Open Discussions

Anonymous thank you for your question. As previously noted, any thoughts I share on this blog are just that, my thoughts and should not be misconstrued as the opinion of the Naselle School Board or Administration. I am not aware of any Washington Public Disclosure Commission regulations that I may be violating and would be glad to review and discuss any that you think pertinent.

Bud Strange - Candidate for School Board

Bud Strange

Candidate School Board Director #04

·         Lifetime area resident and graduate of Naselle High School
·         Married 43 years, raised two kids, also Naselle High School graduates
·         Volunteer Firefighter - Naselle Volunteer Fire Department – 33 years
·         Fire Commissioner - Naselle Volunteer Fire Department – 20 years
·         Board Member – Naselle Water Company – 16 years
·         Small business owner 36 years
·         Computer programmer, systems analyst and manager – 30 years

I have spent my adult life serving the Naselle community.  I have been a part of many positive changes in my roles as a water board member, volunteer firefighter and commissioner.  My business background and conservative approach have helped streamline efficiencies both operationally and financially. 

If elected, I will be a voice for the people. I will work to ensure that as much information as possible will be put in front of the residents of our school district to keep them informed. As an example, I have created a web blog: http://naselleschoolblog.blogspot.com/  that anyone can share thoughts about our school. I also have videotaped the monthly board meetings and posted on YouTube. This allows people to keep informed without leaving the comfort of their home if they choose.  Although there is room for more communication improvement, I consider this a good start. With the blog having over 2400 views and YouTube monthly board meetings having over 1800 views, this tells me  our community is very interested in what happens at our school. Without being a board member, I have been a factor in positive changes at our school and will continue to work towards positive change.

If elected, here are some of the issues that I will be talking about.

• Mandarin program –
• This school year, we needed double the classroom space for kindergarten and 1st grades and we operated under a grant. Next year, we are expecting another grant and it may or may not happen. Each year, we will need an additional class room. This will happen at a minimum through the sixth grade. In the worst case scenario, we would need an additional 9 classrooms and teachers. How is this going to happen? Not only physically but financially. Questions still needing answers.

• Vocational classes -
• We need to give serious consideration to more vocational programs and opportunities. Are we preparing our student population? What is the majority of our current population choosing as their route? If students are choosing the “typical” 2 year, 4 year route then maybe we do nothing. If a large number of students are choosing work based learning, apprenticeships, on-the-job training or a vocational route, maybe we find  means to develop these needs.    As a parent of two successful children each choosing a separate path, I see the benefit of both.      

• McCleary Act -
•  On January 5, 2012, the State Supreme Court ruled that Washington State is not amply funding basic education under the State Constitution. Fully funded education is to be in place by 2018 at an estimated cost of 4.5 billion dollars. 
• First, districts are currently paying for many services that are part of the legal definition of “basic education,” and that consequently the state should be paying for.
• Transportation of students who live outside a 1-mile radius of the school.
• Materials, supplies and other operating costs. Examples: textbooks, heat for the building, copier paper, etc. 
• All-day kindergarten. 
• Reduced class size (to 17 per class). Kindergarten through 3rd grade. 
• HB 2261 called for more rigorous graduation requirements and more instructional time to allow kids to achieve them. The Legislature has not adopted a schedule for paying for these yet, but they are clearly called for in HB 2261. 
• Increase in instructional time for middle and high school students to 1080 hours from the 1000 we require today. This is another two weeks of school time that could be accommodated in many ways, and was added to the definition of basic education to allow enough time for a 6-period day in middle and high schools. 
• Expanding the number of credits required to graduate from high school to 24 from the 20 we require today. 
• At a minimum, the State must fully fund NERCs (overhead costs), transportation, and staff salaries and benefits without relying on local levies or federal funds.

• Common-Core
• Over 50 percent of the population has never heard of it, yet it will affect every child that goes to school in Washington State.
• The common core standards were introduced in 2010, Washington State, and 44 other states and 3 territories have adopted them. In 2014-15, current state tests will be replaced by one of the two exams designed for the common core.
• The Common Core goal is to provide a clear, consistent understanding of what students are expected to learn to be college and career-ready.
• The standards define what students should know and be able to do, not how teachers teach.
• Common Core takes away local control and moves it to the federal government.
• Common Core may not be changed by state legislatures or state or local school boards.
• Only states that participate will be eligible for certain grants.
• Is Common Core good? It depends on who is talking. Convincing arguments have been made for both sides. One thing is clear, local control will be further eroded and schools that already excel, such as Naselle, will have to work even harder to maintain status quo.

