sandersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-40690438628152371552010-05-22T10:22:38.405-04:002010-05-22T10:22:38.405-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-35349120562087967462010-05-21T08:12:01.113-04:002010-05-21T08:12:01.113-04:00Catherine "so hopefully someone will run agai...Catherine "so hopefully someone will run against me". Have you decided to run for re-election?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-60241603695579885532010-05-20T16:44:27.384-04:002010-05-20T16:44:27.384-04:00My responses:
Abbie (at 2:44) - thanks for the go...My responses:<br /><br />Abbie (at 2:44) - thanks for the good point. And again, can someone explain why people need to anonymously note that someone wasn't called on? Is that a big issue that demands privacy?<br /><br />Barbara - I believe Abbie responds to your point here (e.g., this person did NOT identify that they wanted to speak when Irv initially asked for who wanted to talk). There is no grand conspiracy to deny people the right to talk, as I think has been pretty clear at all meetings.<br /><br />Anonymous 3:08 - well, there is an easy way to resolve the make up of the Amherst SC -- vote for different people when they run for SC! I'm up for re-election this spring, so hopefully someone will run against me from a school other than Fort River (and with kids in the regional schools). <br /><br />Abbie (at 3:13) - thanks for clarifying this point re. the timing of the hand raising. Also, I am still trying to figure out how to use this power I apparently have to punish those who identify themselves and then disagree with me on my blog/other blogs/in the Bulletin. If anyone could give me a heads up on how I can accomplish this, I'd really appreciate it.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-81479380773357635922010-05-20T15:13:36.959-04:002010-05-20T15:13:36.959-04:00Barbara,
If that is the 'hand' claimed to...Barbara,<br /><br />If that is the 'hand' claimed to have been raised, then it was raised AFTER the request at the beginning of the meeting for people to raise their hands if they want to speak. This 'hand' was raised DURING the comment period, long after the earlier request, and thus, Irv's appropriate comment. This isn't town meeting or an open forum.<br /><br />And thanks for using your name. I do disagree on occasion with CS, SR, and IR and I have yet to hear of any contracts put out on my life...(or by anyone else for that matter...)Abbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989627808442831131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-64248372817553788652010-05-20T15:08:08.355-04:002010-05-20T15:08:08.355-04:00I am not anon 5:54 but I do share his/her concerns...I am not anon 5:54 but I do share his/her concerns about the Ft River slant of the SC. I also am concerned that there are no members with kids in the regional system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-72423473513939384842010-05-20T14:51:54.042-04:002010-05-20T14:51:54.042-04:00Mr. Rhodes did see this person's hand go up an...Mr. Rhodes did see this person's hand go up and as soon as he saw it raised he said "I'm not taking amy more comments." This was said just before he went into his response to Farshid.Barbaranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-1876519271915254902010-05-20T14:44:58.620-04:002010-05-20T14:44:58.620-04:00Dear anon@554
are you the same anonymous that kee...Dear anon@554<br /><br />are you the same anonymous that keeps claiming a great conspiracy occurred and some people were kept from commenting at the SC mtg? The 'invisible' raised hand'? Seen by no one apparently, but by the individual with the invisible hand (maybe they should get that checked).<br /><br />The fact is any rational person would want to examine a contract formed over 100 years ago and decide whether those obligations are in the best interests of those currently served.<br /><br />I will say it here, as I have other places. I supported hiring Ms. Geryk for 16 months (and still think that was a pragmatic, good decision) AND I want Union 26 examined. These two opinions are ENTIRELY independent of each other.<br /><br />Finally, I imagine it must be very easy to sling such accusations from the cover of anonymity. So spiteful...Abbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989627808442831131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-57182675286377591822010-05-20T11:16:43.524-04:002010-05-20T11:16:43.524-04:00My response:
Anonymous 5:51 - there was a very, v...My response:<br /><br />Anonymous 5:51 - there was a very, very clear quote in the paper regarding why Amherst was interested in this issue, and thus voted unanimously to get this information. In addition, all of our meetings are available on TV (and on line) and minutes are posted, so all Pelham members have for over a month had full information about why Amherst was taking this step. In addition, and I'm going to quote Abbie here, "Pelham knows very well why Amherst is examining the Union, they would have to be brain dead not to understand why. They don't NEED to be spoon-feed the reasons why Amherst wants to examine the Union. That is all political posturing, IMO." The point is very, very obvious: one town pays 94% of the bill and has 50% of the vote. Some people think that is odd (and it is the most disproportionate union in Massachusetts). That's it, and it isn't a subtle point nor one that is hard to understand.