PEORIA -- Here are highlights from the public comments for the Peoria District 150 School Board at its Aug. 23 meeting:
Sharon Crews: Pointed out to the board that its own policies are not followed. Its dress code policy is contradictory, she said, since a dress code, requiring uniforms, is portrayed as a plus for grade and middle school students, but threatened as punishment for high school students who violate the high school dress code.
Terry Knapp: Told the board that District 150 has lost its top athletes from Woodruff High School, which the board closed. Ten have moved to Pekin, two to East Peoria, and others somehow got out of going to Peoria Central and are going to Richwoods. Peoria Central's enrollment is lower than expected, he said. The district also lost 225 students to the charter school, which gets the state aid for those students, he said. The district's 2003 strategic plan calls for smaller classes, but sizes are increasing, he said. Teachers are supposed to have exit interviews, but that's not taking place, he said. And the $7 million budget deficit would not be there, he said, if the district had gotten rid of the Edison Schools. Knapp has been advocating that for years.
Bob Darling: Pointed out that the announcements made at the beginning of the meeting are pointless since the board doesn't allow its meeting to be broadcast live, and the delayed broadcast will take place after the events occur. He also said the district is supposed to get $4 million in federal stimulus funds, but has not said how the money will be used. He urged administrators to hire more teachers and aides, especially for smaller classes in K-3.
Crews will email her comments to be posted here later. Here's an audio of the comments:
D150 Aug 23
-- Elaine Hopkins
Here is Sharon Crews's report to the board:
In my opinion, most district policies do not have a clear “end game” or the policies are not taken to their logical conclusion.
For instance, the new dress code policy doesn’t seem to go beyond Infraction #4. Repeat offenders do not disobey rules by accident—they disobey on purpose. It’s part of the game to see how long it will take for the adults to end the game.
I
believe that for some students the same series of events will occur
every grading period—4 infractions, uniforms maybe for a day or two,
and then having to be sent home over and over because the uniform isn’t
worn. Does expulsion ever become the punishment for continually violating the dress code? If
expulsion is not a very clear cut, inevitable result, then the dress
code will suffer the same fate as it has for years now—it won’t be
followed.
The
more serious problem is that the “end game” for all discipline and
attendance policies is very fuzzy and open to all manner of exceptions. Some cynics will say that many of these offending students want to be expelled. I don’t believe that. I believe that they know that you don’t want to expel them, so the game goes on and on and on. Consequently, chaos ensues because some students love to play this game. Someday adults must learn to call their bluff.
Some
policies are written just to scare students—and no administrator has
any intention of following the policies except in extreme cases.
My handout shows what happens when rules aren’t followed. The
2009 summer school policy that I FOIA-ed has been the policy for many
years—it states that 3 tardies equal one absence and that there are no
excused absences.
Over 360 students followed the rules in 2009. My handout shows the attendance records of the 37 students who did not follow the rules. Those highlighted in yellow received the penalty for not following the rules—they were dropped. The 13 highlighted in blue did not follow the rules either, but they weren’t dropped.
The truth is that the rule that three tardies make an absence was not followed in any case. When rules aren’t followed, unfairness happens.
Notice the records of students #5-11. All of them had the equivalent of 3 absences and 1 tardy. Two were dropped, but 5 were not dropped.
Of students #12, 13, and 14—all had the equivalent of 3 absences and 2 tardies. Two were dropped and one was not. I believe in the case of #12, that was the only time an excused absence actually counted as an absence.
Notice #15 through 20—all had the equivalent of 4 absences. Three were dropped and three were not.
For students #21-24—all had the equivalent of 4 absences and 1 tardy. One was dropped and three were not.
For #26 and 27: both had five absences (no tardies at all). One was dropped; the other was not. There are some excused absences recorded for both—but remember the rules say there are no excused absences.
Other
rules may have been ignored—there was no record of more than one tardy
per day—a fairly regular occurrence in summer school when students get
two breaks to go to the vending machines. Also, I don’t know how many minutes were considered a tardy instead of an absence.
This inequity of consequences happens all the time during the regular year—on an even greater scale. The rules are not followed to the letter. To achieve fairness and credibility, rules should be followed or changed.
If the rules were followed, there would be many more expulsions per year than there are. Again, District 150 needs an alternative school—an alternative to expulsion and/or ignoring the rules.
Back to the dress code—why are students allowed 4 infractions? The majority of students won’t have even one—why give in to the few? Also,
the penalty for Infraction #4 has now labeled uniforms as
punishment—last year uniforms for younger kids were presented as a
positive. Which is it, a punishment or a positive?
-30-
Here's the exhibit:
Final Exhibit B - 2009 Summer School - Students Absent Over Three Days.xls