Monday Update - Dispelling Rumors
State High Vision
Monday Update
May 7, 2007
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” John F. Kennedy
____________________________________________________________________________
On Thursday, May 3, 2007, we witnessed a press conference by members of the SCASD board of directors who are running for re-election. Held on the steps of the high school, the press conference was another example of how this board has deflected from the issues that concern the public and have used unsubstantiated rumor and personal attack to minimize the concerns of their constituents. Throughout this debate, they have thrown out accusations without proof to substantiate their claims.
Let’s look at some of the rumors that have been perpetuated by the board throughout since the public asked them to “Stop and Re-Evaluate” the $100 million high school renovation plan.
Rumor: State High Vision orchestrated the student protest on May 1, 2007.
The board makes these allegations without having met with the students, without having talked with them or their parents! Talk about making assumptions!!!! The students walked out of class in protest and demanded a meeting with the board to raise their concerns. The board has scheduled that meeting for May 18, 2007 - AFTER THE ELECTIONS. At no time has SHV encouraged students to walk out, do a sick out or disrupt the school day in any way. Of the 33 high school aged children of the executive committee of SHV, only 6 participated in the protest and none were organizers of the event. That means only 6 students out of the 100-150 who protested were “our kids.” Rather than listen to yet another group of constituents who oppose this project, the board again dismisses citizen concerns and suggests untoward motives.
This rumor demonstrates how out of touch this board is with the kids of today – only ONE member of the board has children who attend school in the district. To quote the parent of one child who was involved “I can’t even get my kid to clean her room. Do they really think I could talk her into skipping school and taking a detention for something that she doesn’t support?”
Rumor: State High Vision opposes the renovation plan so individual members can gain financially.
The board launched this rumor almost immediately when the community began to organize and ask questions to which they had NO ANSWERS. In December of 2005 when SHV was formed, CDT reporter Adam Smeltz investigated land ownership of the areas around suggested sites for either a new school or second school (including Whitehall Road, Circleville Farm, etc.) and found NO links to any members of SHV but never reported it in the newspaper.
The board has been particularly critical of Paul Suhey and has suggested that his motives for opposing the renovation on Westerly Parkway are financial. Fact: Paul and Carolyn Suhey are long-time members of the community and have 4 children, 2 of whom are currently in school at the high school. Paul is a graduate of SCAHS and his family has lived here for 3 generations. They were instrumental in raising PRIVATE DOLLARS (total: $754,000) to renovate the turf at Memorial Field and are booster club supporters of several athletic teams (both boys and girls). Dr. Suhey has volunteered his time as team doctor for the SCAHS football team for the past 10 years and his orthopedic practice donates the time/support of 2/5 athletic trainers on contract with the district. Working with several other local business professionals, Dr. Suhey raised the issue of a new building/new site for comparison when it was clear that the district was not looking at any alternatives to the 2 building renovation plan. At the time, they were told that a 2 school plan (dividing the high school into 2 separate schools) was out of the question. The district has subsequently used the limited feasibility study of a new building/new site to both justify their MEGA SCHOOL and to suggest their project is fiscally conservative. Paul and Carolyn individually testified at the Act 34 hearing, saying that they personally support a 2 school program after having heard the research on large schools versus small schools.
If this is how the district treats those who support the district and want to be involved with the education of their children, we are left to question if development and private fundraising dollars are what they could be.
Rumor: State High Vision is run by big business and local developers.
The $100 million plan is opposed by parents, teachers, students, retirees as well as business professionals. Financial support has come from all pockets of the community; $20 checks from retirees, collection baskets at events, in-kind donations, as well as checks from business owners. The district and the newspaper have perpetuated these rumors without ever talking to the developers or business owners in question.
On the other hand, construction manager Poole Anderson Construction and architect L. Robert Kimball and Associates were initially brought in to the high school project on a $25 million rehab of the North Building that has escalated to a $100 million high school project. Their profits have escalated as well. We also see the re-election campaign of those already on the board being supported by a local developer and by the largest advertising firm in the area.
Rumor: State High Vision doesn’t know what they want.
We know exactly what we want – we want a quality decision on our school facilities that will take us into the next several decades. State High Vision has intentionally NOT supported any specific solution to the high school facilities issue because to do so without the proper research and analysis would perpetuate the board’s bad decision making. Without a thorough analysis of all options, a tax impact comparison, engagement of the community and the teachers and students, we would be JUST LIKE THE BOARD if we suggested an alternative before gathering information. Good decision-making involves setting goals, examining alternatives, looking at long-term impact and engaging stakeholders.
It is important to understand how the board has eliminated options without study: they have outright dismissed a 2 school model and then put a “study” on the website a year later; they used architects already on board to design their $100 MM plan to dismiss a new building/new site option (only looking at one site) which may have potentially been cheaper; they dismissed Circleville Farm within 12 hours of it being suggested by SHV (a move that would likely have brought the neighbors at Circleville Farm to the table); they dismissed the Sensible Solution plan which would likely save money after “analysis” by architects who would lose money if the scope of the project was reduced; they frequently ask NO QUESTIONS. This community is smart enough to understand that they are being manipulated.
