Last night's meeting on the cell tower to be located at Kelly Mill Middle School was an "informational" meeting. The meeting room (a portion of the room used by the School Board) was packed with parents (including some children and babies), neighbors, and interested community members.
No member of the Richland 2 School Board attended.
Richland 2's Director of Planning William Simon chaired the meeting, which was mostly informal and friendly. Speakers on behalf of the construction of the tower were Leonard Forkas, President of Milestone Communications, and Kevin McMannis, an environmental safety consultant.
Forkas outlined the procedure that has been followed to gain the necessary approvals for the tower to be built, starting with the Richland County Planning Commission in October 2018. In November they were at the Richland County Council. In January community notifications were mailed. (Some in the audience protested that they had not received notice.) In February a community meeting was held, and those receiving notice included the board chair.
If I understood correctly, two cell towers have already been built on Richland 2 school property; this will be the third. The tower will be constructed in accordance with an Request For Proposal (RFP) approved by a previous School Board.
If you are concerned about safety around wireless equipment, go to the website for this project, www.KellyMillMSwireless.com, and click on "Wireless Safety" in the left sidebar. Be sure to click on the link in Paragraph 2 about RF safety.
Many concerns and fears were expressed by those attending. Most of them were based on rumors, suspicions, and emotions. None was based on fact.
I managed to irritate just about everyone in the room by suggesting that parents needed to show up at School Board meetings and know what is going on. (It's too late to complain after the fact.) I also suggested that the FACTS about RF energy be considered, not just one's emotions about this project. I also asked how many use cell phones and even allow their children to use cell phone.
Isn't the perceived (but probably unfounded) worry about brain cancer much, much worse from a handheld cellphone than it is from a 195' tower located 300 feet from a school? But today just look around at all the adults, students and small children who are running around with cell phones stuck to their ears.
The tower will be built, and it won't be so bad as people think.
Director Simon acknowledged that the School District could have done a better job of communicating about the planned tower. I imagine the District will pay more attention to communications with parents and neighbors in the future.
Last night's meeting wasn't even posted on the District's website. And the library doesn't know who is using the District's main conference room at R2i2. Hint to Richland 2 School District: it's a common facility. Why not arrange for the library's telephone operator to answer calls about meeting room usage?
My thanks to The Voice of Blythewood & Fairfield County for posting the announcement of last night's meeting on its Facebook page. That's how I learned of it at 5:05PM.
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
TONIGHT! 6:30PM. Cell Tower public meeting
Sorry for the late announcement. Just learned of this meeting, thanks to publication on the Facebook page of The Voice of Blythewood and Fairfield County.
Milestone Communications wants to build a 195' cell phone tower ON THE GROUNDS of Kelly Mill Middle School. Recently a parent addressed the Richland 2 School Board about this, but do you think there was any publication by Richland 2 of this meeting?
No doubt Richland 2 sees this tower as a money-maker. There would be a long-term lease involved and important legal protections in the agreement.
The meeting is tonight, April 24, 2019, at 6:30PM at R2i2.
For more information, visit www.KellyMillMSWireless.com The meeting announcement on this website says the meeting is at 6831 Brookfield Road.
The Voice believes the meeting at R2i2, as of 5:15PM.
Milestone Communications wants to build a 195' cell phone tower ON THE GROUNDS of Kelly Mill Middle School. Recently a parent addressed the Richland 2 School Board about this, but do you think there was any publication by Richland 2 of this meeting?
No doubt Richland 2 sees this tower as a money-maker. There would be a long-term lease involved and important legal protections in the agreement.
The meeting is tonight, April 24, 2019, at 6:30PM at R2i2.
For more information, visit www.KellyMillMSWireless.com The meeting announcement on this website says the meeting is at 6831 Brookfield Road.
The Voice believes the meeting at R2i2, as of 5:15PM.
22 Policy Revisions - too many
At last night's Special Board Meeting (4/23/19) revisions to 22 Board Policies were considered. Why so many?
When you look closely at the structure of Richland 2, I swear you'd think you were looking at the Federal Government.
