Monrovia School Link Preview ~ Number 155 ~ February 22, 2006
I do not envy those school board members their jobs. My oh my, no! They looked so unhappy. And to think how much they all wanted the job. I'll get to that in a moment, but I wanted to mention that I went to the meeting tonight because regular reporter Maritza Diaz couldn't make it. I'm so swamped with work this week that I wasn't looking forward to it, but it was really very interesting. I'm glad I went.
~ brad@sacklunch.net
NO BOND ~ Well, the long and the short of tonight's board meeting was that the board decided not to put a $37 million bond to refurbish Monrovia High School on the June 6, 2006 ballot.
As I mentioned, I saw five miserable people tonight. Two of them were miserable because their fellow board members voted down their hope to put a bond measure before Monrovia voters, and the other three miserable because they were torn between the bond - which they appeared to believe was necessary - and objections to the measure from some influential members of the community.
Board President Clare Chesley was passionate. She spoke of how education was her mother's ticket out of poverty in Louisiana and how America (and Monrovia) are failing at science, how hard it is to attract science and math teachers - especially to poor facilities - about how the poor facilities make it harder for students to get into good colleges, and how even Communist China is outpacing the United States in science.
Board Member Bryan Wong took a list of all the objections he'd heard from speakers and grilled a representative of the bond underwriter, asking him about each one.
It was easy to tell they were both in favor of the bond.
But with the remaining three board members, Clarence Shaw, Chris Rich and Ed Gililland, I flat out couldn't tell from their comments how they were going to vote until they did. In fact, when it came time to vote, Ed Gililland paused for probably six or seven seconds before responding, as if he still wasn't sure what to do.
Leading up to the vote, Shaw commented that there may have been a "gentleman's agreement" (between - I've heard - the district and the city; the agreement being that the district would wait until the city has its library bond election before the district puts up another bond issue; the logic being to avoid putting two bond measures on the same ballot, which might annoy the voters), but he said, he was not a party of any such agreement. However, he said - reflecting on his own campaign for the school board - it is important to have the community solidly behind you. Also, he said, maybe the few months between now and June is short notice to let the community know why the bond is important.
Gililland said he "agonized" about how to vote and over the hard feelings the proposal has caused in the community. The students come first, he said, but the community is a close second. But then he said that every year the district waits will probably mean the cost goes up another $6 or $7 million.
Rich said there is "no question that if we don't invest we're going to fail our kids," but, he added, "the only way to do it is if we're together as a community." He said civilizations fail when they fail to work together. I understand the thought, Rich, but methinks the "civilization failing" theme is a tad over the top.
Anyway, Shaw, Rich and Gililland voted against the measure, and down it went.
And while my sympathies at the time of the vote were for the bond, I could see the difficulty of getting it passed by the voters, because during the time for public comment, several influential Monrovians, including Mayor Bob Hammond, spoke against the bond measure. Hammond called it "ill advised" and suggested the board "slow down this train" and "please, please, please don't go forward on this for the June date." If the mayor is against it, I wonder how much of a chance would it have?
Other speakers suggested the proposed financing for the bond was "very creative" (at Wong's questioning, the underwriter's representative said he didn't think the financing method was out of the ordinary); that for many years the bond would have "negative amortization," meaning - I think - that the principal would actually grow; that it would ultimately cost about $126-127 million; that housing prices might slump (which somehow affects things, though I didn't really understand how); and that the time between now and the election wouldn't be long enough to inform voters about why it is necessary.
Taking the other side, former School Board member Bruce Carter said the science labs (a lot of the discussion focused on science education) date from 1928 and are inadequate. Carter said he rejects the notion that if there are two bond measures on the Monrovia ballot (for a library and for the high school) that people will pick one or the other, but not both. He said he supports both a library bond and the high school bond.
HARASSMENT ~ During the public comment period, a parent told the board that her daughter at Bradoaks Elementary had been "sexually harassed" by - if I understood - some fellow classmates. She said she was unhappy that the solution the school settled upon was to move her daughter rather than to move the other students. She said she was also disappointed that the school only called the other students' parents on the phone, and did not meet with them in person.
READING ~ Superintendent Louise Taylor said that March 2 is Read Across Monrovia day, in which members of the community read to a classroom of students. I guess you could call the district office to sign up.
DIRECTION ~ Deputy Superintendent Dean Conklin gave a rather fast-paced report on the state's Academic Performance Index (API) and the Fed's Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) programs. He said that for the API the district is doing very well at the elementary level, fairly well in the middle schools, and okay at the high school level, though, he said, Monrovia High "has a ways to go." For the AYP, he said the schools are doing well, except for the "English Learners" subgroup. The problem with measuring this group, he said, is that as soon as students in the group speak English well, they move out of the group, leaving behind those who haven't mastered the language. So it's hard to show progress when your successful students are not included in the measurement.
Also on the Web at www.monroviaschoollink.com