November 19, 2014 | Select here to read the meeting minute notes. | The below is by Board Member Annette Calcagno written in response to the 7 questions posed to the board by the superintendent about the failure of the third bond attempt.
FROM BOARD MEMBER ANNETTE CALCAGNO
DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 20104
In an email from Superintendent Trani dated 11/16/2014 to the board ( as well as by a letter from the CEA – Michelle Dawkins and Megan Shaw) it has been suggested that “two board members” are likely responsible for the school bond’s third failure. I disagree and am offended and frustrated with adults that act more like spoiled children when they don’t get what they want.
The Superintendent asked us (the board) to answer seven questions so I am listing my answers to these questions for the record and for the public. I hope all board members take the opportunity to do this.
1. Do you think a bond can pass without full support of the Board?
Yes. I do not see that happening though because some people seem more interested in placing blame on “two board members” than actually listening to the concerns being voiced over and over again by citizens and voters.
2. Is it safe to leave our students in the current middle school building?
If it weren’t safe, then the Fire Marshall or County would have condemned the building. If it isn’t safe then why hasn’t the school board and public been provided the documentation proving it is unsafe?
If this building is so unsafe then our administration should be held responsible for recommending the board vote to open enroll so many more children this past spring from the Charter into the district.
3. Do you think our students deserve to have facilities that are up to industry standards for square footage per student?
This building was meeting “industry standards” until administration split up rooms and brought in too many kids from outside of Corbett – including over 476 via open enrollment this past spring. If we were worried about sf/student why wasn’t this brought up then?
4. Was the last bond extravagant with regard to square footage per student?
Based on Corbett and Corbett kids it absolutely was extravagant. The Corbett teachers of the middle school in their video on YouTube compared Corbett SD to Parkrose SD. Parkrose has a much deeper tax base and a much more “extravagant” building(s). Parkrose also does not bring in over half of their kids from other districts.
5. If that same bond is floated in March or May will you support it?
6. If not why? If yes why?
It creates too much instructional space and potential new instructional space. This space could be used to grow the district later.
This bond also did not address the other safety needs like seismic for Gym and MPB which means it would have meant another bond would likely been presented later.
This bond only covered created a new two story high school and a new building for labs/classrooms. If the teachers, admin and the board majority truly care about our children’s safety, then we should care equally for the kids eating lunch or those in the GYM and not just passing a bond to protect the kids in a new high school building.
7. If you will not support the same bond that we just sponsored what bond would you support? Please be specific.
One bond for all needs. With a detailed plan before putting it on the ballot.
I would support the repair or replacement of the current middle school with another middle school. Not a new larger high school.
Refurbish or replace instructional space with the same square footage of instructional space. The district can utilize other classroom space available. For example, there are still two classrooms the board was told would be filled in Springdale. The music and spanish teachers were to go to the classrooms- or that was what we were told originally – now they each have a room and we have lost on that revenue we were told would be generated?
I would like to see a cap on out of the area students.
I would like to see the board listen to the repeated issues being voiced about growth and educational concerns. I would like to see an exit survey set up. The board should know when and why sudents/parents leave our district and be able to address these issues with the administration if we see a pattern.