<br /><br />Anonymous 5:54 - OK, so here is what is odd to me. People who support looking into getting out of Union 26 came to a meeting, spoke in public, and used their names. They are owning their comments because they believe they are right. You are posting anonymously on a blog -- why in the world wouldn't you use your name in this case, just as Rich Morse has done, and Nina Koch, and Abbie, and Cathy Eden, and Alison Donta-Venman, and Dan Viederman. Just USE YOUR NAME to share your views, because on this issue, I can't see not using your name -- you aren't going to offend a teacher or a student, etc. But when you imply that those parents stood up at a meeting and spoke on TV and in public because three Amherst SC members convinced them to do so (e.g., the Fort River link), it is really insulting to not only SC members, but those parents. Own your comments and say who you are.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-69632983254599074572010-05-20T05:54:00.472-04:002010-05-20T05:54:00.472-04:00Don't forget to mention, Catherine, that you, ...Don't forget to mention, Catherine, that you, Steve and Rob are all Fort River Parents. And 3 out of the 4 people who spoke in support of looking into the Union 26 agreement are also Fort River parents.<br /><br />Not exactly an objective crew of parents showing support. I think that's an important fact that needs to be added each and every time you tell us of all the support you have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-32790956760118764592010-05-20T05:51:04.068-04:002010-05-20T05:51:04.068-04:00Rich:
They did not need to think out loud about w...Rich:<br /><br />They did not need to think out loud about whether to get out or not. All Pelham was asking them to do was to say why, out of the clear blue, the Amherst members of Union 26 were even thinking about it at all. What event precipitated the thought process to begin with.<br /><br />Pelham was NOT asking them to do anything more than that. What is so hard about that?<br /><br />Irv, or Catherine or Steve could have said very simply "we are thinking about this because we are not happy with the way the vote to hire Maria Geryk went."<br /><br />Simple. End of story. Would have taken about 10 seconds. If something like that had been said, Tracy would have called an end to the Union 26 meeting and the Regional meeting would have continue. It would have taken about 5 minutes in all.<br /><br />I still do not understand this simple thing. Why Amherst could not say why the thought process was begun in the first place. I do not know how I feel about Amherst pulling out of Union 26. I may support it. I may not. But I do know that I do not support the way the Amherst SC members handled things at the May 11th meeting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-44374299312490787172010-05-19T22:50:26.132-04:002010-05-19T22:50:26.132-04:00My response:
Rich - your point is well-taken. An...My response:<br /><br />Rich - your point is well-taken. And let's remember, when I made a motion (seconded by Kathleen) to close Marks Meadow in a year, Andy was very hesitant to support it. However, after we spent two months reviewing the data on the benefits, he joined all other members of the Amherst SC in voting unanimously to close it. I think it is impossible to judge how ANY member of the Amherst SC would vote on the Union 26 matter until we have advice from an attorney on what our options are, and what the costs/benefits of each might be. At that point, each of us will have to consider how we want to proceed. <br /><br />I will note that contrary to the comments at the last few meetings that consisted only of those clamoring to not get out of the Union 26 agreement, four parents spoke at last night's meeting urging the Amherst SC to get information about the nature of this agreement. I believe it is important for the public to understand the arrangement and our options, and I'm very glad that all members of the Amherst SC (including Rick) continue to believe this is important information to have.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-61803814058487942912010-05-19T18:26:30.001-04:002010-05-19T18:26:30.001-04:00I thank Nina for her sincere attempt at the Reason...I thank Nina for her sincere attempt at the Reasonable Person's Brief in favor of the Union 26 status quo. As someone who wasn't even thinking about this before, say, three months ago, I get it. <br /><br />And your point about "a sensible order of proceeding" is meaningful to me. <br /><br />Ultimately, I think that the Amherst SC will have the burden of proof with Amherst residents on either staying in or getting out of the Union. Whether he knows it or not, Rick Hood's position will be crucial in gaining public acceptance IF the decision is to get out, given his identity as the most conservative, most cautious, most conflict-averse member of the Committee. (In short, he's in the Churchill seat.)<br /><br />Like the Mark's Meadow closing, any move out of the Union will need a unanimous vote to insulate the SC from the customary endless recriminations around town.<br /><br />I still believe that the Amherst SC membership is entitled to think about so momentous a matter before they should be compelled to discuss it. They are not required to "think out loud" in a hastily called Union 26 meeting. For me, that is the unfairness of the other night's meeting, including Ms. Farnham's unwillingness or inability to table the matter gracefully.