Vote “No” to Increased Budgets
by Clyde Baldwin, Member, CCS Board

Dear Charlotters,
As  a  beginning  note, I  suggest that you pay close attention to the information, facts and figures that have been presented – and  then vote against the bonds. When it is appropriate to support the bonds this information will be useful. There has been some excellent footwork done by two of the world’s premier detail geeks, Lynne Jaunich and Patrice Machavern. There may be some confusion about oil bills and payback time  for a wood-chip burner but, in the end, we’re on the right track. I happen to believe that the wood chip burner makes sense – assuming the ability to solve discharge problems – and that the payback (financial and otherwise) will improve with time. But not at this time.
I noted earlier that this is not a good time to sign off on between $2.8 and $4 million; this has not changed. Any benefit to be derived from hope of getting good bids as a function of contractors’ desire to work or the momentary availability of grants does not outweigh this consideration. It’s still like going into a store displaying a SALE sign, spending a lot of money, and then talking about how much you saved. You didn’t save anything – you can argue about whether you spent less than you might have.
Another note – someone is going to suggest that not passing the bonds represents not supporting education or, perhaps, punishing children for the shortcomings of the adults in the community. Neither is the case. We support education to the tune of $7 million-plus. There is a difference between punishing and making it clear that before we move on to the next big thing - construction - we should achieve mastery over the essentials – education.
  Finally, the faint of heart should not read past this point. Nor should those who think that excellence in education is achieved by the simple function of connecting the dots of endless and often pointless meetings, grand statements, filling in formulaic rubrics, paying lip-service to stakeholders or judging the school on the basis of NECAP or NAEP results.
Which brings us to the distance between where our school is – very good - and where it  should be – excellent – and who it is who is responsible for seeing that the school travels that distance. In other words: what is the point of having a school board, how do we get outside the box of conventional logic regarding school administration and funding, and how does the community prevail upon the board to make - not talk about – necessary changes?
The short answer is to make it emphatically clear that there is an expectation of performance connected with funding  budget increases.
An interesting and predictable pattern prevails in boardsmanship. People come onto the board with a list of objectives – whether they admit it or not – and then encounter the inevitable heat that is associated with rocking boats and rattling cages and generally back away. What happens next is usually a proliferation of committees concentrating on either arcane philosophical statements that most people are not aware exist and/or don’t pay any attention to anyway, community forums and grand statements, reviews of bus ridership and, from time to time, construction projects. In addition to this we are – apparently – going to decide that CCS is actually a K-4, 5-8 school and needs co-principals. This is a lame and unmanageable concept, an attempt to solve the problems that the board does not have the courage to simply solve. This is a perfect example of reinventing the educational wheel to no meaningful end and having to spend the time to evolve a whole new set of protocols to accommodate the structure.
I’ve said before that the board is not a booster club, a popularity contest or a hobby. The board has three roles. First, raise money. Second, stay out of the way of things that work. Third, through the administration, see to it that what needs to change DOES change. It is NOT one of our roles to engage in affectations. In the case of the difference between very good and excellent it is disingenuous not to attend to the needs of the children not covered in the very good part - as in higher performance in  math, reading, writing - or wherever the need might be. Part of this is distinguishing between a mile-wide-and-an-inch-deep and a mile-deep-and-an-inch-wide: priorities.
This board is currently engaged in this proliferation of tangential, nonessential and unfocused activities. It looks good and  sounds impressive. Some members have dragged out stuff that even I never heard of, or forgot if I did. These activities do not address the central issues that have persisted for years. Consequently, because the board won’t rein itself in, the community needs to exercise some control.
Not too long ago I sat in a meeting and witnessed a thing that I have never seen before in 18 years – a statement that local/district administration clearly understood that the community wanted distinct and meaningful change and that our current efforts in a particular area clearly were not  satisfactory to the community was greeted  with applause. This from a larger number of people than the number whose special-interest lobbying routinely affects board decisions. And the board did nothing.
Enough. Everyone knows the issues. Some are executive session items, some open-meeting discussions.
The town’s citizens should make it clear that they expect action, not talk, posturing and tangential hubris.
We have an overbearing need for some changes in curriculum, a principal and vice-principal who spend the overwhelming balance of their time in our building and whose primary task, however they split it up, is in-class evaluation of best practices (with support, modification or change as necessary) with a concentration on differentiated instruction. The single most important pieces of a child’s education are the classroom teacher and the activities that must revolve around and be directed by that teacher.
Until the board has demonstrated its ability to focus on and influence the essential issues, say “No” to bonds and increased budgets.