Report Inappropriate Comments

John, you don't have the chronology right. A short term committee was formed from the full committee and they voted to look at junior highs because that's what admin felt was the best area was to look at. We voted to do that based on the info presented to us initially. After meeting and asking questions and gathering more data (independently in some cases) some members saw flaws in this approach and saw the ripple effects of closing a junior high and asked for the process to be slowed down so other options could be explored. The short term committee consisted of 7 members who worked in, or for, Admin and three parents so you don't have to be a Mensa member to see how the vote would go. Once the short term committee met, their decision went before the full facilities planning committee where it passed 8-7. In case you didn't know, had that vote gone 8-7 against closing, Administration was still going present the short term committee's decision to the school committee. You beginning to see a pattern here? Like you, I work in the private sector but I would not propose eliminating an asset unless it was done so as part of a long term plan. That's the issue here, NOT wanting to keep schools open. What Admin presented at the public hearings was the Strategic Vision of the district. Your a smart guy - that's not the same as a long term plan. Yes, schools have to close, I don't dispute that but you don't shoot from the hip to do it. Developing a plan isn't rocket science. grades K-8 can be done at once and thn you turn to the high schools. And, you revisit the plan every x number of years based on the enrollment data. Lastly, I'd point out that none of the data provided to Administration regarding elementary and junior high capacities in the middle school model as well as data that disputed the actual number of staff reduced by closing Gorton, was refuted by Admin.

From: Schools need to make cuts, but it won’t be Gorton yet

Please explain the inappropriate content below.