Letters

Family leaving St. Johns Schools

I wanted to express my feelings about the recent vote to close East Essex. After the vote my husband and I have decided that our children will no longer attend St. Johns Public Schools. I was quite emotional after the vote. I was emotional not because of any ties to a particular building, but rather because I viewed the vote as yet another example of a district headed in the wrong direction. My family is the type that the district hopes to draw to St. Johns. Neither my husband nor I ever attended St. Johns Public Schools. When we were looking for our first home, we had important criteria to consider. We wanted to raise our family in a rural community much like the one we grew up in. We wanted a rural school with small class size and great test scores. We found the perfect fit in St. Johns at East Essex elementary. Perhaps it was a bit naive since all things change, but it wasn’t unreasonable to think that these criteria would still be fulfilled for years to come.

We received our first disappointment the year our oldest was to start kindergarten. That year the northern schools were split and the alternating day kindergarten program was started. Luckily our son was an older five at the start of the school year and had no major issues with the full day program. However due to the consolidation of grades from the two buildings it became quite apparent that the class size would not be what we had hoped.

Once our middle child started school we found another disappointment with the district. The split configuration was not best for any learner outside of the median. Advanced readers cannot be challenged because their learning is limited to the highest grade level in the building. The same scenario occurs for those students that struggle with reading.

Beginning with the 2007-2008 school year we had children in both buildings. This became yet another disappointment. We had to deal with two PTOs, two class parties, two sets of fundraisers, two musicals, two field days, etc. Anyone that has more than one child can appreciate the conflicts such a setup can cause. We found that we became less involved with the school because we were torn in two directions. While taking a day off for one field day is insignificant, trying to take two off in the same week for two different field days becomes more challenging. Both kids would ask us to come to their Halloween, Christmas, and Valentine’s parties but due to the configuration they had to choose one event each.

When the board began the strategic planning process, we experienced more frustrations. I began attending meetings. I was astounded by how the rural community’s resistance to the plan was often dismissed as an emotional connection to certain buildings. As I mentioned previously, my husband and I didn’t attend the district so we have no attachment to one building over another. Some school board members were often, and continue to be, condescending and quite insulting. At the last board meeting certain school board members stated that the bond should be revisited in a similar form to the original proposal and that the community just needed to be informed and educated. Those of us in the rural schools fully understood the bond proposal. That bond didn’t fail because we lacked the intelligence to understand it; rather it failed because we were smart enough to comprehend it.

The board may reason that their decision eliminates many of the frustrations listed above. However, one only needs to look to their master plan for the district to realize it will have very similar ramifications. The district has a tendency of being rather inconsistent. During the strategic planning meetings I brought up concerns about the elementary configuration. I was treated by many as though I was just an uninformed country bumpkin. I was told that this configuration was a proven winner and that it was educationally best for the children. How ironic that my concerns, that were once dismissed when it applied to the strategic plan, suddenly became an excuse for why some members thought the northern buildings should consolidate. Of course, when the district comes back to the voters for the second bond proposal, those opinions will flip-flop once again. The voters will almost certainly be told that it is educationally superior to have split level buildings over more traditional configurations. The northern families that were once told that their children would have a more enriching experience as a split level are now going to be told that it is better to have the students in a K-5 setting. In a matter of months, the board will come back with this bond again and try to reason that K-5 isn’t the best configuration after all. How can they expect the entire SJPS community to trust their judgment with regards to the best academic environment for our children?

In our five years with the district, I have witnessed some astounding decision making in regards to the district budget. Transportation software that wasn’t designed for rural communities was purchased, and we had children assigned to be picked up next to cornfields. Bleachers were purchased without board consent when they were not truly necessary. A bond was proposed that would have overextended the district for 30 years. If we operated our family budget in this way, we too would be in dire financial straits.

During the budgetary segment of Monday’s meeting, I was astounded that there was a discussion about increasing marketing dollars in an attempt to draw families to SJPS. It confirmed my belief that this district is disconnected. When a business is losing customers it is prudent that the owner discovers why. The business could certainly advertise more; but unless it gets to the core reasoning behind the initial customer loss, any new growth from said advertising will not be sustainable. A business that fails to serve its customers well is destined for failure. The school board is in the business of managing the education of the children in this community. Until this district recognizes why its customers are leaving, it will continue to slowly implode. It is a false assumption to state that the district is losing students solely due to the weak economy. If the district invests the time to understand its customers, it might rescue this district from future losses.

Our decision to pull our three children from the district was not a rash one. It was a culmination of events that led to our decision. It will not be easy to pull our children away from their friends. It is disappointing to know that our youngest will never be taught by some of the amazing teachers my older two had the privilege of learning from. It saddens me that we will be saying goodbye to some of the best teachers and staff we could have ever hoped for. The teachers and staff at the northern buildings deserve so much more respect than the board gave them Monday night. While our family will not be returning, I still hope that this district will one day succeed. The futures of the children in this community are depending on it.

Sincerely,
Kimberly Cribley

Robins take over the porch

Just after Easter I put out a wreath. We have not been able to use the front porch since. Male and Female Robins let us know that we might wake their babies if we go near the porch with lots of noise of their own! There was an egg and 3 babies Saturday morning. It Looks like four babies now!

Mary Cosgrove