Tuesday, February 7, 2017

One Miracle Per Season

'Twill be a cold day in Hell when a Referendum vote overrides Town Meeting

What are the odds of Amherst voters supporting a measure that would increase their already extraordinary high property taxes by another few hundred dollars per year on a controversial building project now needing a two-thirds super majority?

About as likely as the Patriots last quarter comeback from a 28-3 deficit.

 About 1,700 signatures submitted to Town Clerk yesterday vs 7,000 who voted no on November 8th

But Mega School supporters do not have a Tom Brady leading their team.  In fact main wine-&-cheese cheerleader School Committee Chair Katherine Appy has already announced she will not be running for reelection.

 Crowd of about 50 (less than 1% of town voters) turned out last night for SC meeting

Her going away present was getting the School Committee to vote last night 4-1 against withdrawing the Mega School project from the MSBA process which now kills the prospects of reapplying this year with a Statement Of Interest to get back in the pipeline for a new improved project with real majority support.

The only thing that ever wins in Amherst by a two-thirds margin is a Democrat for President running against the Devil, err, Republican and perhaps a pot resolution.  In fact no Override ballot question over the past 30 years has passed (and about half have failed) by a two-thirds margin.

Now the rancor will continue until March 28th and in the end it will all be in vain.  Town officials fiddle while Amherst burns.


66 comments:

Dr. Ed said...

Larry, the override didn't pass. The law is clear, the majority of votes cast must be "yes" and they weren't.

To explain this in a way Leftists can understand, say Donald Trump appeals the ban on his ban to SCOTUS and the decision is 4-4 -- he loses.

THEY'VE ALREADY LOST!!!

And Larry, how much has this cost the town?

Anonymous said...

What a giant un-democratic temper tantrum. You know the Pats DID make that comeback....for every taxpayer in Amherst I hope this thing does the opposite and fails once and for all.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Larry. I appreciate you taking the time to cover the School Committee

Anonymous said...

But don't think twice, Larry, that you do more than your fair share to keep the rancorous fire burning. Oh, I know, you're just telling the story.

Anonymous said...

I figured Appy for a slash and burn type!

Anonymous said...

Ed, please stop meddling in our town's affairs. This has nothing to do with you, as you don't live here.

Anonymous said...

Re MEGA school voters;
Larry, This is a bunch of rich people trying to gentrify Amherst and kick out the fixed income and poorer non white classes to CLEAN UP this town. Common people are an embarrassment to them- why commoners probably dont even have a favorite well-reviewed Vegan restaurant!

I know about five folks who are making this psychotic effort to raise taxes and you know what ? They all live in BIG homes with slate roofing and have caretakers and unseen sources of income.
They dress very Bo-Ho, have that practiced, tested smile and lot of inherited money.

Then we have their opposition.
Check out the homes of the Amherst NO voters, modest, peeling paint and struggling to remain here. Anyone see the letter from a crocker farms district low income resident. She didnt want to lose crocker. Neither did testimony at both TM meetings.
This is class Warfare.

Why don't these Ikat-costumed Gentry ever give up?
Because they want to have it both ways.
Watch Me Watch me, here I go walking into my Glass Covered megaschool in my New smock Dress ! Oh, I am sooo happy now. See the power of my political activism. My rich and powerful relative who died to trust fund me would be SOOO proud.

Rick Hood said...

Errrr… “wine-&-cheese” is not accurate. It’s more like “pound down the Stoli” after having beaten head against the wall, spending a gazllion thankless hours on school committee. No one has put in as many hours as Appy has, trying to do good for our kids. The previous winner was Catherine Sanderson. I did not always agree with either of them, but have to admire the amazing amount of work they put in. Interesting how Larry would cheer on Sanderson for pushing to save $800,000 by closing Marks Meadow, and rightly so, but give the “wine-&-cheese” middle finger to Appy for pushing the least expensive option for a new elementary school. It’s going to be “interesting” to see the reaction of taxpayers when they realize whatever new “Plan B” emerges costs way more than Plan A, and may require 2 overrides, not one.

Anonymous said...

I will vote no on this and other mega projects until the town takes into consideration seniors and others on fixed incomes.

Anonymous said...

How can the most expensive elementary school project in MA be the least expensive option? Other towns built cheaper schools.

