Two representatives of our group, Nancy Larson and I, met with Education Commissioner Alice Seagren and two of her staff yesterday, and we came away relatively pleased. For one thing, the Commissioner gave us at least an hour of her time and our meeting lasted almost two hours all together. We had a very good discussion about our objectives and found a sympathetic ear from the Commissioner.
She agreed that given advances in technology and ever-tightening budgets, rural schools are going to have to look to innovative means of delivering curriculum effectively and efficiently. She also agreed that many school consultants have a built-in bias towards approaches that line their pockets, which is exactly what we saw with Johnson Controls.
The Commissioner was actually excited as we talked about a feasibility study that looked at new and innovative methods of education delivery, and her staff noted that what we are proposing could be ground breaking. They had some ideas on how such a study could be conducted and expressed a strong interest in working with us to ensure that the study achieves our objectives. They also agreed that a division of the district could make sense, but they wanted any district restructuring to look at bringing other adjacent districts into the mix. We've already begun such discussions with Ely, as most of you know. They also said, and we agree, that any study of a district split would need to demonstrate financial viability for both halves.
Of course, such a study is moot if the district refuses to hold off on construction of the new school outside of Cook. On that point, the commissioner said that the department lacks authority to tell the school district to hold off on the new school. On the other hand, the Commissioner said the Legislature does have that authority and she said the legal counsel that works for the Legislature could, if instructed by legislators, figure out a legal and proper way to put the new Cook-Orr school on hold for 12-18 months to allow for the study.
So at this point, it really is up to our legislators and we need to start contacting them again and telling them we expect them to take action on this issue. For our communities, this is potentially life and death.
I know that this post will likely encourage district supporters to mount their own counter-measures, but I'd like them to at least stop and ask themselves why they are so interested in harming our three communities. We are not seeking to gore their ox. If they think the plan works for their communities, we respect that and support moving ahead in Babbitt, Cherry, and Alborn. What I don't understand is why district supporters and employees won't afford us the same respect. They act as if we don't know what's best for our communities here, and simply refer to us as selfish, sleazy, or stupid. That's just wrong and it disrespects the overwhelming majority of residents in our communities in the north.
On a related issue, we confirmed that there likely is some room for the district to maneuver when it comes to the plan that was approved by voters. On the one hand, I did unwittingly put out some misinformation myself on this and for that I apologize. It turns out that state law does not allow changes from what is specified on the ballot at the time of an election. However, the ballot used in the Dec. 8 election was awfully ambiguous. For one thing, it never called for converting the Tower-Soudan School to a K-6. It only called for renovations to the school. Department staff agreed that there appears to be no requirement, based on the outcome of the Dec. 8 election, that the Tower-Soudan High School be closed. The school board would have the option to maintain it as long as it chooses to and given the fact that the district's financial situation is nowhere near as severe as previously advertised, there is precious little reason not to maintain it. K-12.
As for the Cook and Orr situation, the ballot calls for construction of a new school to serve the two attendance areas. It did not, as I recall, call for closure of the two existing schools. This would seem to leave a considerable amount of room for alternatives. Here's just one idea. You could build a modest, new school on the south edge of Orr, preferably close enough to town to easily extend utilities. This new school could be smaller in scale, designed to house maybe 275 kids, with a price tag of maybe $15-16 million. That leaves about $19-$20 million for renovations in Cook and Tower. Because we would be looking at renovations, the district could leverage additional federal dollars through the stimulus. That would give us sufficient dollars to really improve the Cook and Tower schools. If the Cook School is too big for current enrollment, either mothball a portion (as they are doing in Babbitt) or look at demolishing some sections to rightsize it.
Such a plan actually makes more sense than what the district has proposed. This idea maintains current enrollment and could actually add new students. School officials have claimed for months that the new schools in Alborn and Cherry and north of Cook would bring back some students who had previously opted for open enrollment. Well, why wouldn't that also work in Tower, Cook and Orr if they had new or substantially renovated schools?
The plan the district is seeking to implement almost guarantees the loss of more than 100 students, and possibly more than 160 depending on what Nett Lake decides to do. That's a potential revenue loss of $1.1-$1.7 million a year in operating revenue. By keeping these three schools open, at least $1.1 million in otherwise lost revenue is recovered. And if new students are enticed by the improvements, it only adds to the financial benefits.
The fact that such an approach prevents major economic loss to the three communities only makes it all the more advisable.
I know that anyone who puts out ideas is subject to potshots in the current environment. But before the district supporters and employees get out the buckshot, stop and think rationally, rather than emotionally, about this and, if you have objections, make them substantive ones. Don't waste our time with name-calling and the like. if you need to vent spleen, go outside and yell at the trees.