ART HYLAND, BOARD MEMBER, COMMENTS

Bud, I see this blog has not seen much activity lately.  Perhaps it can be a place for board candidates to discuss issues.  So here goes.

What follows is a discussion about two issues that were important during the past school year:  one was the bond election, and the other was applying for and receiving a grant for an upgrade to our heating system.  I thought it might be instructive for people to know how I came down on these two issues, and in that effort I'm copying what I wrote to the Board back when the issues were not yet decided.

TO:  NASELLE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS, FEB. 17, 2013

"Re:  Two Proposed Resolutions for Feb. 18 Board Meeting, (Running another bond election & Signing Grant Document):

1. 2nd Bond Issue:  I am opposed to deciding at our Feb Board meeting to go ahead with another election. We have, I think, until Mar. 8 according to Rick, to sign a resolution requesting a new ballot measure.   It seems to me that to decide right now, so soon after the election, would be telling the citizens and community that we are willing to ignore their recent vote and proceed to push it through without even trying to find out the reasons why 45% of the voting community voted against it.  I'm told that the push will be to simply obtain additional yes votes in Pacific County in order to get to the required 60%.  

I suggest we genuinely attempt to find out just why so many voted against it and see if we might be able to persuade otherwise, in addition to seeking out more yes votes.  But to immediately broadcast to those who voted no that they are wrong, we are right and we're going to try an end-around is to potentially make even more of the no voters come out next time.  We need to reach out to those negative voters a little more and see what the problem is.  I suggest we have a board meeting in Rosburg, and advertise it well in an attempt to find out directly from the community just what misconceptions still lie out there.    Maybe there isn't enough time for all this, but I hate making us look like we all know better than so many of our citizens."

[Voters did indeed reject the idea, believing the Board didn't care what the voters thought, and so the second measure result turned out considerably worse than the first.]  

**********************  

[My overall concern about the grant project discussed below was the fact that the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, who controlled the granting of close to $100 Million of energy saving project grants, was derelict in their screening process.  They were(are) more interested in promoting the concept than in actually saving energy.  This allowed Naselle and scores of other districts to install heating and other systems which are supposed to make school buildings much more energy efficient, when in fact the very rules and guidelines to ensure efficiency were ignored in favor of just getting the money out to the end users no matter what.

We were awarded this energy grant without ever having to prove its worth; in fact, the grant contractor representative, at an open board meeting allowed as how this system would never have been chosen by any private firm because it simply is not cost effective.  As you read the below, if you care to, the term Cost Effectiveness Criteria" is indeed discussed in both the RCWs that set all this big money project in motion, and with OSPI who dispenses the grant money.  They mouthed the words but ignored its meaning.  Anyway, I tried to get the Board to pare the project slightly in order to at least save state taxpayers about $200,000+ while retaining 90% of the meager savings per year on energy, but they didn't buy it for reasons I won't go into at the moment.]

Continuing with what I wrote to the Board in February of this year:

2.  Re: Proposed ESCO Resolution 121305:  (regarding a heating/ventillation project costing approx. $800,000)

Before we sign this resolution, each of us needs to thoroughly examine just what it is that we are signing and verifying in this resolution.

Here's what the proposed Resolution 121305 includes:

It says that OSPI requires we submit  evidence of the following:

"2. Assurance that the district will follow all applicable laws and regulations pertaining to energy performance contracting and applicable public works laws."

Therefore our resolution includes: (underlines from hereon are my emphasis)

"BE IT RESOLVED that the Board assures the OSPI that the district will follow all applicable laws and regulations pertaining to energy savings performance contracting and public works projects, and

further, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board certifies that all funds will be used as intended in the grant award and as identified in the grant application;

In the Grant Application we certified that "district officials read and understood the following:

"10. Districts must follow the contracting methods described in the Energy Savings Performance Contracting Guidelines for WA Public Agencies Energy Savings Performance Contracting Guidelines"

Which Guidelines contain the following Major Section:  (My emphasis underlined)

"3.  Cost-Effectiveness Criteria:

'Chapter 39.35C.010 RCW provides one definition for cost-effectiveness. It states:  "Cost-effective" means that the present value to a state agency or school district of the energy reasonably expected to be saved or produced by a facility, activity, measure, or piece of equipment over its useful life, including any compensation received from a utility or the Bonneville Power Administration, is greater than the net present value of the costs of implementing, maintaining, and operating such facility, activity, measure, or piece of equipment over its useful life, when discounted at the cost of public borrowing.'"