Hopefully, the meeting was video-recorded, so that voters, taxpayers and parents (and teachers and staff and students) can review "your government" at work. Audio quality can be expected to be considerably better than in the room.
For a little background regarding the revisions to board policies, watch the video of the April 9, 2019 meeting, starting at 1:06:30, when Item 13 on that meeting's Agenda was addressed. Item 13 included eight proposed policy revisions. Even though the Board had the list and contents, Supt. Davis took the time to read each one into the record.
The Acting Chair of the meeting, Vice Chair Elkins- Johnson, proposed that the board examine one policy at a time. When discussion was called for the first revision, Trustee Lindsay Agostini (1:07:39) questioned the District's expectation of a compensation package sufficient to attract "highly-qualified employees" for the premier district in exchange for "adequate" compensation. She suggested there ought to be a (better) balance between expectation and compensation.
To me, that is a very reasonable position. But did any Board member jump into the fray and further challenge the wording in the proposed revision?
Supt. Davis commented that the language came from the School Board Association. That doesn't mean it can't be modified, adjusted, amended, edited, or tinkered with to suit the exact needs and desires of the Richland 2 Board. When Vice Chair Elkins-Johnson asked Supt. Davis if the language could be changed (of course it can), and does he (the superintendent (the staff)) have the "time to do that", he paused and then, somewhat hesitantly, said they could go back and re-visit the language, if that was the "will of the board". Of course he could do that and, of course, he does have the time (or he'd better make the time).
Wait a minute! It's the staff that is proposing the revision. They work for the superintendent. Of course, they can go back and make changes. It doesn't take the "will of the board"; it takes the will of the superintendent.
The Vice Chair looked around the board and asked if it was the will of the board. Well, the way you find out if it's the will of the board is to vote on it. Only Trustee Caution-Parker spoke about it and indicated it wasn't her will. The Vice Chair failed to poll the rest of the rest and assumed it was not the will of the board.
Then Trustee Agostini commented (1:09:45) on the second-to-the-last bullet point in the first revision - "to develop a climate necessary to obtain maximum staff performance and a high level of morale and job satisfaction." She suggested replacing "necessary to obtain" with "to develop a climate which encourages maximum staff performance and a high level of morale and job satisfaction."
Trustee Shadd asked Mrs. Agostini what she sees as the difference. She responded that she was looking for a positive word representing something they are working toward.
The Superintendent effectively squelched Mrs. Agostini's suggestions and got away with it, saying they had a number of policy revision to get through before the end of the school year and, in other words, she shouldn't be so picky with her "warm and fuzzy" suggestions. The superintendent sees himself as a "member" of the board when, in fact, he is not. He is the administrator of the school district - the "hired gun". He works for the Board; he is not on the Board.
Due to overall weakness on the Board itself, the superintendent has been able to raise his influence on the board. The board would benefit by hiring a consultant to explain to them exactly how they should function as elected representatives of the people of Richland School District Two.
While the superintendent is hired to run the district, he does so at the direction (and pleasure) of the board (albeit with a fat and secure contract, I'm sure, that protects him financially, if he encounters the displeasure of the board).
Mrs. Agostini wasn't raising "just" grammatical points. Her points went straight to the heart of the policy. They did relate to content!
Then Mr. Shadd felt he had to jump on the anti-Agostini bandwagon and make a comment about "necessary" and putting the onus on the District to make darn well sure it created such a climate. Is this kicking and shoving versus leading and pulling?
When you watch the video, you'll see Supt. Davis sitting up straight as Mr. Shadd spoke, and you'll see Trustee Caution-Parker having a side conversation with the Vice Chair while Shadd was speaking.
In some cultures there is a motto that reads, "The beatings will continue until morale improves." It seems to me that Mrs. Agostini was trying to avoid that pathway.
OK, so then what happens if/when the policy requirement is not met? Who gets caught in the crosshairs? The staff? The superintendent? The Board? Who is accountable?
Mrs. Agostini then correctly stated that it is the Board's responsibility to write the policy, whether it's the content or the grammar. She reminded the Board that it is the Board's responsibility. Bam! I agree.
Again, there was no vote to determine the will of the board. The Vice Chair just assumed that, because no one spoke up, it was not the majority and not the will of the board. And that was wrong.