As for contacting those legislators, you can contact:
Dave Dill at 651-296-2190 or by email at rep.david.dill@house.mn.
Tom Rukavina can be reached at 651-296-0170, 888-682-3205 or by email at rep.tom.rukavina@house.mn. Tom Bakk can be reached at 651-296-8881.
David Tomassoni can be reached at 651-296-8017.
Let's get to work folks. We need our legislators to understand that the fate of our communities depends on them and we expect them to stand for us.
Intriguing, but it still doesn't address the need for a certain number of students to maintain a certain number of classes, the very class choices that have been dropped in the last 10 years due to declining enrollment. Some classes can be handled by technology, but the classes that deal with life time skills can't and they are the classes that are no longer there. Since the Tower School and the Orr school have always lost kids to the Cook School (and others) for class choice reasons, one would have to assume any remodeled schools that are still small still wouldn't have many class choices, regardless of "technology." This plan also doesn't take into account the current "cloud" hovering over the Orr school due to low test scores.
Actually, the issue with the Orr School is a good case in point for looking at new educational models in 2142 schools. Let's keep in mind, the problems in Orr have absolutely nothing to do limited curriculum choices. They aren’t doing the basics well right now. And, I'm sorry, but new buildings aren't going to solve that problem. The district has done a poor job of engaging its minority students for years, and we need a fundamental overhaul of the teaching methods. That's the number thing we want to examine as part of our feasibility study. How do we design an efficient and effective educational system that maintains community schools and improves educational opportunities.
Many of us don't subscribe to the bigger is better philosophy. Very small schools can do a great job provided they have good teachers and high standards and that's what we need more of in 2142. This isn't just a problem in Orr after all. As Sup't. Rick said at Monday's school board meeting, while Orr is in the spotlight, there are other schools in the district that aren't much better. The list that included Orr was of the bottom five percent of schools in the state. Rick said if the list had included the bottom ten percent, other 2142 schools would have been on it. That should disturb everyone. New buildings won't solve the fundamental problems reflected in such poor performance. This is about a lack of accountability from top to bottom. The folks who are concerned about educational quality should be asking how it is that school officials have allowed this situation to continue for so long.
Marshall,
Its really a pity if you still believe that the 2142 levy was simply for the purpose of having a new facility between Cook and Orr. I suspect you clearly know better, but refuse to admit it because misinformation is better for your cause.
Since you feigned ignorance for the umpteenth time, here's the deal: The levy is about creating educational centers of excellence. Yes, a modern, safe environment will be helpful in this regard, but the synergy of students and teachers at the consolidated schools is really what its about, along with obvious cost efficiencies.
You made some rather pointed remarks as to the reasons why Orr is in the bottom 5% of schools. Are you drawing your conclusions from a little unbiased journalistic footwork, or are you holding court as a coffee shop oracle, unfettered by facts and data? You'd probably get quite an eye opening experience if you'd put aside your obvious bias toward 2142 and talk to some educators at Orr school. I know this will probably never happen, but as a journalist it's the right thing to do.
Plan-de-vida:
Sorry, but that is exactly what the referendum was about... buildings. The St. Louis County School District could have had educational centers of excellence for the past 25 years. What was stopping them? It wasn't buildings. It was lack of leadership and vision. I'm not saying there aren't some very good teachers in the district. There are, and I'm happy to sing their praises. But let's be honest, the district never provided the resources, even when it had them, nor the leadership to really improve the quality of education in the district. They had all the opportunities in the world to make a difference for its students, and district officials let their educational facilities go to heck. We watched it in Tower-Soudan with increasing frustration for years. This isn't just Orr. Lots of students have been poorly-served. I just hope that our communities will get a chance to reshape our schools in a way that meets the educational challenges we face.
Marshall-
2142 LET their facilities go to heck? Are you serious? 2142 was broke, and 3 times they tried to pass an excess levy to make ends meet. Schools had to decide between having heat and lights, or fixing buses, or fixing broken fixtures in schools, or buying books, or having little extra-curricular things like knowledge bowl, or even having colored paper for copy machines.
This isn't rocket science Marshall. I can't believe you are blaming 2142 for being broke and making critical decisions. Do you really think 2142 purposely let their facilities get run down and seedy just as a plausible front for a future bond levy conspiracy? Holy smokes, I can't believe I'm hearing this. Enjoy your view from deep left field.