Anonymous said...

The building committee needed to chose a fiscally responsible design-
We don't need award winning designers and every item on The Skye's The Limit Wishlist that Mike Morris encouraged.
Community members with expertise in running a business/ making major decisions should've been included- Why didn't we reach out for Assistance?

Anonymous said...

Appy was in place to to support the former SI. Thank You for you service... but THANK YOU a billion times more for not running for re election. Please take you elitist manipulative mind set elsewhere.

Catherine A. Sanderson said...

First, Rick, thank you for your kind words re. my time/energy/effort, even if you didn't always agree with my ideas. It do believe serving on the SC in Amherst is the WORST volunteer job ever!

Second, I believe that Larry's support of my efforts on SC (in contrast to Katherine Appy's) has to do with the role I played on SC. I saw my role very simply as that of supporting the community, which included not supporting an override (that I worried would be difficult for low income members of the community), initiating the vote to close Marks Meadow (out of a desire to spend limited school dollars in a more cost-effective way), and voting against hiring Ms. Geryk as superintendent (as I had seen no evidence that she would serve effectively in this role). These were all difficult decisions that I took considerable heat for holding, but I believed were the right ones based on the facts I had gathered; in some cases, my votes were directly against the preferences of the school administration. I saw my role as one of critically evaluating the data and claims offered by the administration (including about policies and costs), and believed my role was to offer this type of critical analysis, not blind support.

In contrast, Katherine Appy's stated goal in running for SC (against me) was to support the administration. She ran on that platform (which many described in private as the "I'm not a bitch, like the other Catherine" platform), and she won on that platform, and she served entirely with this goal. Ms. Appy supported the administration in all ways, in line with the typical history of SC members in Amherst (Andy Churchill, Elaine Brighty, etc.), and she clearly saw, and embraced, her role as "cheerleader of the administration" (including cheerleader for the "Wildwood Rebuilding Project").

Although Larry was not a fan of mine when I ran for SC (nor had we ever met), I believe he respected the role I played on the SC, and hence his support for me on this blog over the years. I believe he didn't hold the same respect for the role Ms. Appy assumed on the SC (which was, in fairness, precisely the role she said she would play, so presumably the majority of voters in fact want a SC member who consistently supports the administration's decisions).

Anonymous said...

Some people has said that one reason to support the project is because of the expanded preschool slots that Crocker Farm will have if it becomes an early childhood center. Expanding the Crocker preK was never part of the plan originally, and it is still unfunded. Giving more access to low-income families to send their children to preschool is a laudable goal. However as former principal Russ Vernon-Jones said at the January Town Meeting, we don't need to have a new school to offer affordable preK to more families. There are other options.

Larry Kelley said...

Yes Catherine, my first impression was you were a typical white, liberal, female academic, born with a proverbial silver spoon in mouth.

Not often I'm wrong, but in your case happy to now admit: dead wrong.

Rick Hood said...

"serving on the SC in Amherst is the WORST volunteer job ever!" Yep, that's for sure.

Rick Hood said...

It would nice if people would not be so far to one side or the other in their opinions. Appy was not the "blind follower" that people would like to believe, nor was Sanderson the evil antagonist that some would like to believe. Maybe Appy was “cheerleader” for the elementary school plan because she really thought it was the best (I know that’s why I voted for it), not because someone else (e.g Superintendent) thought it was best. And maybe Sanderson voted for things because she thought it was best, not just to be some kind of a jerk. It’s sad how people get put into a category - not just sad for those people, but sad because voters get blinded by the categorization instead of looking at the facts, and arguments made. That’s why it really sucks to be on town committees. Too many people assume the worst about your intentions instead of looking at your arguments.

Rick Hood said...

"Expanding the Crocker preK was never part of the plan originally". Wrong. Where does this stuff come from? It was always part of the plan, from day 1. And it's way more efficient to do that in one building and in 3.

Dr. Ed said...

Ed, please stop meddling in our town's affairs. This has nothing to do with you, as you don't live here.

Give me what I want and I'll go away. It ain't gonna happen, and hence I ain't going.

But stop complaining -- p****s like you created me, and now you gt to live with me.

Sucks to be you..

Anonymous said...

Hey 4:11, please stop telling Ed what to do. F off.