When you look closely at the structure of Richland 2, I swear you'd think you were looking at the Federal Government.
Hopefully, the meeting was video-recorded, so that voters, taxpayers and parents (and teachers and staff and students) can review "your government" at work. Audio quality can be expected to be considerably better than in the room.
For a little background regarding the revisions to board policies, watch the video of the April 9, 2019 meeting, starting at 1:06:30, when Item 13 on that meeting's Agenda was addressed. Item 13 included eight proposed policy revisions. Even though the Board had the list and contents, Supt. Davis took the time to read each one into the record.
The Acting Chair of the meeting, Vice Chair Elkins- Johnson, proposed that the board examine one policy at a time. When discussion was called for the first revision, Trustee Lindsay Agostini (1:07:39) questioned the District's expectation of a compensation package sufficient to attract "highly-qualified employees" for the premier district in exchange for "adequate" compensation. She suggested there ought to be a (better) balance between expectation and compensation.
To me, that is a very reasonable position. But did any Board member jump into the fray and further challenge the wording in the proposed revision?
Supt. Davis commented that the language came from the School Board Association. That doesn't mean it can't be modified, adjusted, amended, edited, or tinkered with to suit the exact needs and desires of the Richland 2 Board. When Vice Chair Elkins-Johnson asked Supt. Davis if the language could be changed (of course it can), and does he (the superintendent (the staff)) have the "time to do that", he paused and then, somewhat hesitantly, said they could go back and re-visit the language, if that was the "will of the board". Of course he could do that and, of course, he does have the time (or he'd better make the time).
Wait a minute! It's the staff that is proposing the revision. They work for the superintendent. Of course, they can go back and make changes. It doesn't take the "will of the board"; it takes the will of the superintendent.
The Vice Chair looked around the board and asked if it was the will of the board. Well, the way you find out if it's the will of the board is to vote on it. Only Trustee Caution-Parker spoke about it and indicated it wasn't her will. The Vice Chair failed to poll the rest of the rest and assumed it was not the will of the board.
Then Trustee Agostini commented (1:09:45) on the second-to-the-last bullet point in the first revision - "to develop a climate necessary to obtain maximum staff performance and a high level of morale and job satisfaction." She suggested replacing "necessary to obtain" with "to develop a climate which encourages maximum staff performance and a high level of morale and job satisfaction."
Trustee Shadd asked Mrs. Agostini what she sees as the difference. She responded that she was looking for a positive word representing something they are working toward.
The Superintendent effectively squelched Mrs. Agostini's suggestions and got away with it, saying they had a number of policy revision to get through before the end of the school year and, in other words, she shouldn't be so picky with her "warm and fuzzy" suggestions. The superintendent sees himself as a "member" of the board when, in fact, he is not. He is the administrator of the school district - the "hired gun". He works for the Board; he is not on the Board.
Due to overall weakness on the Board itself, the superintendent has been able to raise his influence on the board. The board would benefit by hiring a consultant to explain to them exactly how they should function as elected representatives of the people of Richland School District Two.
While the superintendent is hired to run the district, he does so at the direction (and pleasure) of the board (albeit with a fat and secure contract, I'm sure, that protects him financially, if he encounters the displeasure of the board).
Mrs. Agostini wasn't raising "just" grammatical points. Her points went straight to the heart of the policy. They did relate to content!
Then Mr. Shadd felt he had to jump on the anti-Agostini bandwagon and make a comment about "necessary" and putting the onus on the District to make darn well sure it created such a climate. Is this kicking and shoving versus leading and pulling?
When you watch the video, you'll see Supt. Davis sitting up straight as Mr. Shadd spoke, and you'll see Trustee Caution-Parker having a side conversation with the Vice Chair while Shadd was speaking.
In some cultures there is a motto that reads, "The beatings will continue until morale improves." It seems to me that Mrs. Agostini was trying to avoid that pathway.
OK, so then what happens if/when the policy requirement is not met? Who gets caught in the crosshairs? The staff? The superintendent? The Board? Who is accountable?