Plan_de_vida:
Give us all a break, will you. The district enjoyed large fund balances for years, and it didn't do anything with the money even as their educational quality suffered, buildings went to heck, and parents and students responded by leaving in droves through open enrollment. Many of these problems weren't related to money. It was lack of interest, leadership and follow through. Two years ago, we didn't have a single working drinking fountain in the Tower High School. Kids had to bring their own water. The front doors to the school didn't have handles, just old bolts sticking out where the handles had been and it remained that way for moe than a year. Don't you dare tell me this kind of thing is a matter of money. Maintenance staff simply didn't care and there was no one to hold them accountable. We finally had to send a contingent of citizens to a board study session to embarrass the board to get things fixed. The fact that you even question my comment, tells me you are completely unfamiliar with the maintenance issues that Tower dealt with for years. I could write an entire book on the lack of proper maintenance.
And one more thing, plan_de_vida, I really wish that you and other district employees would knock off the "oh, you people are so stupid" routine. It only makes you look bad. We're not stupid. We're not disengaged. Almost every single person I know in Tower, Cook, and Orr who is actively working to fight the district's plan was a strong supporter of past operating levies. I guarantee you that I put in more volunteer hours going door-to-door to promote operating levies than you or any teacher in the whole district. We realize the district needs money, but so does every other district. And ISD 2142 gets a lot more money per pupil unit than most school districts in the state, and it hasn't provided a good return on that investment. I'm sure you don't want to hear that, but it's true.
One final thing. No one said the district let its facilities run down to make their case for an operating levy. I don't for a minute think anyone in the district has that kind of foresight. Our facilities suffered from the usual lack of interest and accountability.
you are embarrassing yourself marshall. you really dont have a CLUE as to how a school works, and how to actually IMPROVE education in our area, and not just maintaining the status quo. i realize that your son is an "online learning genius" or something, but you forget that the majority of kids are NOT and its extremely arrogant to think that it could ever possibly be a solution to the issue of reduced availability of classes, not to mention that we are wavering on the boarder of not being able to provide the BASICS of education (and im not even sure you know what those are considering you think that these itty bitty schools are such a great plan. im not saying bigger is better or small isnt great (because it is) but small can be TOO small, especially when it negativly affects the quality of education our children receive. different kids need different opportunities, and its selfish of any of us to assume that they are getting it now or that they would get it with itty bitty public schools. private schools; thats a whole other issue.
and dont pretend to know whats going on in orr. the basics ARE good, but they arent good enough without the ability to be expanded on. if you cant offer an upper level science or math (one that isnt already required) you dont offer the kids the ability to expand on their basic learning. and thats just the tip of the iceberg; its extremely hard to teach anything when you dont have any type of current materials, access to tools of education and anything to make learning exciting and up to date. kids are being asked to use their cell phones to look up information on the internet. THAT IS A DISASTER.
and you know whats funny? tower isnt much different. yes, your beloved tower isnt the #1 school, and as you claim rick said, it would be in that bottom 10%. so before you throw stones at orr, perhaps you should remove the boulder from your beloved "perfect school".
and yes, marshall, they have had thier pockets of excellents. you want to know whats stopping them from implimenting it fully?? the complete impossibility to actually have educational tools in every classroom. the inability to use computers more than once a week. the inability to even get into the library often enough. there are many hours and people with TONS more leadership than even you have, but you can only make ford f150s with the materials needed to make them. you cant make them with model T parts. dont you get it? we cant offer our kids anything more than we have to offer. and what we have is disgraceful. you should take tours of some other schools, see their educational tools, how they run their schools, and teach their kids. look at THEIR bottom lines. you are coming across completely and totally naive to the fact that our schools CANT give anything more than we have because people have refused to put the money into their schools for years. this is the first time in years we have had the opportunity to do ANYTHING more than cut cut cut and you are sitting there on your high horse trying to do everything to make sure that we dont make the changes and offer our kids more AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. noooo we cant have that. instead you want to make us wait longer, one more class has to suffer because of your inability to get past YOUR personal issues with change. and yes, these are YOUR issues, not the kids' not the schools YOURS (and anyone else with you).
i second everything plan_de_vida says. its as plain as the nose on your face: we dont have any other options and NEITHER DO YOU. if you did, you would have given them to us by now. its been over a year, and if you had been paying attention, over 3-4 years. you have had aaaaaaalllll that time to be the genius and come up with a foolproof, perfect, problem solving plan, and you have yet to even come close to coming up with answers.
there IS NO PERFECT PLAN. nothing in this world will ever be perfect. there will always be pros and cons and people for and against EVERYTHING that anyone comes up with. and its too bad that you have to hang onto this drama fest to sell papers. its a shame that you think you are helping our kids by stopping change and improvements to their school, their education, their very pride in their own school buildings, and their ability to get increased access to the tools of today to help with their education! im just so frustrated that you think that forcing yet another year of model T building on our students is whats best for the district. where did you go to school? i just dont understand where you are coming from.