In other words, is the present value of the energy savings/yr over 25 years greater than the cost to make the improvements, operate the improvements & maintain the improvements? 

Are you prepared to certify that we have followed this criteria?  I calculated, conservatively, that there is no way the combination of projects we listed as the ones we want meets that criteria.  Do we have calculations that show that they do?  I haven't seen them.  I actually went over this at the last meeting, but it was difficult to show you the results, and that discussion was pushed by the need for accepting the grant on a timely basis.

But now we have this resolution, which forces us to look once again at the rules by which we are governed in this grant.  Grants come with conditions, as you all know, and this is just the beginning.

It's my analysis that Sunset Air has been allowed to sort of take the lead as it were to help us through the maize of this project including the grant process because they've done this all before and know more than we do about Energy Savings Performance Contracting etc.  But in the end we are the ones who are supposed to know what we're doing.  Sunset Air has apparently decided the only criteria needed to be followed is the "simple payback" criteria, which is the 3.5 years they so prominently display on page 3 of their color brochure "Energy Services Proposal," determined by dividing our roughly $80,000 contribution by the $23,231 savings per year.  (BTW it's not $25,000 anymore just to be clear).  This isn't what the Guidelines require; it's just another criteria that evidently some people find useful, but it has nothing to do with energy efficiency, which is the point of the entire program. 

I suggest that before we sign a resolution regarding this project/grant for OSPI, that we have a meeting with Sunset Air so they can answer some of these questions:  Like:  Have they calculated the criteria spelled out above, and if so where is it?  And why did they recommend that we go with the underground Heat Pump when its cost is an additional $118,000 compared to an above ground unit AND the extra savings in energy is only $1000/yr?  If one does a PV using these numbers, the PV of an additional $1000/yr over 25 years is just $17,000.  Which means it falls way short of just the $118,000 cost to implement it alone.  It cannot be justified.  These are the kinds of questions that I would like Sunset to answer since they are the professionals.

If they can convince us that all of the proper criteria are met and we have nothing to worry about, then are they prepared to guarantee in writing that if the District is ever audited and we fail to have complied with the requirements that Sunset Air will reimburse us for any and all costs associated with an audit finding and/or penalty, and/or return of funds, including paying us for the time necessary to defend such a finding if made?--Art" 

In the end, a 4-1 decision (I opposed) was made to take the full grant, install the expensive system and look the other way.  This kind of decision takes place in thousands of government entities throughout our nation, and represents in my opinion why government is often irresponsible with taxpayer money.  The rational that everyone else does it, or that if we don't take the money someone else will are very poor excuses, especially for a school district whose very purpose--to help instill moral and critical thinking to our students--is blatantly ignored by those in charge.  Of course the students are unaware of these kinds of decisions, blissfully ignorant that what they are being taught is being violated behind the very corridors they walk. I would be glad to debate this issue with anyone or any group.

--Art Hyland

 503-440-3937

Rick Pass Separation Agreement and Release

Separation Agreement and Release

This Separation Agreement and Release (hereinafter referred to as the "AGREEMENT") is entered into by Mr. Rick Pass (hereinafter referred to as the "SUPERINTENDENT"), and Naselle-Grays River Valley Schools (hereinafter referred to as the "BOARD") resolving the SUPERINTENDENT's employment with the Naselle-Grays River Valley Schools. Whenever the term "BOARD" is used in this AGREEMENT, it shall be deemed to mean and include the Board and its members, administrators, employees, attorneys, agents and the School District. The SUPERINTENDENT, and the BOARD are each fully informed of all relevant facts, aware of the implications of entering into this AGREEMENT, have had the opportunity to receive professional and legal advice regarding the advisability of entering into this AGREEMENT, and are voluntarily entering into this AGREEMENT without duress, fraud, or coercion of any kind.

WHEREAS, SUPERINTENDENT has been employed by the BOARD under a series of Superintendent's Employment Agreements, the current iteration of which contains a termination date of June 30, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the "CURRENT CONTRACT"); and

WHEREAS, notwithstanding such CURRENT CONTRACT, in order to consider and pursue other leadership, the BOARD desires to conclude the employment relationship with the SUPERINTENDENT upon the terms and conditions set forth; and

WHEREAS the BOARD and SUPERINTENDENT are agreeable to the termination of the CURRENT CONTRACT prior to its June 30, 2014 end date; and

WHEREAS, it is further the express intention and desire of the BOARD and SUPERINTENDENT to compromise and settle all claims, whether known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, liquidated or unliquidated, to resolve all present differences and to anticipate and avoid any and all future claims or differences which might hereinafter accrue or arise connected with or relating to SUPERINTENDENT'S employment and/or the CURRENT CONTRACT.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration each to the other made, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the BOARD and the SUPERINTENDENT hereby agree as follows::

I. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS

The recitals of this AGREEMENT are incorporated in and made a part of the operational portion of the AGREEMENT by this reference.

