School E-mail June 19, 1996

Return to School e-mail archive directory

Subj: BMS, Superintendent
Date: 96-06-19 16:46:35 EDT
From: James.C.Klagge@bev.net (James C. Klagge)
To: school issues@vt.edu

Friends,

We had a lengthy School Board meeting last night that led to two significant actions.

First, we reconsidered our decision about BMS in light of the discovery that the land on the current site amounts to 21.2 acres. That is .8 acres (not, as reported in the Current, .08 acres) short of the state minimum requirement for a school the size that we are planning for. The Blacksburg FUSS committee considered either building a new school for ultimately 1200 on a new site, or building a new school for ultimately 600-800 on a new site, and then moving all students there, along with a bunch of trailers, and renovating the current school for 600-800 students, so there would be two middle schools in Blacksburg. They did not have a strong preference between those options, but somewhat preferred the single new school on a new site. There are lots of complicated considerations on both sides of that issue: Which option allows most potential to handle future growth, Is the added expense (some $3 million initially) of the second option justified by the educational experience of smaller schools, How could we justify the added on-going administrative costs of the second option, Could we provide as good of educational offerings to two smaller schools as we could at one large school, Would it cause too much divisiveness in the community having to draw district lines so some students "get to" go to the new school while other students "have to" go to the renovated one, How valuable is a continued downtown presence for a middle school, etc. I think people are tiring of these kinds of debates and most want to see SOMETHING done, so the deliberation was not as extensive as the last time. A motion to build a new 1200 student middle school on a new site passed by a 5-4 margin. I hesitantly voted against it. I have come to think two smaller schools would be better. But I support the board's decision. Given the obvious concern from the supervisors to minimize expenses, I think it would have been a hard sell to justify the greater expense of the two schools.

The other issue was a sort of non-action. We have been evaluating the superintendent, whose current contract expires one year from now. He had wanted us, and the board had informally agreed, to make some decision about the future now so that if it was negative he would have a year to look for a new job. After two extensive executive sessions, Barry Worth made a motion to extend the contract for 2 additional years (to expire in 1999). That motion was defeated 4 to 5. I was one of the 5 who voted against it. Then Mary Beth Dunkenberger (who had voted against a 2-year extension) was going to make a motion to extend the contract for one year, but before she was able to get that out, David Moore (who had voted for the 2-year extension) moved to adjourn the meeting. Since a motion to adjourn is not discussable we immediately had a vote, and the motion passed. I voted against it, since I thought her motion deserved a vote. Frankly I don't know what was going on there. But at this point, the superintendent's contract expires next year, and no action is being taken to extend it.

The issue of the superintendent has been simmering, occasionally boiling over, for the three years since he arrived here. Despite that, he has accomplished a lot of good things, especially in the area of planning. In fact, working with him has been much more positive than I had anticipated when I came on the board. However, I think our system can now move forward better with new leadership. That's why I voted the way I did.

Hope you are enjoying summer more than I have so far, since I'm teaching summer school!

-Jim Klagge.

email: admin@gisone.com