Dr. Ed said...

Rick, comparing Catherine Sanderson to Katherine Appy is like comparing Larry Kelly to Brad DeFlumeri.

Yes, sometimes folk got upset with Larry, sometimes for cause, but he ain't Brad!!!!

Anonymous said...

Just one question...why hasn't it ever been discussed where the funds for the conversion of Crocker Farm into an early childhood center never been disclosed or discussed? I can't imagine that it could be a zero net cost solution. Modifications would be inevitable.

Anonymous said...

Hey 9:24 stop telling 4:11 what to do. F off.

Anonymous said...


Rick Hood said...


It was always part of the plan, from day 1. And it's way more efficient to do that in one building and in 3.
...


Rick, thanks for adding your voice here. We do want to understand. You say the early childhood center at Crocker was always part of the plan and that’s great, but I do not see any evidence of planning for it:

1. Vaguely saying that it’ll be funded from “future expected cost savings” is not the same as identifying a real funding source for this project (other than the town will pay for it out of the school budget).

2. Won’t the childhood center require extensive bathroom renovations at Crocker? We have not seen any design plans for this. Has an architect drawn up plans? Will it be the same JCJ architect as part of the Wildwood new school project?

Given the above two points you can see why the early childhood center appears to be more of a pipe dream than any plan ready for real world implementation.

Isn’t true that zero money for the state’ portion of the $33.5 million, nor any of the $67 million total cost of the new school building project would be used for the early childhood center???

So when Katherine Appy repeatedly told Town Meeting and the press that the building project would 'give us' the much touted early childhood center at Crocker it appeared to be the worst kind of bait-and-switch and greatly eroded trust in school admins talking about this project.

Rick, if any of the above is incorrect, we’re open to hearing about it.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I will vote against the Mega School because it is not equitable for the poor, minority kids in South Amherst. They get bussed to Wildwood for 5 years, the wealthy white kids go to Crocker for 2 years. The transitioning at the start of 2nd grade is a terrible thing to do to kids too. Yes, we need to fix the buildings, but not at the expense of our most vulnerable kids.

Anonymous said...

Rick, Ms Appy got up in front of TM and said that they just added the seats for preK (fall TM). Were you not there? They were NOT part of the original plan but tossed in last fall to sweeten the deal. BTW, there is no evidence we need more seats. A couple of years ago there were 85 seats (stated on CF website). According to MCAS the most # of preK students has been 64. A month or so ago (last I looked) there were 70 seats. Not all the seats currently filled are even FROM Amherst. What we haven't heard from the SC or the Admin is to expand preK hours. This would massively increase the number of kids from low income families. The current limited hours don't work for most families.

Anonymous said...

If reconfigeration with Crocker Farm as preK to 1 was the plan from the beginning, why weren't parents at all school notified then? Wouldn't that be the time for parent input? Why wait 2 years unitl Fall 2015 and after Geryk decided it?

Anonymous said...

Anon 8 am
It is NOT true that the wealthy white kids go to CF. You should really study the history of why kids on the lower socioeconomic end of the scale are being bused. I'm sure it will make for interesting reading and you might actually learn something.

Anonymous said...

"Give me what I want and I'll go away. It ain't gonna happen, and hence I ain't going."

Ed, you seem to be conflating UMass with the town of Amherst. I don't know why you began obsessing on our schools, fire department, etc., which are all things you have nothing to do with. Perhaps you should obsess over the town in Maine where you live?

Anonymous said...


So what’s up with the proposed aerial makespace/sky walkway bridge to address the playground bus loop problem? Is that now included in the big school building project? Did it add any additional cost?

Is it true kids will just congregate at the entrance apron before the bell as they disembark from the buses because of the limited playspace? For $67 million that’s really lame.


Rebecca Casa said...

After watching Ms Appy at the SC meetings it was obvious she didn't support the community or some of the other SC members. The Administration was the main focus but not in a supervisory role. Instead it seemed there were back door maneuvers and attempted discrediting of others. I felt like I was watching a bully on the play ground.
Catherine it is nice to hear from you.
Rick I was sad Marks Meadow Closed. There is a difference between saving 800,000 and spending 34 mil for plan the crocker community never wanted. It does effect SOUTH Amherst kids the most and the families w yet to he born yet children.. I am pretty bummed we didn't get an alternate plan in . There should,have,been a,back plan from the beginning set to go. One that mirrored what the rest community wanted. There has to b be a middle ground we can all agree on.