2.       RESIGNATION

Simultaneously upon the execution of the AGREEMENT, SUPERINTENDENT shall execute in writing and deliver to the BOARD, his irrevocable voluntary Notice of Resignation as an employee of the BOARD effective June 30, 2013. The Notice of Resignation is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. The BOARD's acceptance of this AGREEMENT shall constitute acceptance of the resignation of the SUPERINTENDENT. Prior to the effective date of his resignation, SUPERINTENDENT shall receive from the BOARD his regular gross salary through June 30, 2013 and other benefits, including insurance coverage already in place for the 2012-2013 contract year.

3.       PAYMENT

The BOARD agrees to pay SUPERINTENDENT a sum of ninety thousand dollars and zero cents ($90,000.00 gross). Subject to withholdings described in Section 4 below, the amount of ninety thousand dollars and zero cents ($90,000.00 gross) will be paid in two equal installments of forty-five thousand dollars and zero cents ($45,000.00 gross), pursuant to conditions outlined in section 3 herein.

The first installment of forty-five thousand dollars and zero cents ($45,000.00 gross) will be paid to SUPERINTRENDENT in twelve (12) equal installments of three thousand seven hundred fifty dollars and zero cents ($3,750.00) consistent with District pay day(s) beginning in July 2013 and paid through June 2014. The BOARD agrees that the SUPERINTENDENT may accept and perform other work and or accept and perform other employment between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014 without mitigation of the first installment of forty-five thousand dollars and zero cents ($45,000.00 gross) paid under this AGREEMENT.

The second installment of forty-five thousand dollars and zero cents ($45,000.00 gross) will be paid to SUPERINTRENDENT in twelve (12) equal installments of three thousand seven hundred fifty dollars and zero cents ($3,750.00) consistent with District pay day(s) beginning in July 2014 and paid through June 2015. The SUPERINTENDENT agrees that should the SUPERINTENDENT accept other full time employment to be performed at any time between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015, then the obligation expressed herein, for the BOARD to pay the second installment, shall be null and void from the date of said employment, and any subsequent equal installments shall cease. Full time employment shall be defined as W-2 Wage and Tax Statement wages, exclusive of any wages paid by the BOARD, that will and or does reflect more than fifty thousand dollars and zero cents ($50,000.00) for 2014 tax purposes.

Should the SUPERINTENDENT accept and or perform any other full-time employment, as defined herein, before June 30, 2015, he shall notify the BOARD within seven (7) business days in writing.

4.       Taxes

The BOARD will treat the amounts payable herein as wages subject to all applicable withholding and employment taxes.

5.       Insurance

The BOARD agrees to pay for the cost of all the SUPERINTENDENT's health, and dental, and vision insurance coverage under the existing group plans in the District at the BOARD' s expense through June 30, 2014. The SUPERINTENDENT may choose to waive the purchase of insurance, in whole, and direct the BOARD to purchase, with Monies equal to the District contribution to said insurance, selected by the SUPERINTENDENT. However, if the SUPERINTENDENT has health, and or dental, and or vision insurance available to him through any other employment before June 30, 2014, he shall notify the BOARD within seven (7) business days in writing and the SUPERINTENDENT shall take advantage of the insurance coverage available to him through the alternate source.

6.       Mutual Release

In mutual consideration of all of the obligations on the part of SUPERINTENDENT and the BOARD set forth in this agreement, it is understood by both parties that this AGREEMENT constitutes a full accord, satisfaction, and settlement of any and all disputes and claims arising out of the employment relationship between the parties as well as the end of the employment relationship between the parties. SUPERINTENDENT hereby releases, acquits, and forever discharges the BOARD, its employees, agents, representatives and successors from any and all grievances, claims, liabilities, damages, causes of action, suits or judgments (including costs and expenses incurred in connection therewith), known or unknown, which SUPERINTENDENT now has or might have, including but not limited to, without limitation, any and all claims under theories of contract or tort, federal law, state law, local law, regulations, orders, and policies, including but not limited to, the Americans with Disabilities Act 42 USC 12/101 et seq., as amended, Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 as amended, 42 USC 2000e et seq, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 USC 1986, et seq, as amended, The Washington State Constitution, the Washington State School Code, RCW 28A et seq, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination. SUPERINTENDENT does knowingly and voluntarily relinquish and waive all legal and equitable remedies provided to him under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act 29 USC 621 et seq., as amended.

