tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post4478368818148472415..comments2023-09-29T06:32:16.005-04:00Comments on My School Committee Blog: Regional school board ponders future of Union 26Catherine A. Sandersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-29454396545192290162010-05-18T09:56:24.565-04:002010-05-18T09:56:24.565-04:00I want to be represented by a school committee tha...I want to be represented by a school committee that I can vote for not by one elected in Pelham that controls 50% of votes representing only a small fraction of the total school population (and there taxpaying parents.) <br /><br />If Union 26 is not reformed so that Amherst residents' representation on the school committee is more proportional to the student body so that it allows allows the Amherst school committee and school administration to align curriculum from bottom to top then what we have is taxation without equitable representation. <br /><br />Here's CS take from a subsequent thread:<br /><br />"the interests of those elected to serve Pelham might well differ from the interests of those elected to serve Amherst. And given that these interests were quite divided (100% of Pelham SC members voting to appoint an interim superintendent for 15 months without any public comment; 80% of Amherst SC members -- and all of those potentially running for re-election -- not wanting to make a 15-month appointment without any public comment), it then seemed quite odd that at the Union 26 level, both Amherst and Pelham had 50% of the votes. I heard from a number of parents who were really concerned about this, and felt that their voting for candidates they supported in Amherst was basically useless, since ultimately, Pelham could block any superintendent hire."TomGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-15565309741732272212010-05-18T09:41:49.635-04:002010-05-18T09:41:49.635-04:00"I think it was a wise choice."
While s..."I think it was a wise choice."<br /><br />While she may well have been a good choice there is clearly something wrong with the process when Amherst's elected School Committee has to accept that decision made by others rather than decide it for ourselves.TomGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-32726571966648148292010-05-18T08:22:41.568-04:002010-05-18T08:22:41.568-04:00I am an Amherst resident and I am very happy with ...I am an Amherst resident and I am very happy with the appointment of Maria Geryk as our 16 month interim Superintendent. I think it was a wise choice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-6699704723576732802010-05-18T00:37:44.376-04:002010-05-18T00:37:44.376-04:00"I appreciate the Amherst SC for taking this ..."I appreciate the Amherst SC for taking this on."<br /><br />Me too. <br /><br />I was dumfounded when the interim super was installed for 16 months without the consent of SC members who represent me and who should be making these decisions.TomGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-18304157857448155132010-05-17T12:46:01.448-04:002010-05-17T12:46:01.448-04:00Anonymous said...
"... That is like comparing...<i>Anonymous said...<br />"... That is like comparing apples to oranges."<br />(May 15, 2010 4:39 PM) </i><br /><br />Asking someone to stop using a metaphor seems silly. The point of using a metaphor is to highlight and characterize an aspect of the situation in a discussion. If you think a metaphor is not apt, its probably becuase you see the situation differently. Talk about that and you may get somewhere.TomGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-31688509705587145282010-05-17T06:25:00.256-04:002010-05-17T06:25:00.256-04:00South DeerfieldSouth DeerfieldAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-11856245671591433022010-05-16T15:00:43.089-04:002010-05-16T15:00:43.089-04:00Nina: So I take it that is a "No" to my ...Nina: So I take it that is a "No" to my question about whether you live and pay taxes in Amherst.<br /><br />Slight correction: I send my kid Kira (singular) to the Chinese Charter School (which I was one of 15 original founders). Jada is too young at the moment.<br /><br />And if the Amherst School system spent as much on average as Charter Schools did statewide last year it would have saved the town about $12 million.Larry Kelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02614645831526190536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-361493191879867392010-05-16T09:59:38.106-04:002010-05-16T09:59:38.106-04:00I have a couple of reactions to Nina's comment...I have a couple of reactions to Nina's comments. <br /><br />First, I had always assumed she was an Amherst resident given how vociferously she lobbied for the override. A district employee lobbying to fund her raise by calling for the elderly to pay higher property taxes from their fixed incomes is so inappropriate, that I just assumed that only teachers who would also pay those higher taxes chimed in. Until she says otherwise, I'll just assume Nina lives in Amherst.