The News Herald, True To Form

We have all come accustom to the fact that the News Herald rarely reports on anything of any importance. An occasional wedding or birthday announcement, maybe a grand opening and once a year, letters to Santa. But ever so often they try their hand at political opinion writing.

In the 1/15/09 edition someone from the News Herald staff took a shot at offering their view of the adopted building plan for Loudon County schools. Of course the op-ed was anonymous and likely for good reason.

The editorial from it's title and through out, attempts to have the reader believe that the adopted plan wasn't really the plan the board wanted even though it passed by a 7-3 margin. According to the editorial, the board rejected the director of schools proposal. This is of course wrong. The adopted plan includes a new K-12 school in Greenback. That was recommended by the director. The plan includes combining the old Loudon Elementary and Fort Loudon Middle School into one facility. That was recommended by the director. The adopted plan includes modifications/expansion to the cafeteria at Philadelphia. That was recommended by the director. The only difference between the adopted plan and the director's recommendation was the addition of a new middle school in Loudon rather than a K-8 facility.

While all ten board members and the superintendent had good ideas and suggestions for the building plan, we all knew that not every idea could be adopted. However we all pledged that whatever the final adopted plan was whether we individually voted for it or not, once adopted, we would all support it 100%.

It's unfortunate that the News Herald has made the decision not only not to be supportive of the adopted plan but to attempt to create dissention and division in the community over the adopted building plan with disinformation and out right lies. The News Herald should stick with wedding/birthday announcements and grand openings and leave the work of the people to those the people elected to do the work.

Below is the News Herald's editorial with my rebuttal (in blue) paragraph by paragraph and at the bottom of the page is the uninterrupted editorial. Was the News Herald helpful or hurtful? You be the judge.

School building plan creates tension on board

Superintendent’s proposal pushed to the side

Even the title of the editorial is false and misleading. The board voted 7-3 for the proposed plan which included much of the superintendent's proposal. Nothing was "pushed to the side."   

Loudon County School Board officials finally reached a decision on a county-wide building plan that was approved by a majority vote, even though it appears not every “aye” carried with it full support of the plan.  It calls for approximately $35 million to be spent building and renovating the schools in the system.

A statement such as "not every “aye” carried with it full support of the plan" is ridiculous. "Aye" by definition indicates ones support for a motion. The adopted plan did not call for "$35 million to be spent." The $30-$35 million was only a possible estimate all depending on the final building plan.

Some school officials and board members, led by Superintendent Wayne Honeycutt, had advocated building pre-kindergarten through eighth grade schools, though that idea was put aside when board members voted in favor of a modified plan that included a separate middle school.

Only Superintendent Wayne Honeycutt and board member Gary Ubben had advocated the Pre K - 8 building program. There was never broad support for this plan.

Board member Gary Ubben, who voted against the plan, said according to some parents, middle schools are favored by some in the community because it creates a situation more conducive to middle school football programs. “Are we about to spend $17 to $20 million for a middle school farm team? “ he asked during the meeting. Athletics are important, but they are only one aspect of public academics, and may not be the best gauge for determining building needs.

Ubben actually stated that he had talked with only one parent who had raised the question of a middle school football program. The News Herald editorial conspicuously failed to include the response of other board members to Ubben's statement.  Several board members responded that Ubben's statement was ridiculous.

At no time during any of the meetings had the prospect of middle school football ever been mentioned. Had the middle school wanted a football program, a new building was not needed. A football program could have been started at anytime. Interestingly, Loudon currently has a very successful midget football program that they take great pride in. The creation of a competing middle school football program would only weaken the midget football program. Given the success of the Loudon High School football program it appears the current system works pretty well.

Some school board members publicly stated they believed the pre-k through 8 model was better for the county, but voted in favor of the other plan because of pressure from parents who requested a middle school. Board member Larry Proaps said he felt obligated to give the voters what they want in a building plan even though he favored a pre-k through grade 8 model.

Only two board members other than Ubben made any statements that pre-k through 8 model might be better. But again the majority supported the adopted plan. There is no evidence that the pre-k through 8 model has any advantages to providing a quality education not to mention the prohibitive cost to convert our system to pre-k-8 model. In fact the vast majority of school systems across the state and country are now and for many, many years have been the elementary, middle and high school configuration.

A google search will quickly show that there is no definitive proof as to which configuration is better. The general consensus is that the k-8 configuration may work well in one community while the elementary, middle and high school configuration works better in a different community. The choice should always be a community based decision.  Blount County is currently in the process of converting back to elementary, middle and high school configuration away from k-8.

The plan that was approved was not the only one on the table during the meeting, though it was the only one considered.  Board member Van Shaver presented his plan ahead of Honeycutt’s, and its passing prevented discussion and a vote on the superintendent’s ideas.

This one really infuriates me. The adopted plan was not my plan. The plan I proposed was a combination of all the various plans that had been discussed at previous meetings. It incorporated the ideas that had been put forth by several different board members and the superintendent and included the proposals that had had the most support at the building workshop meetings. There was absolutely no need in debating or voting on options that had gained no support at the workshop meetings. Anyone who had bothered to attend the previous meetings to discuss the building plans could have determined which suggestions had support of the board.

County Commissioner Wayne Gardin questioned whether the board even entertained what Honeycutt had to offer. Honeycutt was hired to lead the school system and his proposal should have at least been given some consideration.