Mrs. Agostini then correctly stated that it is the Board's responsibility to write the policy, whether it's the content or the grammar. She reminded the Board that it is the Board's responsibility. Bam! I agree.
Again, there was no vote to determine the will of the board. The Vice Chair just assumed that, because no one spoke up, it was not the majority and not the will of the board. And that was wrong.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Today's Special Board Meeting
The conference room was set up differently today, and a U-shaped table arrangement greeted the five (yes, Five - only five) members of the community who showed up for the 2019-2020 Budget General Fund Update and the revisions to numerous Policies.
Once again, sound amplification in the room was a problem. The U-shaped table arrangement was in the center of the room, and side chairs were placed neatly against a wall. As Board members talked to one another and asked questions of the ten staff members present, they often forgot to punch the button to turn on their microphones and, even when they did, their voices could not be heard.
Do they care whether they are heard? By all appearances, they do not.
I heard about 50% of the presentation by the staffer who explained the budget. I heard none of the questions asked by Board members, and none of the comments of staff seated, because their backs were to the community members and they didn't use the microphone.
After about 50 minutes, the Board moved on to the Policy revisions. At this point I was reminded of how a zebra came out. A committee was formed to design a horse. After they struggled and struggled, the end result was a zebra.
The Board nitpicked a few policies, and it was time for me to leave. I noticed the two deputy sheriffs on duty in the room today and thought, "What a waste!" But I'm glad they were there to protect us five community members (at least three of whom were teachers) from the Board and staff. Thanks, Deputies.
The policy revisions brought to the Board should have been ready for approval. Committees should have taken care of all the nitpicking. Maybe that's too much to ask.
Consider just this one - Policy LA "Education Agency Relations Goals and Objectives"
Three paragraphs were scrapped. This new one is proposed.
"The board will strive to establish and maintain positive working relationships with other public and private organizations that contribute to the educational process. This cooperation extends to the South Carolina School Boards Association, the South Carolina Department of Education, the National School Boards Association and the United States Department of Education."
Any consultant looking at that would shake his head and utter works that ought not be printed here.
"The board will strive to establish and maintain positive working relationships ...?" NO.
Better: "This board will establish and maintain positive working relationships ..."
That is a goal toward which you can measure progress. Why give a prize for "striving"? But maybe that's how education is these days. Everybody gets a blue ribbon. Just for showing up.
Maybe Richland 2 should hire me to take a red pencil to their policies. The whole revision plan is just a "make work" deal to spend money and keep people employed. I hope there was some Excedrin on the table by the coffee, soft drinks and box dinner that was set up for the board!
Once again, sound amplification in the room was a problem. The U-shaped table arrangement was in the center of the room, and side chairs were placed neatly against a wall. As Board members talked to one another and asked questions of the ten staff members present, they often forgot to punch the button to turn on their microphones and, even when they did, their voices could not be heard.
Do they care whether they are heard? By all appearances, they do not.
I heard about 50% of the presentation by the staffer who explained the budget. I heard none of the questions asked by Board members, and none of the comments of staff seated, because their backs were to the community members and they didn't use the microphone.
After about 50 minutes, the Board moved on to the Policy revisions. At this point I was reminded of how a zebra came out. A committee was formed to design a horse. After they struggled and struggled, the end result was a zebra.
The Board nitpicked a few policies, and it was time for me to leave. I noticed the two deputy sheriffs on duty in the room today and thought, "What a waste!" But I'm glad they were there to protect us five community members (at least three of whom were teachers) from the Board and staff. Thanks, Deputies.
The policy revisions brought to the Board should have been ready for approval. Committees should have taken care of all the nitpicking. Maybe that's too much to ask.
Consider just this one - Policy LA "Education Agency Relations Goals and Objectives"
Three paragraphs were scrapped. This new one is proposed.
"The board will strive to establish and maintain positive working relationships with other public and private organizations that contribute to the educational process. This cooperation extends to the South Carolina School Boards Association, the South Carolina Department of Education, the National School Boards Association and the United States Department of Education."
Any consultant looking at that would shake his head and utter works that ought not be printed here.
"The board will strive to establish and maintain positive working relationships ...?" NO.