<br /><br />On the Union issue, if Nina doesn't live in either Amherst or Pelham, her comments are particularly worrisome. As CAS pointed out, we're talking about a system that right now gives a tiny minority the same voting rights as a much larger group (the Wyoming v. California metaphor). Having non-Amherst, non-Pelham folks weighing in, which is their right, is a little like Portugal lecturing the US on how its elections should work. This doesn't concern other town's residents. So, again, until we hear otherwise, let's just assume Nina lives in Amherst. <br /><br />Next, on Nina's claim that reforming or abrogating the Union agreement is some sort of attempt to give more votes to individuals who pay more in property taxes (i.e., undermining the idea of one person, one vote), I say Nina has it exactly backwards. The worry about the current system is simply that each Pelham resident has been given substantially more power than each Amherst resident. <br /><br />The issue is clarified using very rough math. If Amherst has a population that is 25 times larger than Pelham's (using 2000 census numbers), then each Pelham resident gets 25 votes for each Amherst resident's 1 vote in terms of choosing the Super.<br /><br />Why on earth would any Amherst resident or any member of the Amherst SC ever stand for such a system. I, for one, am pleased to see the SC studying this.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13141742420717242724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-57962394599923441082010-05-16T07:05:56.128-04:002010-05-16T07:05:56.128-04:00While some posting on this blog may not think ther...While some posting on this blog may not think there is a problem, many of us who have been watching the SC meetings for the past few years realize there is. Pelham has too much power to decide the fate of our kids, both at the Union and at the Regional level. Pelham is a lot different than Amherst (less diversity both of race and of income) and as a taxpayer of Amherst I don't feel as if their SC members represent my views or the needs of the children of Amherst. I appreciate the Amherst SC for taking this on.Fort River Parentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-58135380185706053152010-05-16T01:23:38.510-04:002010-05-16T01:23:38.510-04:00My response:
Nina - I think the opposition to the...My response:<br /><br />Nina - I think the opposition to the gathering of information on an agreement that is over 100 years old has been pretty vicious -- that is my experience of it as a member of the SC. <br /><br />I don't hear anyone saying that Pelham isn't a good school or that we don't care about their feedback or collaboration. I also haven't heard anyone on or off SC say "we should not have Pelham in our district." What people have questioned is whether the Pelham SC should have 50% of the votes (and veto power) over the selection/evaluation of a superintendent, since they pay 6% of the bills. Since you have so valued Pelham's contributions, and its success, I assume you would be in favor of officially combining the Amherst-Pelham schools into one elementary district (K to 6), which I too would support. This would reduce administrative costs and increase cohesion between all the elementary schools and simplify work for the superintendent.<br /><br />I have never said that anyone can't participate in the conversation -- hence I have this blog and answer virtually all posts (even anonymous ones). What I have said is that I think it is appropriate for people to acknowledge particular situations in which they may have a vested interest that is not obvious to others - as Ms. Fronhofer did when she made her remarks on Tuesday at the SC meeting. I would certainly call out Larry (or others) who suggested the Amherst schools could save money by doing X, Y, or Z ... and if Larry came to SC meetings and opposed the Chinese language program at Wildwood, I would call him on that in 1 second, since it could be seen as an attempt to decrease competition for the school his child attends (a very vested interest). I continue to believe that it would be appropriate for Ms. Fronhofer to be identified (in the paper and at meetings) as someone who is concerned about how the district spends money investigating the Union 26 agreement (although that investigation may reveal ways in which the Amherst schools could save money), while choosing to school choice her children into the Pelham school (which clearly benefits from the Union 26 agreement tremendously). <br /><br />But the real issue here isn't whether the paper should state whether Ms. Fronhofer does or does not use school choice into Pelham, or how I use word vicious. The issue is whether you are in favor of the Amherst district getting information on the Union 26 agreement - and I'll return to my earlier question, which you didn't answer: you do, as a teacher, support getting more information so that the community can be educated about the Union 26 agreement and the options for Amherst moving forward, right?Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-53766566073834450542010-05-15T21:19:08.749-04:002010-05-15T21:19:08.749-04:00you said this on May 13 at 11:14 am:
"I agre...you said this on May 13 at 11:14 am: <br />"I agree. I mean, in this very liberal town, asking for information in this case is being viciously opposed and the people who want the information are being attacked."<br /><br />I apologize; I had remembered it as an adjective when in fact you used it as an adverb.<br /><br />As for where I pay taxes, I am not sure why that matters. I care about the town that I live in and I also care about the school system that I work for. I, for one, have seen a lot of benefit from the inclusion of Pelham in our district. Staff members from Pelham participate on district committees and in professional development activities. It's a successful school and they have a lot to offer us.<br /> <br />This is supposed to be a conversation. I don't think anybody should be trying to control who is or is not allowed to join the conversation. That is why I was troubled by your suggestion that a parent who opts for school choice somehow doesn't have the right to question how the school committee is spending money. The same logic could apply to Larry, who "costs the district money" by sending his kids to charter school. Yet I haven't seen you suggest that he should not be part of the conversation. You seem to reserve that for your critics. I think Larry has a right to join the conversation as does any other person, no matter what individual choices he or she has made.Nina Kochhttp://www.arps.org/users/hs/kochn/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-35095787543369974102010-05-15T19:52:57.594-04:002010-05-15T19:52:57.594-04:00My response:
Anonymous 7:46 - the current SC did ...My response:<br /><br />Anonymous 7:46 - the current SC did not create the current Union 26 agreement, so for those who think this current agreement IS a problem (e.g., believe that this deprives Amherst voters of equal representation, believe that Amherst would never enter into this agreement today, believe that a town that pays 94% of the bill should get more than 50% of the votes) understand that it existed prior to the current SC (since no current members of the SC were serving in 1903). If you don't believe this agreement is a problem, then you see the SC as creating a problem -- and that is your right, but again, for those who see the current representation as a problem, the current SC is totally not to blame. We have just identified the problem that already existed. <br /><br />And I have no idea which members of the Amherst SC you've talked to, but you haven't talked to me -- because I have no idea what I want to do since I don't have any idea what the options are. Asking any current members of the SC what they want to do without having any information about what we could do or what we could not do or what the consequences/implications of any decision seems silly.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-53832067384723209052010-05-15T19:46:02.101-04:002010-05-15T19:46:02.101-04:00And then there is the curious anger at reasonable ...And then there is the curious anger at reasonable people who disagree with the actions of the SC.<br /><br />The SC is creating a problem where there wasn't one. Information gathering is one thing. What really galls me is that it is quite evident that the majority of the Amherst SC has already decided what they are going to do once they are done with their "information gathering." What a smoke screen!<br /><br />And the people with their eyes open, whether they support the SC or do not support the SC on this topic, also know that the die has already been cast.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-62265398813512566712010-05-15T19:45:00.520-04:002010-05-15T19:45:00.520-04:00My responses:
Nina - first, I don't see where...My responses:<br /><br />Nina - first, I don't see where I've used the word "vicious" -- can you point me to my comment? I think I've typically used the words "puzzled" and "confused." But I'll be glad to clarify why I used the word "vicious" if you'll point me to the post in which that term was used.<br /><br />In terms of your other point: do you believe that Wyoming and California should have an equal say in determining who the president of the United States is, or do you believe it would be fairer to have each state get the same two votes? I believe that it is indeed important for citizens of California to have more say -- not proportionate say -- but more say. <br /><br />But most importantly, you are a teacher, so I'm certain you are in favor of information and education, right? So I assume you support the efforts of the Amherst SC to get more information on our options so we can educate the community.<br /><br />Larry - this seems like a fair question to Nina. I look forward to her response.<br /><br />Curious Observer - those public officials who "collect information, discuus that information and then take actions based on information" are the worst: I agree. (I would be using the saracsm font here if Larry had invented it yet).Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-19622281375611615802010-05-15T19:21:23.149-04:002010-05-15T19:21:23.149-04:00There is a curious lack of interestby most in gath...There is a curious lack of interestby most in gathering information in Amherst. Then there is an even more curious anger at people who seek information about government and school operations. Most enraging is having public officials collect information, discuus that information and then take actions based on information.Curious observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-16343298440060706402010-05-15T18:38:36.596-04:002010-05-15T18:38:36.596-04:00So Nina,do you actually live and pay property taxe...So Nina,do you actually live and pay property taxes in Amherst?Larry Kelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02614645831526190536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-77079813273130355382010-05-15T18:01:36.997-04:002010-05-15T18:01:36.997-04:00Catherine,
