Monrovia School Link ~ Number 125 ~ June 14, 2005
I just got a letter from a city official with whom I got into an email argument (see below). He softened his opinions a bit and said his main point is that, "so many of our civic discourses now have deteriorated into emotions and distrust." I won't argue that, but - as I'm sure he'd agree - emotional discourse is better than no discourse, and there are sometimes nuggets of truth in the midst of emotional comments that I'd like to catch. And also, I fear that if I were to stiffle emotional and distrustful discourse in this newsletter (or "soapbox" - you'll understand the reference shortly) it would tend to stifle all discourse. Consequently, this newsletter is at times emotional and distrustful, with accusations. (I'm guilty myself.) Nor are all comments fair. Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I hope that out of all the sometimes painful hashing out of topics by many minds, some good will result. In this issue, just thoughts about last issue.
~ brad@sacklunch.net
MY ARGUMENT ~ I had an interesting email conversation with a city official who has since asked to remain anonymous. Through a misdirected email we got in a discussion in which he let me know that he feels this newsletter - at least the last issue - is slanted and ill-informed.
Let me quote a few bits from our back-and-forth.
From him - "I have real issues with letting people with axes to grind and no training whatsoever in reporting write articles that folks are going to take as authoritative. This last one ... is probably the most egregious of all."
From me - "I think you are aware, since you read the newsletter, that I consider it a forum of news and opinion, and I don't always agree with all the opinions that are expressed in it. But as a forum that includes opinion, you kinda gotta expect that maybe sometimes people will express opinions. If it doesn't meet high journalistic standards that is because it is more of a soapbox than a newspaper. You are blaming an orange for not being an apple." [Getting a bit hot, Brad? Yes.]
From him - "I guess my beef is presenting a newsletter that is 'a forum of news and opinion' without differentiating between the two. When that happens, one has to assume that what one is reading is opinion, not news - if one is even aware of the difference. A whole lot of people just assume that because it's written down, it's news...
"If it's a soapbox, then maybe you shouldn't call it a newsletter. So let me ask you - is it an orange or an apple?
"And again, I think there's certainly an important place in the community for your soapbox/newsletter. I'd just like to see a clearer representation of exactly what it is."
From me - "I feel I've made it abundantly clear that this is both news and opinion. You object to those two being mixed, but it's been mixed since the day I started it, and you said not a word.... It's been mixed in the same way that news and opinion have been mixed in The New Republic, National Review, The Progressive and dozens of other publications, on-line and off-line, for decades."
So, that was from our conversation. Once again, with emphasis, this newsletter - or soapbox, if you prefer - is a forum for people to tell what happened at the school board meeting, and to give their feelings about it. And yes, those opinions are often mixed in with the news, as they always have been.
Also, I don't agree with everything that is published here - and if you don't agree with something, then write me a letter for Pete's sake! I publish virtually every comment I get. [Who is Pete, by the way?]
And finally, about the health workers, the topic of the last newsletter. I don't believe the district leaders are being malicious. I simply believe they are in a tough spot. The district is low on money and it appears that something has to be cut. A couple people, below, suggest getting grant money. If it's available, absolutely! And if the district hasn't looked into that, it should. But if cuts have to be made, the question is what to cut. And what that should be, I don't know, but I suspect somebody is going to be hurt. If it isn't the health staff, it'll be somebody else. I wish I had a solution.
LETTER: UNBELIEVABLE ~ The last few months have been nothing short of unbelievable in regard to the way our district runs. I hope that when the next election comes around in the fall, everyone remembers what we have been having to put up with. We have got to get SOMEONE on that board (and more importantly as our Superintendent) who actually does have our children's best interest at heart! This is sickening! - Meg Walker
LETTER: NEW NCLB ~ The Monrovia Unified School Board is planning to proceed with a plan to cut 6 out of 9 Nurses/Health Clerks in the Monrovia Unified School District beginning next year. How does a school district in one of the fastest growing economically diverse areas come to such a decision? How can a school district which has been tooting its own horn for many years and insisting that their policy is one of "putting the children first" explain this latest cost cutting measure? No Child Left Behind (NCLB) now translates into No Child Left Healthy. There is a statewide mandate which clearly states that we must provide certain basic tests for each student at every grade level including eye and hearing screenings, color blind, and head lice checks for the children. Who is going to put their hands on the children's heads to check for head lice? Who will be qualified to tell if a child has Chicken Pox, Measles or some contagious rash like Poison Oak and needs to be sent home, vs. the child who has a bad case of eczema? What about the children with severe food/medicine allergies?! What about our students who suffer from severe asthma or diabetes or other conditions which call for the use of regular medication? What effect will this new policy have on public health?
