School E-mail September 9, 1996

Return to School e-mail archive directory

Subj: what's happening
Date: 96-09-10 14:49:56 EDT
From: James.C.Klagge@bev.net (James C. Klagge)
To: school issues@vt.edu

Dear Friends,

A lot has been happening concerning school issues--so much that I have not taken time to try to discuss them all in a message til now. I have some new people on this mailing list, so I'll again take this opportunity to remind you that you can get OFF this list by a simple message to me--no problem. Alternatively, if you know others who would like to be on the list, or have recently changed their address from bev.net to some other service, please let me know so I can add them.

New principal at new Auburn strand elementary school: This got much attention and stirred up many feels. I voted with a 6 to 2 majority (Perkins and Jortner dissented, Smith abstained) to confirm the recommendation of the selection committee which chose Perry (from Bethel) over Rowland (from Riner). Both were excellent candidates and the choice of Perry was not meant as a slight of Rowland. Many questions have been raised about the process and how all this was handled. Some have claimed the choice process was not fair. Although it was not perfect, I believe it was substantially fair. I don't think changes to improve the fairness would have changed the outcome. So I voted to support it. Even more questions have been raised about what happened after the committee came to its decision. These still need further investigation and will receive serious consideration from me. Many are concerned about Mr. Rowland's future. I will be in favor of finding another principal position for him in the county. Perhaps it would have been better to simultaneously search for principals for the new elementary school and the new Auburn Middle School. And I believe other possibilities may exist as well.

The superintendent's contract and raise: I voted against a 2-year extension of the contract earlier this summer, which I have already explained. More recently I voted for a 6% raise for him. Some people have expressed concerns about this. My general view of Bartlett should be very clear, since I voted against a 2-year extension of his contract. When the issue arises for an extension of some other duration it is my intention at this point to vote against that as well. As to his salary I think I can say that I voted as I did as a compromise, since no proposal was receiving a majority. Over the years he has been here his three raises have totalled just 10%, so I don't think he is being excessively rewarded. I also think that when we search for a new superintendent, candidates need to know that we pay our superintendents reasonably well--thus I am certainly not prepared to reduce his salary. I believe that we will finally consider the question of a 1-year extension at our first meeting in October. At that point the issue should finally be settled.

BMS Decision: As I warned you in my shared letter to Jim Moore on Monday, the supervisors took action on our proposal to build a new middle school on a new site by rejecting it. By a 6-1 vote (Biggs dissenting) they adopted the following resolution:

The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors hereby determines that the current Blacksburg Middle School site on Main Street in Blacksburg is of adequate size to meet the needs of future students through 2006 and should appropriately remain the site of an expanded or new middle school facility.

The reasons given for this in the resolution were that none of the various projections for size of the BMS student population exceed 1000 by the year 2006, the library stayed where it was because of the downtown location of the middle school, petitions have been received with over 900 signatures requesting that the school stay where it is, and that some bond payments are still being made on money used for remodeling BMS in the past.

There was surprisingly little discussion of the motion, given its importance. Biggs brought up the problems for education of on-site renovation, and the problems created by dictating to the school board, rather than working together. Jablonski shared the concerns about dictating to the school board, but supported the motion anyway.

My biggest concern is that this happened on such short notice. I did not hear about Moore's motion until Monday morning, and I believe my e-mail letter shared with my list was the only notification the public received. Annette Perkins and I each used our 3 minutes time during the public address section of the meeting, and that was it. The main points we made in that brief time were: (1) The projections were made in 1994 and do not take account of growth-affecting factors such as the smart road (whose whole justification is its impact on growth), the Price's mountain development, and the fact that we need to plan well beyond 2006 for growth. (2) The current middle school site already falls below state minimum standards for a school of 925--even ignoring possible future growth. The state formula is that a site must be 10 acres plus one acre for each 100 students. (3) Many of the signatures were gathered before the real size of the current site was known, and while it still seemed possible that a new school might be built on that site.

We were not allotted time for many further points, which I will not summarize here, but with which you are already familiar from past accounts of these debates. Suffice it to say that educational issues were simply not a factor in the supervisors' deliberations. Nor was the need to concern ourselves with possible growth beyond 2006.

The school board will certainly discuss this resolution at our meeting on 9/17. I'm open to guidance and suggestions on this. One frustrating thing is that many of the supervisors feel they are hearing strongly from their constituents that the school should be renovated on the present site. Yet many school board members have heard just the opposite from their constituents. Either we are simply hearing from different people--or, more likely, those who lobbied us felt they had accomplished their task when we recommended a new site, whereas those who "lost" at the school board level decided to carry on their case further to the supervisors directly, and the supervisors have only heard from them. I'm certainly not simply imagining that there was a lot of opposition to renovating. I think most of the supervisors think the opposition to renovation mainly comes from a small but vocal educational elite comprised mostly of teachers who don't want to deal with the hassle, and don't care about the costs. That's not my impression at all, but the impression of the supervisors depends completely on who talks to them. And they certainly are not willing to take the school board's word for how to best represent the educational interests of its citizens.

Several months ago we reached an impass like this on the land acquisition for the new Auburn strand elementary school. The supervisors directed us to make due with only some 20 acres, and the outcry in the Riner community forced them to acquire the 40 acres that were originally recommended. It is possible that an upsurge of support in Blacksburg could have the same effect. The difference is that few people opposed 40 acres in Riner, whereas I know there is a diversity of opinion in Blacksburg. Nevertheless I don't think the opponents of renovation have done a good job of making themselves heard by the supervisors, while the proponents of renovation have. I believe there is nothing the school board can do to change the supervisors' minds on this issue.

While lobbying is one possibility at this point, I don't know if it is the best, or could succeed. We could simply accept renovation and get on with it. If we won't ever need a school for more than 1100 students, and if the football field is moved, then we will have a site that conforms to minimum state standards. However, moving the football field is not a foregone conclusion even if the school stays where it is: I have heard that one supervisor would rather simply get rid of teacher-parking-space so that area can be used for P.E., etc. According to that supervisor, businesses are not required to provide parking for their employees, so why should BMS?

Another option is to resurrect the idea of two middle schools. That would keep the school downtown, near the library, but allow renovation to occur without students in the building, by moving all students and trailers to the new building while the renovation is in process. Though this option would be the most expensive of the options, it has many educational advantages. Unfortunately they are not among the priorities for the supervisors. This option is not consistent with the resolution that the supervisors passed last night, but it meets some of the concerns of that resolution. However, as I have said before, I'm afraid new options just make it harder to come to a resolution.

My inclination at this point is to accept renovation and try to have the football field moved. I think this has the best chance of getting something done in the forseeable future. It is, at any rate, better than nothing.

Academic challenge in our schools: Despite all the attention to funding, building and leadership of the schools, the most important thing is what goes on in the classroom. This has been a special concern of mine, and an issue that I put on the agenda for our board retreat in July. This newsletter is already too long to include it, but I am working on a position paper on this issue and will circulate to you in the next week or so. It sets out what I think the main issues and options are, and offers some ideas. It is an attempt to stimulate discussion. Those who are especially interested in this issue may want to attend our board meeting next Tuesday 9/17 when some of this will be addressed.

Thanks to those who are still reading for patiently wading through a lot of stuff. Hope you found it worth the wade.

-Jim Klagge.

email: admin@gisone.com