Anonymous said...

So if this does pass and the education in town is improved from the current, unacceptable level....as a local employer, I have to wait almost two decades for this employee factory to start pushing out products that are worth buying again? Even longer if you state they they need more education to make them a good employee.

Given this and the fact that something like 99% of the products will be exported for use in other communities, I do not see how additional local investment makes sense.

Is there anything that can be done to fix the products currently coming off the line that we have already invested $200,000 plus on? Perhaps an extra year of make up work so they can meet the level that folks are hoping for in the future. Isn't there anything that can be done in the current schools to make the students more appealing or encourage them to stay, along with our investment in them, in the community? Shouldn't this be the primary focus, keeping the current students in the town as productive tax paying adults?

The fact that most of the kids are shipped out does make it so the performance of the schools is less relevant to the community. We need to focus on citizen retention for the good of the town and the endless money spent on these products. I would be willing to invest more if they did not all flee to support other communities.

Anonymous said...

Seems like if poor folks are holding up investment in town resources that the tax system is not doing its job because there are plenty of folks with means in town - folks that take far off vacations, make lots of money or have multiple cars.

The idea is to tax people based on wealth. But we only use home values to determine this. Poor folks often over extend themselves in regards to housing and wealthy folks only need so much house. This shifts the burden unfairly to the poor (and those without children).

I suggest a better system to evaluate both wealth and burden. Perhaps a combination of the last 10 years of income, this years income, number and value of vehicles, luxury items (like other houses, boats, vacations) then their burden can mostly be evaluated by whether someone has kids or not (and how many). So more wealth, more taxes. More kids, more taxes. Fair share concept. Then a pressure release for the truly poor if they cannot afford the taxes, we will redistribute them over the rest of the wealthier and child bearing folks.

Then everyone gets the new school system they need and the folks with extra wealth support it, as should be the way with a tax based necessity system.

Anonymous said...

anon@ 855: although I am not the poster you chastise. I believe there point was the the more wealthy kids live near and go to WW. Hence those kids will only get bused for 2 years (K+1g), while all the other kids get bused for at least, 5 years far from their homes and these kids are disproportionately lower income. maybe you could have more carefully read their post before judging their motives...

Anonymous said...

How can they expand the pre-K when pre-k child enrollment is dropping? Is there reason to believe that the pre-k child population will be increasing? Or the pre-K population whose parents only work until 12:30?

Anonymous said...

Rick Hood: At Q&A sessions held with elementary school parents in the fall of 2015, Mike Morris himself said that no increase in the number of preK students served by the Crocker Farm preschool was planned. As others have commented, this was added to the project later.

Anonymous said...

Rick, you just contradicted yourself. Which is it then, from day one, or added later?

9:07 PM Rick Hood said...

"Expanding the Crocker preK was never part of the plan originally". Wrong. Where does this stuff come from? It was always part of the plan, from day 1. And it's way more efficient to do that in one building and in 3.


3:39 PM Rick Hood:

At Q&A sessions held with elementary school parents in the fall of 2015, Mike Morris himself said that no increase in the number of preK students served by the Crocker Farm preschool was planned. As others have commented, this was added to the project later.


Looks more and more like a bait and switch to me.

There is no realistic funding, or time and seat expansion planned for an 'Early Childhood Center' at Crocker, it was always just a PR prop for selling the mega school. Not cool.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:00 a.m.: You are concerned that the school reconfiguration would not be equitable for the poorer kids from South Amherst. But as someone in South Amherst, I saw this plan as better for my child, because she would still have access to all the new technology and benefits that would be available to her peers coming from Fort River and Wildwood, since the schools were organized by grade and not geographic origin. Otherwise she'd be in Crocker, the less updated school, for all her elementary years.

Anonymous said...

anon@6:45 hate to break this to you but there is very little reliable data showing that new 'technologies' increase student achievement (and in some cases actually hinders it).

Anonymous said...

7:14 wrong; lots and lots of studies prove that access to technology enhances studentt outcomes.

Rick Hood said...