Better: "This board will establish and maintain positive working relationships ..."
That is a goal toward which you can measure progress. Why give a prize for "striving"? But maybe that's how education is these days. Everybody gets a blue ribbon. Just for showing up.
Maybe Richland 2 should hire me to take a red pencil to their policies. The whole revision plan is just a "make work" deal to spend money and keep people employed. I hope there was some Excedrin on the table by the coffee, soft drinks and box dinner that was set up for the board!
May 1 sick-out?
How will Richland 2 deal with teachers who knock off for the day, so that they can parade about the Capitol grounds demanding higher pay?
SC4Ed is organizing a rally for Wednesday, May 1.
I say, if a teacher is scheduled to work that day (and who isn't?), then he or she had better be in the classroom - all day. If they want to protest or march, they can do it on their own time.
And to hear them tell it, they don't have any of their "own time".
Will Supt. Davis put out a Memo - "Be at work or else!"?
The little kiddies need to be educated; right? Buses will run; cafeterias will pump out the meals. The students will be there.
Will all the teachers be at work?
They can write letters, email their state reps and make phone calls (after work, of course). The State email system works 24/7. Use it.
SC4Ed is organizing a rally for Wednesday, May 1.
I say, if a teacher is scheduled to work that day (and who isn't?), then he or she had better be in the classroom - all day. If they want to protest or march, they can do it on their own time.
And to hear them tell it, they don't have any of their "own time".
Will Supt. Davis put out a Memo - "Be at work or else!"?
The little kiddies need to be educated; right? Buses will run; cafeterias will pump out the meals. The students will be there.
Will all the teachers be at work?
They can write letters, email their state reps and make phone calls (after work, of course). The State email system works 24/7. Use it.
Monday, April 22, 2019
How important is grammar? spelling? pronunciation?
A number of years ago I was listening to an NPR program, and the guest that day was David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker. Much of the program was devoted to the memory of Eleanor Gould (1917-2005), and two comments of Remnick have stayed with me.
Remnick's February 2005 column, titled "Miss Gould", can be found here.
In today's schools, including Richland 2 schools, how particular are teachers about grammar, spelling and punctuation? I would ask, "How picky are they?" And does it matter?
Years ago in an elementary school in northern Illinois I visited a third-grade classroom. I heard the teacher say something like, "Him and I went to the library." I was shocked. As a visitor to the classroom, I didn't say anything. But three weeks later, during an IEP, that same teacher said something like "He gave the book to him and I." I remember thinking, "We're paying that teacher???"
On another day a teacher used the word "hyperbole", pronouncing it hy'-per-bowl. Seriously?
Is it any wonder that students don't learn good grammar?
Are sentence structure and diagramming taught today?
Remnick wrote that The New Yorker created the title of Grammarian for Eleanor Gould. Read the article linked above. Remnick included this sentence in his 2005 column: "Miss Gould once found what she believed were four grammatical errors in a three-word sentence." And "She could find a solecism in a Stop sign."
Solecism? Do you know this word? Can you pronounce it? Can you define it? Do you look up words you don't know?
Do your ears perk up when you hear a word mispronounced? Richland 2 has two Board members who mispronounce "ask". Does anyone correct them? Should someone correct them? Are they not an example for today's students? Is there a higher standard to which they should hold themselves and, in so doing, invite the gentle correction?
Being literate is important. Speaking correctly is important. Writing correctly is important. The time to learn it is in elementary school. The time to correct it is in middle and high school. Colleges should not have to teach "remedial" classes. Students needing remedial classes should never have been graduated from high school in the first place.
Question: Did you look up "solecism"?
Remnick's February 2005 column, titled "Miss Gould", can be found here.
In today's schools, including Richland 2 schools, how particular are teachers about grammar, spelling and punctuation? I would ask, "How picky are they?" And does it matter?
Years ago in an elementary school in northern Illinois I visited a third-grade classroom. I heard the teacher say something like, "Him and I went to the library." I was shocked. As a visitor to the classroom, I didn't say anything. But three weeks later, during an IEP, that same teacher said something like "He gave the book to him and I." I remember thinking, "We're paying that teacher???"