<br /><br />Rich MorseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-40815907766949092362010-05-19T11:02:20.925-04:002010-05-19T11:02:20.925-04:00Abbie (at 10:51) - I too have heard about this dat...Abbie (at 10:51) - I too have heard about this data on the benefits of extensions from Mike Hayes, but I have never seen any data on its effectiveness presented -- not as a member of the SC or as a member of the Math Curricular Council or as the parent of a 6th grader entering the middle school in the fall. I share your interest in seeing that data, and will try to ask about that at the next Regional Meeting.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-90226546493712068762010-05-19T10:59:06.434-04:002010-05-19T10:59:06.434-04:00My responses:
Rich - yes, good point. I am STILL...My responses:<br /><br />Rich - yes, good point. I am STILL waiting to hear why information is bad.<br /><br />Nina - two quick things here. First, the regionalization report did not examine the Union 26 arrangement, and any moves on regionalization would take a LONG time (this is something that would have to get approved by all town meetings). So, regionalization is AT BEST 5 to 10 years off -- it certainly isn't something we can count on, just as soon as we get that report. Remember, we heard last year that we shouldn't close Marks Meadow because we were about to get that regionalization report! Second, no one has decided to "break up the Union before other things have been figured out." Not a single person. The Amherst School Committee has requested information on how arrangements could be modified -- that's it. <br /><br />Alison - yes, good point. And again, there is ZERO chance that regionalization will be decided prior to hiring a superintendent. The rules for changing the nature of that arrangement are very clear, and I think the process is extremely lengthy. In addition, I've attended various updates from the regionalization committee, and it is clear that that committee formed under pressure from the state to study this issue (not out of any burning desire to regionalize on the part of any of the towns), and I'm pretty sure that report is NOT going to recommend a K to 12 regional system. I imagine the report will ultimately recommend further study!<br /><br />Abbie - well said. I agree with everything you wrote. I think there is a lot of focus on the "process" of asking for information (kind of like the focus on "tone") because that is frankly easier to criticize than requests for information (which kind of seems reasonable).<br /><br />Anonymous 10:27 - can you clarify what kind of slack we should give Pelham? I understand the current system is GREAT for Pelham, so I understand why they don't like the idea of any changes being considered. But that doesn't mean that Amherst shouldn't seek information. <br /><br />Nina (at 10:43) - well, if superintendent candidates watch the Amherst SC meeting from last night, they see an active group full of energy and focused on education. Last night, in 2 1/2 hours, we talked about the new Spanish language policy, the K to 12 math review, goals for next year, intervention support, afterschool programs, and K to 6 science. It was done with active dialogue and participation with all SC members and the superintendent. Very clearly the Amherst members are indeed ready to focus on education and constructive dialogue moving forward.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-13711167534404791532010-05-19T10:51:56.924-04:002010-05-19T10:51:56.924-04:00CS,
I followed along with M. Hayes' discussio...CS,<br /><br />I followed along with M. Hayes' discussion of 'extensions' at the SC mtg. And I have a question about something he said. It might be more appropriate to post this question later, when you post on last night's ES SC mtg but I will ask it here anyway.<br /><br />Has ANYONE other than M. Hayes seen this 'data' on extensions, which I have now heard him mention 2 times now. Has anyone on the 'regional SC' seen it? Have any MS parents seen it? As an Amherst tax-payer, how could I gain access to that 'data'?Abbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989627808442831131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-81696016327784038422010-05-19T10:43:32.695-04:002010-05-19T10:43:32.695-04:00Hi Alison,
I don't think it's possible fo...Hi Alison,<br /><br />I don't think it's possible for us to have a definitive answer on district structure ready in time for when we start advertising the supt position next fall.<br /><br />In terms of hiring, I think the best thing we can do in order to attract quality candidates is to demonstrate that we are capable of engaging in constructive discourse that moves things forward.Nina Kochhttp://www.arps.org/users/hs/kochn/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-30286691618404051602010-05-19T10:27:09.854-04:002010-05-19T10:27:09.854-04:00Abbie:
I'll consider giving the Amherst SC me...Abbie:<br /><br />I'll consider giving the Amherst SC members some slack when they start doing the same towards Pelham SC members.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-27462918833917691322010-05-19T10:08:28.845-04:002010-05-19T10:08:28.845-04:00Dear Nina,