@4:25
3:39 was not me, it was someone replying to me. And there is no way Mike would have said that. Expanded PreK was always in the plan.
@6:43am
The Early Childhood Learning Center was part of the 2-6 plan from the beginning, and was probably the most talked about advantage of that plan.
How many extra PreK seats exactly would be added was not stated, that's true. If you saying it should have been firm, that's a valid criticism, but that's different than whether "expanded PreK was part of the pan".
The number of seats filled depends on the price that the district charges for PreK, and that depends on the overall school budget, and the budget for 2019 and beyond was not yet known, obviously. It also depends on how long the PreK school day would be and that may have been expanded also.
So, could the cost be zero or close to it, thus probably filling most available seats? Maybe, but they did not know yet. Physically, 80 seats at CF were freed up by the plan. Whether those get filled or not, depends on budget support. Perhaps we could have said "we commit $X of the $500,000 operational cost savings to lower the price of PreK to $Y and expand the day by X hours". BTW the price is sliding scale: https://goo.gl/dqOgcd
Regarding the costs of work for be done to CF, all that has to be done is lower some toilets. That was stated. Correct, there was no exact numbers given for that, and yes MSBA does not pay for that.

Anonymous said...

Rick: please explain to me. Why would the preK be expanded (at all)? We don't even fill the seats offered now by Amherst kids. We have never had an enrollment over 64 students (and not all of those are Amherst kids), unless the DOE site is incorrect. The capacity (70 now, 85 in recent years past) is higher than enrollment. If the admin and SC really thought preK was valuable then why hasn't it been a high priority to extend hours? The new plan is independent from the option to expand preK hours (if that is what prevents more Amherst families from enrolling). If the full day isn't the problem and families simply don't want to send their kids, then why expand it? Please help me out here so I can understand.

BTW, likely sinks will also need to lowered...

Nina Koch said...

Catherine,

The people who disagree with you may do just as much thinking as you do to arrive at their positions. Yet you always need to paint them as engaging in group-think. You certainly described Rick that way a few months back. If you think back on SC meetings, didn't it seem like he had done quite a bit of reading? And didn't he ask questions from a genuine spirit of inquiry -- trying to figure out a situation? If you think he simply went along with other people just to go along, then you weren't listening to him. Rick is one of the most thoughtful people I know.

Similarly, I don't see how you can purport to know the motivations of Katherine Appy or Elaine Brighty or Andy Churchill. Why can't it be true that all of the people on the School Committee care about education and care about the community? You seem to imply that anyone who truly cares would agree with your policy positions. I don't think it comes down to a difference in caring. I think it comes down to a difference in basic values and beliefs, how one sees the world.

People who start out with different axioms and different definitions will arrive at different conclusions. But they are all still thinking. You owe them respect for that.

Anonymous said...

February 8, 2017 at 10:19 AM:

That was precisely the position taken by East Germany – and their solution? – the built a wall!

Rick Hood said...

@9:57

If the admin and SC really thought preK was valuable then why hasn't it been a high priority to extend hours?

Money. To get more enrollment we would have had to lower the price and possibly extend the day. Both of those costs $.

This year Kindergarten has a total enrollment of 143. Preschool is 60, which is not full. The extra 80 seats we get from the plan means we have just enough physical space for 143 PreK. Whether we can file 143 PreK seats depends on the price. If the price was zero, we would probably come close. And we may want to use some money to extend the day.

From FAQ 2016-05-18:

Are there other implications for Crocker Farm? What about for the district-wide preschool that is housed at that site?
- Crocker Farm is currently overcrowded with an increasing number of students. The reconfiguration would ease that issue by reducing the non-preschool population by about 80 students.
- In addition, this reduction would free up classroom spaces to add preschool sections so that additional Amherst children can receive a high-quality, early childhood learning experience that is essential for future academic success.

What are costs associated with turning Crocker Farm into an early childhood center? Who bears those costs?
- The town would bear any costs of renovating Crocker Farm. Fortunately, that building was renovated in 2002 and has sufficient facilities for the conversion. It is likely that we would need to replace the toilets and sinks in two existing bathroom areas on the first floor to be more appropriate for younger children, but the cost of this change is minor.

Here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By0mz4P0v3bWdnpkZ2FRa3l6M0k/view

Anonymous said...