Given this new proposal the ADA (average daily attendance), which is so important to every school districts budget, will surely go down because of increased absences. Absences caused by epidemics of flu/chicken pox and other highly contagious diseases that are misdiagnosed by the office staff.
The office managers and clerks at all the schools will be called in to replace highly qualified medical personnel. Who will train, these managers and clerks with their limited medical education to administer life saving shots and deal with serious medical conditions? This new policy means that 2/3 of the time that our children are in school, they will not have access to proper emergency medical care.
The office manager and clerks with their many duties; will have to stop their own important work in order to assist a child with a medical complaint. Who will then cover their current duties, i.e.: answering the phones, registering new students, answering questions, taking attendance and dealing with the myriad duties of daily school routine? Who will spend time with our young children who come in for a daily dose of TLC (that's Tender Loving Care - for those of you who are unfamiliar with this acronym), because they are in pain, scared, upset, have a chronic medical condition or just don't get the attention they deserve at home. What happens to these precious children?
What becomes of our 504 plan students who meet the requirements for regular medical intervention and need the services of a fully qualified nurse or health clerk in order to assist them on a weekly or monthly basis during the school hours? What about the student who has made it all the way to high school without a single serious medical complaint and by accident finds out that he has an undiagnosed heart or lung condition or a serious allergy to a bee sting and needs emergency medical diagnosis and treatment?
What of the unforeseen allergic reaction? What becomes of the child who could not control their blood sugar level and no-one was watching them? Where is our NCLB policy now?
May I suggest that a better policy would be to look for other ways to save money. Perhaps the school board could put together a group of people who can write grants and get the money that is so badly needed for our school district. I can think of three people off the top of my head who are excellent grant writers and I know there are more people out there in all of our Monrovia schools who would not only be willing but very effective grant writers. Our children are our future and we cannot let a severe state budget problem take away the basic necessities of every day nursing care on site. Even if you feel that some of the examples I have pointed out are very rare this is still a very bad policy.
I realize that one argument in favor of this policy is that there are many other school districts in California that do not have on-site nurses/health clerks on a daily basis. I know this is true, but my goal is to "raise the bar," not sink to the level of mediocrity that some Administrators feel is an acceptable solution to their fiscal problems.
This new medical proposal appears to come from someone who has no understanding of the medical needs of school age children. The risks involved both to the school district from a legal stand point and the students from a medical stand point are just too high. I strongly urge the school board and the school superintendent to re-think this policy before it is put into practice.
Sincerely,
Kim Larsen
Mayflower Parent
LETTER: FROM A SCHOOL NURSE ~ I am a recent reader of the Monrovia School Link, and a first time commentator:
Needless to say I live in Monrovia. I work as nurse,a school nurse in a local district. I am the only nurse for the district of approx. 3200 pre K-8 students (5 sites, 4 elem., 1 grade 7-8 Middle School). I am an itinerant nurse for the 5 schools with one full time health aide (unlicensed aide, not even an LVN). My training is 30 years of nursing (13 of these in this school district) . Did I fully understand and I realize what responsibility I was taking on 13 years ago? No. Is it safe? No. But the harsh reality was set over 25 years ago by a previous board and administration that was caught in equally tough economic times of the mid-late 70's. Not ideal. Barely survivable. But the precedent was sent then...and hard to change, since it is educators and lay people who are involved in health service support staffing decisions, and know not what it takes, without taking the time to look at the whole picture of the needs of a dynamic school.
The goal from my entry into the job was to offer the best care and support I could give as one person to all levels of the district...the students, families and staff. The challenge seems great. Routine some days, very non-routine the next. Lost in papers documenting the care given, meet the mandated health needs, and non-mandated needs of regular and special education students, along with trying to upgrade the level of care and skills of myself and others involved in the health care of students in the schools. Along the way I equally met the demanding needs of going back to school to educate myself in the unique world of school nursing by obtaining a Health Service Credential and Masters in Nursing.
Did MUSD research other choices available other than cutting health staff? Did they confer with their district nurse and others directly effected by the cuts (not only staff but families) and discuss alternative plans BEFORE making the cuts. Will we ever know as parents the REAL story? Now the office staff of each school will have to be willing to fill in the gaps, and be trained to do a job they may or may not be good or safe following through with this additional job responsibility. The teachers and administrators will have to be willing to consider the health needs that we are obligated to deal with because of mandatory education and equity of not denying a child with medical issues a school experience.