Rumor: State High Vision is backed by the Republican Party.
State High Vision is comprised of Republicans, Democrats and Independents. We have received no endorsement or financial support from any political party. Emails, letters and information have been sent out to anyone and everyone who would listen to us including legislators on both parties.
Rumor: State High Vision has distributed misinformation.
We have repeatedly asked the board to identify what in our materials, either on our website or in this weekly mailing, that they believe is “misinformation.” They are unable or unwilling to do so. We have used analysis, research and information from local experts like Dr. William Boyd, Professor of Education at PSU, to demonstrate the flaws in this plan. Much of the information (i.e. the board made their decision in only 28 days and the week before the May 2005 primary) cannot be refuted because it is fact. Our committee has worked tirelessly reviewing documents, attending meetings, gathering information, reviewing tapes to make sure our information is factual.
On the other hand, we continue to hear Dr. Hendrickson and other members of the board DISMISS research i.e. safety and small schools and MISREPRESENT the abundance of literature that says smaller schools are better. On the radio last week, Dr. Hendrickson said “there is no such thing as a profile of a school shooter” despite the fact that he requested a copy of our reference materials including a 1998 FBI report called PROFILE OF A SCHOOL SHOOTER as well as several other documents which support smaller schools from the US Dept. of Education, the US Attorney General and the National Center for Education Statistics. He erroneously purports that the research supports large schools. This literature review is selective. Acknowledging that larger schools have been linked to higher math test scores, test scores are just one component of successful schools. What about connectedness, opportunities to participate in activities, involvement, interaction, engagement with teachers, etc.?
Just who is distributing misinformation?
Rumor: State High Vision has used bullying tactics
This is the silliest rumor of all! What bullying tactics? Loud voices and a demand for answers?
What has made the difference with this issue is the fact that the community stayed with it. In the past, this board has pretended to hear the community, patted them on the head and then sent them away. Things like the school calendar, curriculum issues, etc. have been raised by concerned citizens who received patronizing and condescending treatment from the board. Citizens go home feeling frustrated and dismissed. This issue was too important for us to be told to SIT DOWN. We stayed with it and as a result, the board calls us bullies. Look at the facts. Citizens sit and wait hours to be heard, are made to stand at a mike and ask all questions without the ability for follow up, are limited to 3 minutes and are gaveled. Who ARE the bullies in this debate?
Note Dr. McCracken’s reference to “townies” in identifying students who take vocational technical classes. Would this reference pass the district’s own anti-harassment policy? Could this name-calling be considered bullying?
Rumor: State High Vision has delayed the high school project resulting in lost money for the district.
While we would like to take credit for delaying the project, unfortunately it’s been the board’s own bad planning that has caused any delays to date. Not getting traffic or geo-technical reports before designing the building. Hearing about sinkholes after they’ve already paid the architects to design the mega school. Canceled Act 34 hearings because of not following procedure. Property easements and eminent domain that come 2 years after design. Four and five addenda added to the bid documents because contractors can’t respond to the limited information in the documents. 2 extensions to opening the bids. State High Vision has TRIED to slow the project down but the board has ignored our cries…thankfully, they are stepping on their own feet as they rush this project through.
Rumor: State High Vision wants to include creationism in the curriculum, supports George Bush and is responsible for the war in Iraq.
Our power in numbers, strength in arguments, effective reasoning and research supported position have resulted in the board launching scare tactics. Their supporters have tried to link us to everything but the kitchen sink! We have looked at the high school project and it’s impact on our children, the district and our taxes. That’s it.
IMPORTANT MEETINGS FOR THIS WEEK!
TONIGHT!!!! Monday, May 7 – 7:30 PM in the Mt. Nittany Middle School Library. Regular meeting of the SCASD board. Please try to attend as this is our last school board meeting before the election. Note that this meeting will not be live on CNET as they are holding it at Mt. Nittany.
May 8th - Bid Opening - The twice-postponed bid opening is scheduled for May 8th, but no time or venue has yet been announced by the district. Could we be looking at yet another delay? Let's hope not! Securing bids is one of the most basic and fundamental processes in any major construction project. The fact that the opening date has been postponed twice at the request of confused contractors is a very bad sign and is symptomatic of poor project management.
Professionals from throughout the community have warned the board over the last year that escalation of major components of construction costs (steel, fuel, copper, labor, etc.) have far outstripped the figure allowed for in their project budget. The board was also asked what they would do if came at say $115 to $120 million, a figure not unreasonable in today's market. They don't have an answer. Will they raise the project budget further, or will they make major cuts in project scope? Remember, the easy cost savings have already been taken out during "Value Engineering.”.
Let's keep our eyes peeled for May 8th when the market will tell us what this Taj Mahal will really cost to build. Further delay of this important event could be seen as an attempt to push the possibility of hearing any bad news out past the primary election date.