have you been to a design meeting? amazing things are happening there. you might be able to better see what we will be offering our students, if for nothing more than SECURITY in the new buildings. and thats just the beginning..... i cant believe that anyone can look at the design and not KNOW that this isnt just a building: its a LEARNING CENTER. and its not just for kids; its for the communities too!
this isnt about buildings. this isnt about making schools "bigger". the more i hear from you the more i feel that you really dont know whats going on - like you have blocked out the facts because you are so emotionally invested in keeping everything the same, to the detriment of our students. man, you gotta get past your issues. our kids are suffering. and if you think your kid is fine, then you can do what you want with his education, you have that right. he can use the online high school. but dont force this on other kids. they dont deserve to have to wait one more year than they have to.
not to mention that who knows; maybe building costs would go up in the next 12-18 months, then you are just going to cause it to be more expensive again. the time is now.
all you are going to accomplish is costing the taxpayers more money. so thanks. i guess im going to be making up for not having a subscription by paying for your actions.
Marshall,
My mistake saying you are in left field. Your comments lead me to think you are beyond left field and are operating in some sort of a disillusional parallel universe. When someone insists on framing this debate within the laws of fiscal reality you resort to ad hominem attacks.
Its pretty clear why an opposition group alternative plan never left the ground, and its clear why you haven't gotten anywhere with discussions with 2142. Its also very clear why a delay in the 2142 consolidation plan would be a monumental waste of time, and a year of lost opportunities for our children.
Believe it or not there have been a fair number of folks who've been more than a little sympathetic to your cause, and have gone to bat for you. But your scorched earth diplomacy has left nothing but a wake of burned bridges with no room to operate.
You're on your own.
Plan_de_vida:
I take it from your reply that you have no substantive response and are forced to resort to personal attacks and hyperbole. Too bad.
You should have expanded the title of your piece from “The Commissioner of Education gets it” to also say “And Marshall’s starting to, too!” That’s because, Marshall, you’re now on the right track with your thinking that the money approved by voters should indeed be invested in providing better educational opportunities for our young people.
Hopefully you’ll soon come along and also realize that for ISD 2142 to survive and flourish, we still need to reduce operating costs by having fewer schools than we now have, creating much more efficient (affordable) operations.
By bringing students together as the plan does in all areas, it will result in allowing the district to offer the diverse curriculum needed to retain and attract new students.
So Marshall, you still have a ways to go. But you’re starting to come around, and that’s a good sign.
Thinking out loud, Why is it whenever a School District gets in trouble its solution is to close schools and build new ones ? Their are many vacant buildings on the Range.
What happen to the Green Energy Plan, that Johnson Controls runs? If I recall the plan is simple on a Nationwide Level, REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE .
Has anyone looked at these Options for the District 2142?
REDUCE: Offer tenured teachers and incentive to retire, you know A buy out package, Large Corporations have done this for years to reduce payroll costs of Top Scale Employees. I believe many teachers would take the offer during these troubled times.
REUSE: Example Brand new building at Hibbing Airport never been used, was built for Northwest Airlines, State of the Art Building with High Speed Internet Available, would not that work for Cherry being less than 10 miles away.
RECYCLE: Older Tenured Teachers, by offering them a early retirement, 20 years or more of service would qualify and replace these Teachers, (who want to get out anyway) with Fresh new Teachers that have just received their Degree and are looking for employment. Solves School problems and Jobs on The Range issue.
THINK GREEN ALL, KEEP IT SIMPLE it is Truly the Future !
jbh
marshall: i find it even more interesting that you dont contradict anything. deep down you know that inevitably, its going to happen and it will be ok. just ask anyone who has merged schools.... its TERRIBLY HARD, TERRIBLY HURTFUL, and VERY SAD. but its going to be ok.
jbunkerhill:
they DID offer tenured teachers incentives. some have already retired.
im not sure a building built for an airline would ever be the right kind of thing to use for a school.. the requirements are different im sure, and the design wont be practical for classroom education. also, cherry = taconite money. theres a reason its staying, and im sure its more than just taconite money; like bringing kids to our district from the "big" neighboring ones right near cherry. its a good thing to keep it. :)
your recycle sounds a lot like your reduce, so see above, but also, i dont think its ever a good idea to blot out all older teachers. i dont see that being a very good environment; just a bunch of newer teachers with lack of experience and community? i dunno about that. there has to be a rotation, but some people LOVE and or need to work, and there isnt anything wrong with that. we shuold accept and bring in new ideas, but im telling you, the teachers that have been here for a long time have a GREAT idea of what its like here, and what students need ... and that information is not only essential, its important for them to have the chance to pass that on to other students. :)
i like your positive thinking though. ;) i like the r X3! :)