By your reasoning, people who pay more...Catherine,<br /><br />By your reasoning, people who pay more in property taxes should have more say in town government. I don't think that who pays what should have any bearing.<br /><br />I also don't understand your characterization of people's concerns about these actions. You have described the opposition as "vicious." You had a lot of adjectives to choose from and I'm not sure why you picked that one. I don't see anybody being vicious. People are allowed to say that they are concerned about what is going on.Nina Kochhttp://www.arps.org/users/hs/kochn/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-56163874562692094442010-05-15T17:44:07.112-04:002010-05-15T17:44:07.112-04:00My responses:
Anonymous 4:39 - last year, the SC ...My responses:<br /><br />Anonymous 4:39 - last year, the SC requested information on the costs/benefits of closing Marks Meadow, and people were angry that we even wanted this information. I believe it was useful information to have, and prior to the SC requesting, no one had really been thinking this was even an option. Similarly, the SC this year has requested information on the options for Amherst in terms of Union 26. I believe they are similar in that in both cases, the SC has requested information that it believes will be useful to have. In the Marks Meadow case, we decided to act on that information (after hearing from the community). In the case of Union 26, we may or may not decide to act on the information (and obviously any action would occur after considerable community input). Go back and read my blog from a year ago -- lots of people were angry that we even wanted this information. I see that exact same process occurring again -- anger at a mere request of information by elected officials, which I continue to find puzzling. <br /><br />Anonymous 4:58 - "If I was Pelham, there is NO WAY I would want to have my elementary school under the control of the current Amherst SC." So, if that is how the Pelham SC feels and Pelham residents, then merging with Amherst would be a really bad idea -- but that would be their decision to make. <br /><br />You say "Why shouldn't Pelham have as much say about who the Super is going to be for their school as Amherst has in choosing a Super for its schools" -- well, the reason for that difference might be that the towns are dramatically different in population/enrollment in the schools and in budget contributed. Do you believe Pelham, a town with an elementary school population of 125 kids, should have MORE say in who their superintendent is than do Leverett and Shutesbury, who each have MORE kids in their elementary school than does Pelham? If a town wants complete say in who their superintendent is (e.g., like Northampton does), they should be a complete separate K to 12 district! Remember, at the elementary level, Leverett and Shutesbury have 1/5 of the say in who their superintendent is, because they pay 20% of the budget. Pelham pays 6% of the budget of their elementary, and has 50% of the say. Similarly, at the Regional Level, Pelham has 2 votes (22% of the say) and pays 6%, whereas Leverett and Shutesbury each has 1 vote (11% of the say) and pay more than Pelham. Does that strike you as fair? I'm just trying to understand -- you believe Pelham should have the SAME say as Amherst, and that Pelham should have MORE say that Leverett or Shutesbury in choosing superintendents? Can you clarify why that strikes you as the fairest solution, because it is difficult for me to see what that arrangement is indeed the fairest. And I'm not convinced that we should determine what is fairest by its existence since 1903 -- many things clearly have changed in Amherst/Pelham/the US/education over the last 100 years. <br /><br />Anonymous 5:21 - I don't know when we will have this information, as I just don't know how fast the lawyer will work or how complicated the legal questions are. But this is on the agenda for the Tuesday (May 18th) meeting, and if there is any sense of a timeline by then, there will be an announcement.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-62400791300891412732010-05-15T17:21:14.175-04:002010-05-15T17:21:14.175-04:00just curious, do we know when we're getting th...just curious, do we know when we're getting this information?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-73238782125983942052010-05-15T16:58:22.743-04:002010-05-15T16:58:22.743-04:00"It might make sense for Pelham to merge its ..."It might make sense for Pelham to merge its elementary school into the Amherst system."<br /><br />If I was Pelham, there is NO WAY I would want to have my elementary school under the control of the current Amherst SC.<br /><br />I do not have any problem with Union 26 in its current form. Why shouldn't Pelham have as much say about who the Super is going to be for their school as Amherst has in choosing a Super for its schools. If the voting power were changed, Pelham would NEVER have any say in who the Super is for their school. We hear alot of talk about fairness and lack thereof. How is it fair for Pelham to have no say in who their Super is?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-70598678111593333872010-05-15T16:39:22.156-04:002010-05-15T16:39:22.156-04:00Please stop comparing the closing of MM with unila...Please stop comparing the closing of MM with unilaterally withdrawing from Union 26. That is like comparing apples to oranges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-36382458364893180652010-05-15T15:03:24.294-04:002010-05-15T15:03:24.294-04:00My response:
Curious Observer - I agree with all ...My response:<br /><br />Curious Observer - I agree with all you said -- it seems clear that this agreement would NEVER be reached today if we were starting fresh (a point Abbie made yesterday), so I think it is fair to residents of both towns for us to examine it. If it turns out this is the best option for both towns, then obviously we stick with it. If it turns out it isn't the best option, then both Amherst and Pelham would have to think about the choices they'd like to make -- and hear from community members/parents about the pros and cons of different options. <br /><br />If Amherst chose to withdraw from Union 26, it seems likely that Pelham could either join Amherst in an Amherst-Pelham district (one SC, 4 K to 6 schools) or join Union 28 (with Leverett and Shutesbury and the other towns already in that union). They may also have other options that they would prefer, and of course, this would be up to residents and SC members in Pelham.<br /><br />I don't think anyone is near reaching a decision about how best to proceed -- but I continue to believe that finding out options and then informing the community of these options is the right thing to do, even if that request makes some people uncomfortable.<br /><br />I remember a year ago, the Amherst SC asked for information on the pros/cons of closing Marks Meadow, and there was massive resistance to even getting that information. Yet without getting that information, and being able to weigh the pros/cons of that decision, we would have a much worse school system today (4 schools at a loss of $800,000).Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-75912091133035671742010-05-15T11:27:33.710-04:002010-05-15T11:27:33.710-04:00I knew almost nothing about Union 26 two weeks ago...I knew almost nothing about Union 26 two weeks ago, like almost everyone else. But it seems clear that today Amherst would not sign up for Union 26 as it now exists. <br /><br />Amherst would never agree to give Pelham 50% of voting power to hire and evaluate the superintendent when Pelham only has 10% of the students and financial contribution. It's hard to see what benefit Amherst now gets from Union 26. It would be easy to cut administrative costs and salaries by 10% if the agreement was dissolved, since there would be less work. In return, Amherst gets more votes, power and accountabliity from the superintenedentl.<br /><br />If there are any current benefits to Amherst, someone please point them out.<br /><br />I doubt Pelham would sign up for a Union 26 agreement that only gave Pelham 10% of voting power. Pelham would lose too much clout with a fair proportional 10% of the vote and could easily be outvoted by Amherst school committee member. Nor would Pelham choose to join up with a school system that is so much bigger, more complicated and with such a different student body.<br /><br />It seems much more likely that Pelham would join the union along Shutesbury, Leverett belong to since they share the same size, issues and student body.<br /><br />It might make sense for Pelham to merge its elementary school into the Amherst system. That option is probably not too attractive at this moment. Given the closing of Marks Meadow and Amherst's declining number of students, at some point the Pelham students might fit easily into Amherst's 3 elementary schools. With the heat and manuevering that fired up when the Amherst School Committee members just asked for a legal opinion on Union 26, the claim that school committee members basically agree with each other and get along is hard to believe. <br /><br />Pelham parents may see joining in with Amherst schools differently. Pelham and Amherst kids go to the same middle and high schools, many Amherst kids are in the Pelham elementary school, and the kids all play on sports teams go to the same after-school activities. So it may well be easier to blend the Pelham and Amherst teachers, students and staff than the two school committees.Curious observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-68578509810729054392010-05-14T16:09:38.814-04:002010-05-14T16:09:38.814-04:00Anonymous 4:06 - that's a great point re. Pelh...Anonymous 4:06 - that's a great point re. Pelham options. I know Dr. David Sklarz, who was rejected from the Amherst-Pelham superintendency last year, is now working as a "half-time" superintendent in Marlborough, CT, of a K to 6 district. That could be another option for them to explore. <br /><br />Again, I would think there are many options that might work well for Pelham and/or Amherst. Let's try to really understand what they are -- which clearly does require legal advice -- and then members of both SCs, and members of both communities, can weigh in and how best to proceed.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-16052360002660033262010-05-14T16:06:47.729-04:002010-05-14T16:06:47.729-04:00It's premature to even talk about the possibil...It's premature to even talk about the possibility of Pelham needing to hire its own supt -- however, I'd like to point out that I know of small school districts in MA that have a principal/supt rather than a separate principal and supt - so it's not like we would be throwing Pelham out into the cold world to have to hire a supt at $100K+/year in addition to their principal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com