7.       Covenant Not To Sue

The BOARD and the SUPERINTENDENT further covenant and agree never to institute or cause to be instituted any suit or action, at law, equity, or otherwise, in any federal or state court, before any federal, state, or local administrative agency or before any tribunal, public or private, relating to or arising from the SUPERINTENDENT's employment relationship with the BOARD, the termination of the CURRENT CONTRACT, except to enforce the terms of this AGREEMENT. SUPERINTENDENT waives the right to monetary damages or other legal or equitable relief awarded by any governmental agency related to any claim set forth in paragraph 6 from any party released in such paragraph.

8.       Indemnification

The BOARD agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend, with counsel reasonably satisfactory to the SUPERINTENDENT, SUPERINTENDENT from all claims, demands, actions, lawsuits and judgments including but not limited to any civil rights damage claims and suits, constitutional rights damage claims and suits, including defense thereof which are threatened, pending or arising before or after the employment relationship between the BOARD and the SUPERINTENDENT has terminated, should SUPERINTENDENT be named as a party or witness in any capacity arising from SUPERINTENDENT's employment by the BOARD. If SUPERINTENDENT is required to participate in the defense of any litigation, claims and suits, related to his employment with the BOARD, the BOARD agrees to pay the reasonable transportation, travel and lodging costs, if any, incurred by the SUPERINTENDENT as a result of his cooperation in such defense.

9.       Non-Disparagement

The BOARD and the SUPERINTENDENT acknowledge the importance of each other's reputation in the community, State, and nationally. The BOARD agrees that the BOARD and its members and future members, administrators comprising the SUPERINTENDENT's leadership team, attorneys and agents (such term not to include employees) shall not make any negative, disparaging, adverse, and or derogatory statements, remarks, comments, and or innuendos, either oral or written, directly or indirectly, to any prospective employer or any other person or entity about, in reference to, or with respect to SUPERINTENDENT of any kind or nature whatsoever or to this AGREEMENT, or with respect to the SUPERINTENDENT's relationship with the BOARD, or cessation of the SUPERINTENDENT's services with the District. The SUPERINTENDENT agrees not to make any negative, disparaging, adverse, and or derogatory statements, remarks, comments, and or innuendos, either oral or written, directly or indirectly, to any prospective employer or any other person or entity about, in reference to, or with respect to the BOARD of any kind or nature whatsoever or to this AGREEMENT, or with respect to the SUPERINTENDENT's relationship with the BOARD, or cessation of the SUPERINTENDENT's services with the District.

10.    Governing Law: Venue

This AGREEMENT shall be interpreted, and the rights and liabilities of the parties shall be determined, in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any litigation shall take place in Pacific County, Washington.

11.      Severability Clause

If any provision of this AGREEMENT is held to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this AGREEMENT shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect.

This AGREEMENT constitutes the entire understanding of the parties and supersedes any and all past representations and understandings, whether oral or written. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Mr. Rick Pass, and the Board of Education of

Naselle-Grays River Valley Schools, by its duly authorized representatives and agents, have signed and executed this AGREEMENT on the date indicated below.

Date: 05/28/13

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF Naselle-Grays River Valley Schools

EXHIBIT A

I hereby voluntarily and irrevocably resign as Superintendent of Naselle-Grays River Valley Schools effective June 30, 2013. I submit this letter of resignation with mixed emotions. I have enjoyed my time with Naselle-Grays River Valley Schools. I look forward to watching the advancement of programs in place, and am proud of the accomplishments of the committed administrators, staff, School Board, andf of course, the wonderful students. I thank the Board for giving me the opportunity to lead the educational charge for the Naselle-Grays River Valley Schools community these past years.

My family and I are looking forward to the opportunities that await us in our future endeavors. I wish the Naselle-Grays River Valley Schools and the entire community the best.

Dated:                 5-28-13

What I think I have learned about the Chinese Mandarin Program

After waiting over a year for answers to the Chinese immersion program, this is what I think I know

·         The board approved the Chinese Mandarin Immersion program to begin September 2013.