Rick: you seem to imply a link with 143 kindergartners and #preK seats, and the possibility that those numbers might be the same. You do know that prek includes 3-5yolds, right? Regardless, this idea that we NEED to expand seats, when we can't EVEN fill those now, is overreach at best. You have completely avoided the main issue: if preK was valuable to the SI and SC, then why haven't they EVER addressed why we are not filling those seats with AMHERST kids, without that critical piece all this touting of expanding preK is simply PROPAGANDA. Priorities folks (and another issue: CR is overcrowded, but that could have been remedied easily by the SI, all it takes is modestly redrawing district lines). However, it has been convenient to cause a bit of pain for CR kids and families, so they will feel more inclined to support this WW plan. However, it does NOT have to be that way, it was/is a choice.

Anonymous said...

A radical theory: This was/is all about Maria's CV. While there is no basis for the PreK-1/2-6/7-8/9-12 arrangement (and a lot of reasons against it) it clearly is "different."

Hence she becomes in demand to speak about it, maybe get a cushy do-nothing faculty gig at UMass, etc.

Dr. Ed said...

Folks, there is so much variance that it is impossible to tell if technology improves education or not -- but there is growing evidence that it harms children.

Anonymous said...

wait, now there are 80 pre-k seats? it was 30 before. where are the extra 50 coming from?

Rick Hood said...

"You have completely avoided the main issue: if preK was valuable to the SI and SC, then why haven't they EVER addressed why we are not filling those seats...".
See the word "Money" in my last reply? It was not addressed because of money. Not sure what is difficult to understand about that.
One thing Katherine, Catherine and I certainly agree on is "serving on the SC in Amherst is the WORST volunteer job ever!", to quote C again.

Anonymous said...

sorry Rick: not buying the no "money" excuse. Our district is awash in $$, if Ms Geryk had thought preK so critical then money would have been reallocated (central office is stuffed with staff, whose salaries could be better used for early ED). The new configuration is not going to spit OUT money for these added preK seats. It was awfully easy to promise preK seats when there is no money to pay for them? And please don't say if will come from savings due to the new configuration (those will go to the new 'technology' promised and staff to support it and increased costs of transport).

Anonymous said...

Speaking of money, I noticed that the proposed ARPS budget for next year includes a raise and promotion for the Director of Human Resources to become Assistant Superintendent. What's that about? Does the district need two Assistant Superintendents? (Do most districts have two Assistant Superintendents?). and what about the Director of HR? I thought that the current HR Director was going to be retiring soon; she's already reduced her hours? Will the district be hiring both for a "permanent" superintendent and an Assistant Superintendent/Director of HR for next school year?

Bigger salaries (and more staff) in the central office means less money for the schools.

Anonymous said...

Is there any data showing why those pre-k seats aren't filled? I believe it may be because working parents need preschool/daycare that is year round (not slightly shorter than the regular school year) and a longer day and fewer days off. The fees are lower than for other area preschools, so I would love to send my 3 kids there, even with increased cost for a longer day. I'd guess that if they add places, they will remain unused.

Catherine A. Sanderson said...

Nina, two things :

1. I am quoting Appy's campaign slogan ... it isn't my opinion that she ran and served with the goal of supporting the administration. It was her stated goal. It wasn't mine. Similarly, it is exactly what Elaine and Andy told me was the role of the SC. That isn't my opinion - it was what they directly said to me on repeated occasions. It is an alternative view of what sc members should do - and as I noted in my response, that is certainly something many people in Amherst find appealing.

2. Can you name one thing that Appy disagreed with the administration on publically in the six years she served? One?

Nina Koch said...

Catherine,

When you use phrases like "blind support" you are suggesting that people aren't putting any thought into their positions. That's what I am objecting to. For some reason, you can't just leave it here: they thought this and I thought that. Instead, you have to come back with some kind of negative characterization, even years later.

I haven't heard you acknowledge the possibility that two people could look at the same situation and yet interpret it differently-- that there are rational paths to diverging conclusions. That was one of the fundamental ideas I encountered during my liberal arts education.

Catherine A. Sanderson said...

Nina, I definitely believe that people can look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions. It is what I teach my students, and obviously it is a fundamental idea within the liberal arts. So please understand me when I say clearly "that is a distinct possibility."