Knowledge is power (in a good way). K...Dear Nina,<br /><br />Knowledge is power (in a good way). Knowing all your options is the best way forward. If you don't know your options, then in practice, they don't exist.<br /><br />I know lots of folks who are unhappy with the the 'process' that occurred wrt to Union 26. The fact remains that it deserves examination. The legal opinion might say 'there is nothing Amherst can do wrt to Union 26'. Hence there would be NO reason to discuss Union 26 with Pelham. But Pelham knows very well why Amherst is examining the Union, they would have to be brain dead not to understand why. They don't NEED to be spoon-feed the reasons why Amherst wants to examine the Union. That is all political posturing, IMO. Maybe things could have been done differently (and I'm sure fault would still have been found), but the folks involved are PEOPLE who are VOLUNTEERS with strengths and weaknesses. Please consider giving everyone (all parties) a break and focus on the issue.Abbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02989627808442831131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-41820858038050154272010-05-19T09:54:28.362-04:002010-05-19T09:54:28.362-04:00I think the case for getting things done "in ...I think the case for getting things done "in a hurry" is that we will be hiring a new Superintendent next year and it would be nice to know what his/her duties and responsibilities will be beforehand (regarding number and types of districts). Nina's point about regionalization is a good one, though; I would love to see a decision about that made before advertising for a Superintendent as well. But given that no decision may be made on that front in time, I think moving ahead on a parallel track of examining the Union 26 agreement is wise.Alison Donta-Venmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03878779168857679143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-29150979266240423392010-05-19T09:36:53.703-04:002010-05-19T09:36:53.703-04:00Hi Rich,
I don't know if I qualify as a reaso...Hi Rich,<br /><br />I don't know if I qualify as a reasonable person or not, but here is my argument. It's not so much about whether the Union should be maintained but more about a sensible order of proceeding. We have a group looking into regionalization and I think that group should present its findings first. If we end up going to a K12 four town district, then the point about Union 26 becomes moot. So we don't need to spend time, money and angst on it.<br /><br />Overall, I would support something which simplifies the current structure. But it does not make sense to me to break up the Union before other things have been figured out. I don't see that anyone has made a case why that needs to be done in such a hurry.Nina Kochhttp://www.arps.org/users/hs/kochn/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-21631739405834011442010-05-19T07:12:23.406-04:002010-05-19T07:12:23.406-04:00Like TomG, I'd like to read the Reasonable Per...Like TomG, I'd like to read the Reasonable Person's Brief on maintaining the Union as is (and I truly believe that there's one out there). <br /><br />But I'd like to read one from a named person, rather than sniping from the shadows by anonymous posters.<br /><br />What's the argument other than "we hate the Amherst School Committee and the way that they behave?"<br /><br />Rich MorseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-22114261519243721572010-05-18T11:14:53.594-04:002010-05-18T11:14:53.594-04:00My responses:
Alison - thank you for your thought...My responses:<br /><br />Alison - thank you for your thoughtful email to the SC. I agree that the current arrangement is not advantageous, in terms of curricular alignment as well as budget efficiencies, and I'm particularly mindful of this in light of the announcement yesterday that Northampton will ALSO be seeking a superintendent next year! Who would prefer to work in Amherst, attending three sets of SC meetings with three different SCs evaluating performance and setting goals and managing three different budgets? <br /><br />Anonymous 10:04 - thank you for your thoughts. I agree that looking into this issue is really important, and in fact is our responsibility to the voters in Amherst.<br /><br />Tom G - two points here. First, we are going to discuss goals for the upcoming year at our June meeting (I believe June 15th), so we will have a sense from the whole SC at that time. Personally, I see improving K to 6 math as essential (and look forward to getting the independent review of this later in the month), initiating the K to 6 Spanish program (which will be discussed by Sean Smith, head of world languages, at tonight's meeting), examining the K to 6 science program (which the superintendent has indicated will be reviewed next year), and evaluating our intervention support (including what programs we have, and when, and for which kids, and to what outcome). Those are four priorities I think are front and center, and I believe work on each of these is well underway by the administration. <br /><br />Second, and this is a key thing in response to your point that "maybe the way to move forward is to make the representation proportional" -- we are not allowed, according to Massachusetts General Law, to make the representation on a union proportional: each town has to have EQUAL representation. This is one of the key problems -- this is not just something Amherst and Pelham can work out on their own. So, there is NO WAY to stay in a union and allow proportional representation ... which is why we need legal advice on what our legal options are.