·         The district has contracts with two Mandarin Immersion teachers coming to our district.

·         All research I have read about the Mandarin program has been mainly positive for students.

·         The Mandarin Immersion program will be taught starting September 2013

o   Two classes will be taught in Mandarin

§  Math and Science (one hour each per day)

o   Year one, kindergarteners and first grade students

o   Year two, kindergarteners through second grade students

o   Year three, kindergarteners through third grade students

o   Year four, kindergarteners through fourth grade students

o   Year five, kindergarteners through fifth grade students

o   Year six, kindergarteners through fifth grade students, sixth grade will be given one hour refresher per day

o   Year seven, kindergarteners through fifth grade students, sixth through seventh grade will be given one hour refresher per day

o   Year eight, kindergarteners through fifth grade students, sixth through eighth grade will be given one hour refresher per day

·         This program will be offered only to kindergartners and first grade, so if you move into the district in the second grade the program will not be offered

·         Kindergartner and first graders may either opt in or opt out of the program

·         Children that opt in the program will be taught math and science, in mandarin, in a separate classroom

·         Children that opt out of the program will be taught traditional math and science in a separate classroom

·         All students will be taught together for the remainder of classes with a traditional teacher.

·         On a fully implemented program, assuming K6-K8 can be taught at one time in one class room

o   The district will need six additional classrooms for two hours per day

o   The district will need one additional classroom for one hour per day

o   The district will require four? Mandarin teachers to support the program. This is in addition to the traditional teachers for each grade.

·         Funding

o   In year one, the program will survive  entirely on a grant to pay for the first teacher and the Naselle School District will pick up $13,000 to pay for the second teacher.

o   Additional costs to run the program will be paid by the Naselle School District

o   There is no guarantee that funds will be available after the first year, in which case, all expenses will be paid by the Naselle School District.

o   There will not be any additional funding by the state to support this program

o   The McCleary decision, upheld by the Supreme Court, mandates fully funded education by the state to be fully implemented by 2018. This decision will have far reaching effects on our local control of education and local levies. (Google McCleary decision, and read about levy swap)

o   If the grants run out, how will we pay for the program? Would the district support a levy for this program? Would the McCleary decision even give us that option?

o   If grants, state funding, or local levies are not an option, the other option I see would be to grow our way out of this by hoping the Mandarin program attracts enough new students to pay for the program. (each new student currently brings along with them around $5700 per year)

·         Could the district offer the Mandarin Program starting one hour before regular classes and one hour after the regular school day and have the participating parents responsible for getting their child to and from school? This would eliminate the need for additional classrooms as the school would be mainly empty during these hours.

·         Will the school board be faced with terminating the program after several years because the district cannot afford to the program. What do we say to the children that are dropped in the middle of the program? Will these children be, as Luke questioned, guinea pigs?

Lisa Nelson named interim superintendent

What does the community think? What would you like to see Lisa do? What would you not like to see Lisa do? Tonight's board meeting will soon be posted on you tube, hopefully community members will take some time and view it.

Immersion Program needs answers

To whom it may concern,

 

     First and foremost I am not fast at typing, so this will take me a while, couple that with the fact that this is my last day to be here with my family before I depart to Alaska for the summer, should show that this is important to me.

 

I attended Naselle School K-12.  I attended Kindergarten roundup here recently because I now have a child, Jason Gardner, who I intended on sending to Naselle K-12.  The main reason I attended was because, to my limited and fresh understanding, my wife and I need to now make a decision on an alternate form of education that is going to be offered, that I knew nothing about a month ago.  I had heard about it in the past, but was under the impression that the program was “dead in the water” quite a while ago (1 year ago).  Please understand that even though I have lived here in Naselle nearly all my life, my interaction, and involvement with the School district has been zero for the past 22 years since I graduated in 1991.  I can see that needs to change.  This resurgence of the immersion program was brought to my attention just prior to the school board meeting that passed the immersion program.  I worked 87 hours the week that the meeting was, and from 8 am to midnight in Astoria shipyard the particular day the meeting was held, and was not able to attend.  I believe that there are a few people who are blindly pushing this program forward, who are inadvertently so wrapped up in promoting this program that they forget to spend any effort to communicate what is really even going on at the school to all of those who it will affect.  They are self serving in a public domain.  I found it somewhere between comforting and disturbing that there were a handful of parents who were completely blindsided by the immersion program at the Kindergarten roundup.  Comforting in that at least I was not completely behind the curve of information, but disturbing in that such a stark change to such a longstanding status quo went so unadvertised especially to those it will directly affect.