Be ready for a bumpy road MUSD. Will MUSD reconsider this cut? I advise it, but doubt it, unless we parents truly rise up and let the administration and board help the health services team demonstrate and document their worthiness, and cost effectivness. The District Nurse and the crew of health aides (apparently licensed as RN's, and LVN's and unlicensed) are the best insurance policy the district can have when dealing with the health issues and concerns of a diverse population of not only children, but parents and staff. Cutting it to bare bones...not smart. A better way would be to first assess the true aspects of their jobs, and compare the cost of employing them over the top heavy district administration.
It is an ongoing issue within school nursing nationwide, and statewide, to fund this aspect that is so integral to the educational environment of our present day schools. More and more is asked of schools to pick up as far as responsibility outside of education alone. Yet...no, or minimal funding is tied to these mandates that are placed from the federal or state level.
See a recent KCET "Life and Times" edition (during National Nurses Week) about health care issues... I believe broadcast 5/11 or 5/12. It spotlighted school nursing in one segment. Very well done. I will gladly share this with anyone, or call the TV station to obtain a copy.
The point is that most educators, and most of those in education and making decisions in education, do not know what district nurses really do, and why they, as well as their health aides, are so important. Look to creative ideas to fund these positions, but the bottom line is that the Board and the administration needs to believe that this is critical and should not be touched. Cut some high end salaries by a small amount, and be creative with hours, and at the district level reorganize some responsibilities and maybe the district can keep all or part of the health team being released. But even more importantly, do just rely exclusively on creative grant writing to fund needed positions. It should be written into the general education budget to fund these positions, these are not "fluff" positions!
I am truly saddened to see that MUSD is choosing to go the easier route, to cut, instead of create ways to improve MUSD in tight fiscal times. The local districts large and small have one to two district nurses, and usually a full or part-time aide at all or most school sites. My own employer cut to the bare bones years ago, without the long term foresight. This major budget cut occurred when the then newly Federal mandated IDEA/ADA laws, tied with the major medical advances which allowed more medically fragile children to attend schools, were beginning to happen and effect schools dramatically. Here school districts are 30 years later, still not able to fully realize what they really need to have in their expanded school plans: Comprehensive support and education of the child and family in the school environment. The mandate is greater than just being there to educate the child. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND will leave many behind, because of no funding and integration of the ideal into the reality.
I walked into my school nurse position by choice, and do the best I can...and always trying to do better. But once cut, there is that sad possibility that the district will never fund it again. At what cost? Time will sadly tell.
Some additional thoughts:
When I moved to this community 6 years ago I saw hope and promise... for my son's future in the community school and mine as a single mom in a wonderful, vibrant diverse, suburban city. I feel we have both been cheated. He struggled for 3 years in the MUSD with staff and teachers (except one wonderful teacher) that chose not to assist and help or search for answers for why his school experience was below par, academically and socially. He was slipping slowly down into the cracks. Not qualifying for special programs, slipping in grades and self-esteem. The answer was drastic. I agreed, with his dad, to pull him out of school and have him home schooled... A big challenge for all emotionally, academically and economically. MUSD lost. They lost a vibrant active young student with much to offer that just needed to be understood and motivated. He lost a social environment in the school, but gained a new and more positive one in support activities tied into his academics. And he began to succeed. MUSD lost. Lost big time.
Am I only one, or one of many, who are facing this very tough decision when a child isn't doing well in school socially and/or academically, but the school district lacks support? Does MUSD even realize that one of the reasons their student population (and thus ADA money) is dropping, is not only certain population demographics, but dissatisfied parents who are withdrawing their children from the district to find a better education, a safer more friendly educational environment... or for what ever reason. It is a loss for both sides in many ways, especially if resolution was sought time and time again.
MUSD needs to take a poll of ALL families in the area, not just parents who participate in the public school system here, to learn about ALL their actual and potential student/family needs and concerns. MUSD seems to be taking the slippery slope downward with the choices made of the recent past and present. Really seek to excel no matter at what cost, and stick to some very basic, important community and educational values and "they will come." Don't placate the parents and students, but really work with them, communicate with them, value the community in the truest sense and GOOD things can happen. Good examples in local districts (that I am sure have some issues, but nothing like here...) is San Gabriel USD (a newly USD over the past 10-12 years that really took the bull by the horns and reformulated itself in many ways...and Alhambra City School District. Both are hard hit by the economics, and yet both have set high standards and live by them.
'nough said, 'nough rambling...
I want and will gladly be a part of the change needed here in MUSD, if the leadership would just decide to LEAD and MENTOR, not lead and maybe wander...
N. Wilcox
A concerned MUSD parent (even if my child is no longer in the district), and dedicated nurse (school nurse striving for the best one can do for my children and families)
Also on the Web at www.monroviaschoollink.com