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-34272263127269459162010-05-18T10:10:00.709-04:002010-05-18T10:10:00.709-04:00I'm glad Anonymous @ 12:30 (who is suspicious ...I'm glad Anonymous @ 12:30 (who is suspicious of motives) raised the questions of priorities. <br /><br />CS, What is your assessment of the Amherst School Committee's priorities (initiatives) at this time? What is the committee working on, and what are they working toward, say in a one and two year horizon?<br /><br />If you can't speak for the whole committee, can you provide an opinion about it from your perspective? <br /><br />For me, Union 26 is a threshold issue. It's specific structure, as opposed to its general existence, is an issue going forward with regard to elected Amherst School Committee members having appropriate and proportional authority in the hiring process of a new super. From the feedback I've read here, it seems like some people support the union if not the 50-50% proportion of elected officials on it. I'd like to hear from them about what Union 26 delivers that they value. <br /><br />Maybe the way to move forward is to make the representation proportional, leave authorities in tact, and examine administrative overhead and the pros and cons of the union separately on a longer time line.TomGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-30996614792619751612010-05-18T10:04:25.369-04:002010-05-18T10:04:25.369-04:00Great job, Amherst SC. Once again! I am a voter,...Great job, Amherst SC. Once again! I am a voter, a taxpayer, a property owner, a parent with children in the schools, and I am extremely thankful to you for shining light on this issue, explaining it to us, and getting legal advice on it. <br /><br />It is simply an old system that no longer fits. And it is a huge disservice to Amherst residents and taxpayers. We simply do not have the same demographics, interests, and financial issues as Pelham. What is really comparable? Not much in my view. What is shocking to me is that it has taken this long to make some progress on this issue. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-8553666113168782292010-05-18T09:55:54.382-04:002010-05-18T09:55:54.382-04:00I sent this email to the Amherst School Committee ...I sent this email to the Amherst School Committee and Superintendent Geryk and thought it might be of interest to this discussion:<br /><br />Dear Amherst School Committee members...<br /> <br />I am writing in support of your inquiry into withdrawing from Union 26. It is clear to me that the current arrangement is not in the best interests of Amherst students, Amherst taxpayers, and frankly, the administration. I believe in proportional representation and the Union is clearly not set up that way; Amherst is an an unfair disadvantage. I also believe we need to look anywhere and everywhere for cost reductions and efficiencies that do NOT directly impact the students in the classroom. The current need for our Superintendent to serve three separate districts, attend multiple School Committee meetings, and try to juggle the sometimes competing needs of three separate districts (for example, the issue of school choice into Pelham) make the job unnecessarily complicated, potenially unattractive to candidates, and requires a higher level of pay than is truly sustainable. <br /> <br />I also believe that there are many other good options that can better serve not only the needs of Amherst students and taxpayers but also those of Pelham. Forming a regional K-6 district, for example, would continue to have the benefit to Pelham of sharing a superintendent but would solve the problems of "serving multiple elementary masters" for the Superintendent, eliminate the school choice money leaving Amherst problem, and help with curricular alignment. If this is done now, as the schools prepare to reform into three Amherst elementary schools, perhaps instead they could reform into four elementary schools with one located in Pelham. There are many Amherst students who live closer to Pelham elementary than to Fort River, so redrawing the boundaries to include Pelham might help mitigate some of the potential crowding problem in our remaining three elementary schools. A regional K-6 district would also solve the proportional representation issue.<br /> <br />The best solution of all, though, is to form a K-12 district. That would be administratively and financially the most efficient as well as allowing the best curricular alignment (both vertical and horizontal). I hope the School Committee takes on the task of seriously evaluating this possiblity, including the possibility that Amherst seeks to form its own K-12 district if Pelham, Leverett, and Shutesbury are uninterested in joining us. You were elected to serve the needs of Amherst students and all citizens and it is in our best interest, and the best interest of our children, to form a K-12 district.<br /> <br />As always, I appreciate all your hard work and willingness to listen. Best of luck with this work.<br /> <br /> ...AlisonAlison Donta-Venmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03878779168857679143noreply@blogger.com