 

    The kindergarten roundup presentation on the immersion program I felt was a complete disaster.  My wife Crystal, who is in support of this program, agreed.  It was choppy, non-informative, and there were no answers to any questions, just vagary and confusion, with a blind message attached “this is a good thing”.   With the marine repair job behind me that will sustain my household, I was able to attend the school board meeting May 31.  Being so far behind the curve, as I Am, I expected to attend as an informative session for my own education as to what is going on.   What I experienced is another thing altogether.  Below are some of the things I gathered.  At the time, I was gathering information and had no real time to process and voice a clear opinion.  I was disturbed to find out that the very school board that had given the green light on this program had made that decision on misinformation, and were unaware of logistics or cost.  My child is not a guinea pig and if there is not a well thought out fact based plan that has clear and achievable logistics and approved funding I believe that a failsafe status quo should be reinstated.   Supporters of the program, will say “you can opt out".  Very true, but this does not mean my child's experience will be unaffected.  I have given a lot of thought to the long term psychological effects of splitting children and educating them differently, and to be quite honest, I don’t believe that anyone knows how that cause will effect the individuals psyche.  It would seem to me that our culture has been pushing away from “class based” segregation for a long time now and this seems to go against that train of thought.  If implemented, there will be two classes of the same kids.  Will one become the “gifted”, and the others the “dumb”? Will one group be the “oddballs” and the other the “regulars”?   I don’t know the answer and would not believe anyone who claims to.... but time will tell, and I believe it could have longstanding negative effects on the children on both ends of the spectrum.  That will come term a decade from now as these kids begin to become adults.  Once again, my child is not a guinea pig.  I would really like to see him receive the quality education that I believe Naselle has been offering for a long time (Status Quo).

 

    At this Friday's meeting, I heard public voice “selling” the program with the pitch “this is the kind of thing that will draw in students, and that’s what we need here”.  The school board members’ Eyes turned into dollar signs as their heads ever so gently agreed in a slow but noticeable nod.  I believe this to be nothing more than a misguided enticement.  I Agree that this probably would bring in some students from outlying areas.  Having that said, it would make the class larger, thus minimizing the impact or interface my child will have with an educator.  I’m not going to waste the time to research, and am going to go out on a limb and make a bold assumption.  I would be willing to bet that there are studies that show that test scores go down as class size goes up, pertaining to the class sizes we are talking about here.  This whole program is being sold to the public as  “all studies show kids through these programs outscore kids that don’t.  I wonder how these two factors will offset one another? Net gain? or net loss?  I don’t know.  If I had real numbers to work with, I could calculate with my non emersion schooling.  This brings me to my next thought.  Real numbers, it seems as though there seems to be a lack of.

 

     I am not one hundred percent against this program.  If I am going to be for it, I need to be reassured that we, at Naselle, can and will take the commitment necessary to see this thing through.  I don’t remember the exact words, but I heard Karen Wirkkala state that if this program is not followed through with that it will be a handicap or a detriment to their learning curve.  It is one thing to plant a seed, and set back and hope for the best.  I of all people understand never “holding back in fear” and “reaching for the stars”, and “take the chance” train of thought.  But having that said, what I experienced at that meeting is ludicrous at best.  It seemed to me that the board was looking to the Administration for answers to logistics and cost for next years implementation...... of something they had already approved.........................................  Talk about the cart before the horse............. and that’s not the real alarming part.   I cannot believe that everyone in that room is so short sighted as to not be asking the questions that really need to be asked.  Questions like:

1)  Can we logistically manage having at bare minimum three new class rooms, a total of nine for K-5 in six years?

2)  Can we afford at bare minimum three new teachers a total of nine for K-5, six years form now

       a) with grant assistance

       b) without grant assistance

     It seems irritating to me that the questions that are being asked are all about next year and that decisions are being made only thinking of next year, when we know that it comes with a high risk of harm to the participants if the program cannot “come to bloom”.    It is easy to get a seed to sprout, and it seems like that is all anyone is concerned with.  Blissfully ignoring the fact that if that sprout cannot take root and be nurtured it will wither and die.  I believe as the “gate keepers of this garden”  that the School Board look long and hard if they have the resources available to do this program justice, anything short of that would be dereliction of duty.  Does this seed belong in this garden?  Is this program sustainable??  The impact will be negative if it is not.  Sustainability, hmm... my next thoughts...