I've also noted that many members of the SC, historically and indeed in present day, do not (ever) draw different conclusions than the administration. So, one possibility is that in all the different issues facing our schools in a six year period, Ms. Appy looked very critically and thoroughly at the same data as Ms. Geryk and drew the same conclusions very single time.

Another possibility is that Ms. Appy, and others, don't actually critically examine the data at all, but rather assume the school administration "knows what is best" and votes accordingly. I hope you can also acknowledge that is a distinct possibility. For example, a very dedicated and hard-working SC voted unanimously to support the administration's decision to purchase modular classrooms for Marks Meadow, which were never used. A more critical analysis of that decision by later SC members suggested that was a poor decision, and such an analysis led to the closing of Marks Meadow, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Both are distinct possibilities. Just like it is theoretically possible that one could flip a coin every day for six years and always have it come up heads. So, indeed, maybe it is just total luck that Ms. Appy and Ms. Geryk were always in agreement. "Great minds think alike?"

And my question to you remains - can you think of a single substantive issue in six years in which Ms. Appy disagreed with Ms. Geryk in public? One?

Larry Kelley said...

I would settle for .75 or even .5 or ...

Nina Koch said...

Larry, I am glad to see that you are practicing your decimals.

Catherine, I would say that people with a shared vision or worldview do tend to reach similar conclusions. Maybe that's why you and Steve were in agreement on almost every issue. Would it be fair for someone to say that you "blindly followed" Steve? No. And yet that is what you are trying to do to other people.

At ARHS, I worked with quite a few people who shared my basic beliefs about education. As a result of our shared beliefs, we tended to have the same positions on things. In fact, with one of my colleagues, the joke was that we agreed on everything except for font. (She liked Comic Sans.) We both still put a lot of thought into our work together and really enjoyed tossing ideas back and forth.

I don't know why you continue to characterize your former colleagues on the School Committee as non-thinkers. I don't know why you have such a strong need to be right while others are wrong. You could just say "We had different beliefs; we disagreed." The fact that you can't bring yourself to do that really says it all.

Dr. Ed said...

Nina, have you ever had to deal with plagiarism?

Do you understand the concept of statistical likelihood?

How do you answer Catherine's question in light of the statistical impossibility of random chance?

Anonymous said...

Nina, pretty lame. it is hard to see that in a position of oversight, (independent) sc members, would 100% agree, support and enthusiastically evaluate Ms Geryk unless they were uncritically aligned w the SI. Its not like her time was without controversy and at times, questionable judgement on Ms Geryk's part.

BTW, are you the 'Nina' in the email documents posted by Larry in his open meeting law accusation?

Anonymous said...

Incredible! Apparently to some in Amherst... No doesn't mean No doesn't mean No! Almost like Trump not willing to accept a 3-0 court decision and unable to let it go! Don't they realize this push to keep re-voting is akin to bullying and creating the reverse effect of distain towards their cause? Only in Amherst!

Catherine A. Sanderson said...

Nina, I'll take that as a "no" in terms of the question I've asked twice and you've ignored.

And Steve and I disagreed on numerous things - as do I with virtually all my colleagues at Amherst college, despite what you assume to be "similar worldviews".

Dr. Ed said...

Catherine, Nina is way too much of a fascist to even comprehend your point.

For all of her talk of having a "liberal education", she's not (lower case) "liberal." She doesn't understand the liberal mind -- and memory is that there were a few times/issues where you were in agreement with Geryk when others didn't.

Nina can't comprehend respecting people with whom she disagrees.

Anonymous said...

On the school issue a ton of people with "similar world views" have come to very different conclusions.
But only one side is represented by the school committee and it's the side that the school administration
represents. Everyone who looks at this realizes that there are a bunch of people who think that admin
knows best and takes their recommendation. You just have to see the limp questioning that's never
followed up to see that the questions are pro forma at best.

Anonymous said...

Vira D did ask the other school committee members and Morris which is the moldy school building and they fell over themselves denying they ever said this. Really? They've been calling WW and FR unhealthy, moldy, crumbling, deplorable, etc. for years. No wonder so few kindergartners are signing up.

Anonymous said...

actually they never called anything unhealthy until the last year when they've been trying to sell us this project.