On another day a teacher used the word "hyperbole", pronouncing it hy'-per-bowl. Seriously?
Is it any wonder that students don't learn good grammar?
Are sentence structure and diagramming taught today?
Remnick wrote that The New Yorker created the title of Grammarian for Eleanor Gould. Read the article linked above. Remnick included this sentence in his 2005 column: "Miss Gould once found what she believed were four grammatical errors in a three-word sentence." And "She could find a solecism in a Stop sign."
Solecism? Do you know this word? Can you pronounce it? Can you define it? Do you look up words you don't know?
Do your ears perk up when you hear a word mispronounced? Richland 2 has two Board members who mispronounce "ask". Does anyone correct them? Should someone correct them? Are they not an example for today's students? Is there a higher standard to which they should hold themselves and, in so doing, invite the gentle correction?
Being literate is important. Speaking correctly is important. Writing correctly is important. The time to learn it is in elementary school. The time to correct it is in middle and high school. Colleges should not have to teach "remedial" classes. Students needing remedial classes should never have been graduated from high school in the first place.
Question: Did you look up "solecism"?
How does the Dress Code read?
School Board policies across the country are being scrutinized, as students and parents begin paying closer attention to them.
For example, in Wisconsin a student at Markesan (Wisc.) High School was punished "for wearing t-shirts with non-violent, non-threatening images of firearms on them, as well as t-shirts with the word 'gun' on them." (Source: WisconsinCarry, Inc.). "In November 2018 a Federal judge denied Markesan's motion to dismiss and GRANTED [sic] a preliminary injunction sought against the principal and district forcing them to allow the student to wear the shirts while the case is litigated." (ibid.)
See this article in Milwaukee's Journal Sentinel.
Cases elsewhere involve NRA t-shirts and MAGA caps and clothing.
The Richland 2 School Board Policy JICA reads,
For example, in Wisconsin a student at Markesan (Wisc.) High School was punished "for wearing t-shirts with non-violent, non-threatening images of firearms on them, as well as t-shirts with the word 'gun' on them." (Source: WisconsinCarry, Inc.). "In November 2018 a Federal judge denied Markesan's motion to dismiss and GRANTED [sic] a preliminary injunction sought against the principal and district forcing them to allow the student to wear the shirts while the case is litigated." (ibid.)
See this article in Milwaukee's Journal Sentinel.
Cases elsewhere involve NRA t-shirts and MAGA caps and clothing.
The Richland 2 School Board Policy JICA reads,
Policy JICA Student Dress/Articles/Displays
Issued 8/15
"Richland School District Two students are expected to dress, be groomed, and otherwise conduct themselves in such a way as to not distract or cause disruption in the educational program or orderly operation of the school. Personal appearance and conduct of students should promote health and safety, contribute to a climate conducive to teaching and learning, and project a positive image of the district to the community. School administrators will be responsible for determining violations of this policy. The principal reserves the right to amend any provisions that he/she deems to be in the best interest of the student or the educational process. The board will review the policy for any changes needed on a periodic basis.
"The administration will make the final judgment on the appropriateness of a student's clothing, appearance, and/or display of symbols, messages, or statements on school grounds and reserves the right to prohibit students from wearing any articles of clothing or other items or displaying any symbols, messages, or statements which lead to or may foreseeably result in the disruption of or interference with the school environment."
When you read the second paragraph of Policy JICA, how many readers quickly see the First Amendment problem?
How many schools are there in District 2? There are 20 elementary schools, seven middle schools and five high schools. Add the magnet schools, Blythewood Academy, R2i2 and others. There could be 35+ "administrations" imposing what each hopes will be District Policy.
If a Principal can "amend any provisions", is there really a District Policy?
There is plenty of attention in the media to the liberal bias in our country's schools, with some estimates as high as 85% of the teachers being left-leaning. I'm thinking the gun issue here.
But what about clothing? When a well-spoken Blythewood High School student says that leggings and crop tops are not distracting, is she pinning a target on her back for speaking out? Only time will tell.
What was, or will be, the Board's response to the student who spoke out on April 9?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)