This School Board meeting included a couple of particularly interesting items. During citizen’s comments, a father spoke in defense his child to protect her from apparently indifferent school system bureaucrats. In addition, the school board received a presentation on proposed revisions to the student code of behavior.
Consent Agenda
Every meeting includes a consent agenda. These are noncontroversial items. Nonetheless, some of these items can be very important.
- The School Board decreased FY 2007 Budget and Appropriation for the Operating Fund by $9,114,294. This change was not optional. The Board of County Supervisors approved a resolution on April 18, 2007, reducing the County government’s transfer to the Schools by $9,114,294. This was due to a projected FY 2007 general revenue shortfall (for the county) of $18,130,430. In accordance with the County/Schools revenue sharing agreement, the Schools’ share is $9,114,294 and the County’s share is $9,016,136. (Author’s note: During Board Member’s time, Lucy Beauchamp made a point of highlighting this particular item.)
- Approved a Local Special Education Annual Plan for 2007-2008. The Virginia Department of Education requires that a Local Special Education Annual Plan and Report be approved by the School Board annually. The grant application is required to receive entitlement monies and can be spent over two fiscal years.
Citizen Comments
A concerned father spoke out in defense of his child. Because her grandmother was critically ill, the child, a first grader, had to miss 33 days of school. Due the extended absence, school policy required that the child be readmitted. Stupidly, the child was forced into a different class — just to balance the head count. This separated the child from a trusted teacher and long time friend. When school officials would not consider his complaint, the father decide to take the matter to the School Board. Only then, when they found out he was going to speak before the board, did school officials decide to take his complaint seriously. The father thought that quite unprofessional.
Revisions to the Code of Behavior (Information Briefing; expect approval on May 16, 2007 meeting)
If you are concerned about this particular item, it is probably worth your time to review item 13 in the May 2nd agenda (see here and click on May 2).
In addition to the school staff and attorney, the school division managed to get both parents and the student “leadership” involved in this process. So the school administration did get some feedback from parents and students.
Author’s Note: The revisions appear to have resulted in some useful changes and some fluff. The most notable fluff is the Code of Expectations (age group appropriate, of course) included within the Code of Behavior.
The Code of Expectations are new; they are essentially pledges to be nice. Pledges are generally ill-advised (For example, see Matthew 5 says about oaths.) and most certainly should not to be taken lightly. Nonetheless, each age appropriate the Code of Expectations pledge begins with this pledge:
As a caring and responsible student in Prince William County Schools, I pledge to know and adhere to all rules and regulations of the Code of Behavior, the School Board and the state and federal government.
Are uncaring and irresponsible students exempt from the pledge? Who knows all the rules and regulations of the School Board and state and federal government? Just the Code of Behavior is about 40 pages long. Does anyone actually expect a kindergarten student to read it?
While the desperation of school officials and parents to make children behave is understandable, this is a silly effort. Government-run schools should inform students of what is expected from them, but pledges serve no purpose. We each derive our code of behavior from our religious beliefs, and a feel-good pledge cannot replace religion.
The presentation also covered changes related to wireless communications (i.e., cell phones). This practical, tangible problem most concerned the board. While students are allowed to have such devices, the school division apparently wants to make it clear that cell phones can be searched and/or seized. Don Richardson wanted to make certain that there was a clear policy on how seized cell phones are returned to parents. Milt Johns also wanted the staff to go back and make certain the return policy was clear. Unless the police are involved, he saw no reason for the school system to keep private property.
Superintendent’s Time
Beville Middle School and Gar-Field High School in Woodbridge have received notification from the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO), headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, that the schools in partnership are fully authorized to offer the International Baccalaureate (IB) Middle Years Programme (MYP) (news release here).