Not only was Mr. Honeycutt's recommendations entertained, most of his recommendations were incorporated into the final adopted plan. There is a grand division between the County Commission and the Board Of Education. Both bodies must and do work well together for the benefit of the county. Both bodies have distinct yet different duties. In the matter of building programs, it is the duty and responsibility of the board of education to determine the building needs and configurations for the school system. It is the duty and responsibility of the commission to determine if the building plan is financially feasible and how to pay for a building program.

It is the hope of the board of education that the commission will embrace the adopted building plan and secure the appropriate funding to make the plan a reality.

Educators, administrators and people in the community have strong feelings about all aspects of their children’s educations, including what type of building should be used.  There are many systems that work, though some may work more efficiently than others.

One argument in favor of pre-k through grade-8 schools revolves around the idea that smaller schools build stronger communities.  The amount of students in each grade remains lower when they are spread out among several schools, instead of being centralized together in middle school.

The adopted building plan is a result of input from educators, administrators and people in the community. Each board member's vote should have reflected those very attributes. Myself and I'm sure other elected officials believe in government from the bottom up. Meaning, elected officials take direction from the citizens not the other way around.

According to Ubben it has also been proven that students do better academically when they are not asked to switch campuses as often. “The first year after a child moves to a new school their tests scores drop,” he said. The anxiety of switching schools and adapting to a new environment make it more difficult for children to adjust, he said.

Mr. Ubben's statement is just factually wrong. There is no consensus that any particular configuration is any better than the other. While there are those who maintain that some children struggle with the transition from elementary to middle school, there are just as many who maintain that the transition of a child from a K-8 system to to high school is far more traumatic. Once again, community based decisions are the best approach. 

Which model is best remains in question, though it seems clear that members of the school board may not have voted on what they thought was best in every case.  How much influence they had from members of the community and fellow board members is also unclear.  They apparently were swayed enough to not only vote in favor of a middle school, but also to abandon the opinion of Honeycutt without the benefit of putting his plan to a vote. Only after his plan was officially rejected by a vote in the meeting should the board members have moved on to consider other options.

Once again the writer of the anonymous News Herald editorial attempts to disparage the the members of the board by questioning our motives and for that matter our intelligence. Each member of the board voted the way they felt would best serve our community based on all the information available to us. To accuse us of casting a vote based on anything less than our own personal convections is beyond the pale and I for one take offense to that. 

The actual plans for the school system are still not completely ready to go before the commission.  County Commission members who attended the meeting said it is necessary to provide the commission with actual figures before they can vote on it.  The commission will have the final say on what gets built with county funds.

This last paragraph is the only part of the editorial with any validity. County commission will ultimately have the final say, not on what is built but how the cost will be paid. Hopefully this is a building plan that we can all support.

School building plan creates tension on board

Superintendent’s proposal pushed to the side

Loudon County School Board officials finally reached a decision on a county-wide building plan that was approved by a majority vote, even though it appears not every “aye” carried with it full support of the plan.  It calls for approximately $35 million to be spent building and renovating the schools in the system.

Some school officials and board members, led by Superintendent Wayne Honeycutt, had advocated building pre-kindergarten through eighth grade schools, though that idea was put aside when board members voted in favor of a modified plan that included a separate middle school.

Board member Gary Ubben, who voted against the plan, said according to some parents, middle schools are favored by some in the community because it creates a situation more conducive to middle school football programs.

“Are we about to spend $17 to $20 million for a middle school farm team? “ he asked during the meeting.

Athletics are important, but they are only one aspect of public academics, and may not be the best gauge for determining building needs.

Some school board members publicly stated they believed the pre-k through 8 model was better for the county, but voted in favor of the other plan because of pressure from parents who requested a middle school.

Board member Larry Proaps said he felt obligated to give the voters what they want in a building plan even though he favored a pre-k through grade 8 model.

The plan that was approved was not the only one on the table during the meeting, though it was the only one considered.  Board member Van Shaver presented his plan ahead of Honeycutt’s, and its passing prevented discussion and a vote on the superintendent’s ideas.

County Commissioner Wayne Gardin questioned whether the board even entertained what Honeycutt had to offer.

Honeycutt was hired to lead the school system and his proposal should have at least been given some consideration.

Educators, administrators and people in the community have strong feelings about all aspects of their children’s educations, including what type of building should be used.  There are many systems that work, though some may work more efficiently than others.

One argument in favor of pre-k through grade-8 schools revolves around the idea that smaller schools build stronger communities.  The amount of students in each grade remains lower when they are spread out among several schools, instead of being centralized together in middle school.

According to Ubben it has also been proven that students do better academically when they are not asked to switch campuses as often.

“The first year after a child moves to a new school their tests scores drop,” he said.

The anxiety of switching schools and adapting to a new environment make it more difficult for children to adjust, he said.

Which model is best remains in question, though it seems clear that members of the school board may not have voted on what they thought was best in every case.  How much influence they had from members of the community and fellow board members is also unclear.  They apparently were swayed enough to not only vote in favor of a middle school, but also to abandon the opinion of Honeycutt without the benefit of putting his plan to a vote.

Only after his plan was officially rejected by a vote in the meeting should the board members have moved on to consider other options.

The actual plans for the school system are still not completely ready to go before the commission.  County Commission members who attended the meeting said it is necessary to provide the commission with actual figures before they can vote on it.  The commission will have the final say on what gets built with county funds

BACK
1/19/09