 

     I keep hearing these quaint catch phrases associated with the program like “wonderful opportunity”.  When spoken they are really attractive, magnetic, they draw people like a bee drawn to a flower.  The reality is when spoken they are opinion even though most the time they are presented as fact.....  “this will be a wonderful opportunity”  in this case it is inferred, but not spoken that this is ones belief.  It is clever.  It is manipulation.  It is not factual.  I believe our society is filled too much with this political rhetoric and wish people would look more to fact based catch phrases like “Sustainability”.

  For the most part things either are or are not sustainable.  I hear people pitch “China is where it will be” “China, China, China”, “We need to be able to trade with China”,  therefore we need programs like this.  Fact:  Our trade today with China is bankrupting this nation.

         Fact:  Our trade with China starts with borrowed money and ends with an IOU.

         Fact:  Our trade with China is unsustainable, we cannot really even afford the interest payment on that debt anymore, let alone principal.

         Fact:  Our dollar is not worth what it should be as a direct result of this debt.  Thus devaluing the dollars I have earned with my life.

My extrapolated conclusion is that our habits of being engaged with trade with China has ripped me off, along with everyone who owns a dollar, or any form of it.  If I were retired or near it, I would be really mad about this.  But for now I do the hustle keeping up with inflation along the way.  

The Question I ask is should I condone, or stimulate this cancerous activity between us and them with my own child's education?

It is very surprising to me that it seems that the majority of the individuals who are blindly in support of this program are also for the most part the same “buy local”, “shop local”,”think local not global” types, as it seems a grave contradiction.  The only thing that is fueling this Global economy that we find ourselves amuck in today is cheap non-renewable energy, without it the think local will once again  emerge as a way of life.  Its what we do between now and then that will make the difference, how much is left here for us to bless our future generations with.

 

     Thinking locally.  Its really hard for me as a parent to sign my child up for something that could if fully fledged make him smarter, but leave him innately handicapped by learning about the physical, mechanical, biological world he exists in in metric.   I know that thirty years ago the USA and Burma, (a third world inward facing country somewhere) were the only two places not using the metric system.   There was a big push to convert the US to metric.....  I can remember hearing our president of the time making proclamation that by a not so far off date “we were switching”.  Well, that came and went.  If you buy Bananas today its in lbs., lumber its in inches and feet,  and thus pressure is in PSI across the industries and trades.  I do not relish to be a dinosaur, I just am, right along side each and almost everyone else here that lives in the USA.  I fear that the majority of these kids we are talking about will need to integrate into this society and our quirky way of measuring our surroundings, and that they will not have a sound understanding of what we all take for granted... being able to fluidly talk about these fundamental measures of our surroundings.  I may be wrong, but I have never seen a metric fraction.   It may be contrived as selfish on my part and I may be guilty, but I do want to be able to fluidly communicate with my own child, and as he gets older about the things that I and possibly he will deal with on a daily basis.

 

      I believe Naselle is not a good match for this program, not because it its where I live, but because of our school size.  The way I see this program working even with its inherent handicaps I have mentioned, is with full implementation.  This requires enough students to fill the opt in and the opt out classrooms.  In a school with a not full classroom to start with, it just is financially unsound.

That’s great that this works in large schools.  The reason why is it fits better, economically. Here is why -  If you have 95 kids in one class or 195 kids in one class you take the opt ins and the opt outs and divide each set into classes of appropriate size,  you end up with the same (within one) number of classes as you would have if they were all in or all out.  Same is the same, no extra financial burden, no extra logistical burden.  Now having that understood as the total kids per grade falls the (within one) aspect begins to shift to “more than likely plus one”, and as soon as a school has less than one full classroom of kids it becomes a certainty of the plus one, in our case plus one half, as the room and the teacher can be “ recycled” to serve another grade for 1/2 the day.   This is so painfully obvious to me and I wish it were understood, that yes other places are doing it, but I highly doubt any other public school of our size is, just due to the sheer logistics and economics.   If it were a mandatory program, these problems would go away, but it isn’t, and these are real problems in the real world we exist.   

 

    Feel free anyone to pass this along to anyone interested, or reference in any way, public or private, I believe that there are a majority of people out there that feel intimidated to say “no this is not desirable”, for fear of offending someone else.  I urge everyone to speak their mind, only with full disclosure (communication) can we be the community that makes sound choices that are good for our future.   Reach for the stars, but keep solid footing and most important look before you leap.

Luke Gardner

 

PS 

an apology goes out to Mr. Wise on my grammar.