Addressing three themes on school district

I am writing in response to John Adkins’ series of letters to the editor, the most recent being 2/17/21.

As a Lake Roosevelt teacher of nearly 17 years, I have had the opportunity to experience the changing tides of many administrators, several superintendents, and more changes in education than I can honestly remember at times. As a parent of school-aged students for the last 21 years, I have navigated three school districts ranging in size from 250 students to 9,000. I have been trying to determine what point John Adkins’ series of letters is attempting to make. So far, I have noted three themes that I’d like to address:

There are issues with finances … I haven’t saved all of these editorials, but overall, I get the impression that Mr. Adkins believes he knows better how to direct the finances of this district. I’ve only followed the books for the last several years, but I thought Dr. Carlson did a great job showing how our district is unique, and Carlson’s supposition that the finances shouldn’t be compared to other districts concurs with everything I have gathered in my studies. If someone is not the administrator here, it’s really easy to say what we should be doing — that doesn’t mean this outsider actually knows what is best. No one wants to pay unneeded higher taxes, I agree, but I also know that it is not as simple as what I’m being told in Mr. Adkins’ letters.

People have complaints about the district and how things are handled. Most decisions handled in a district are going to leave someone unhappy — it is not always possible to have a solution that will make everyone happy. To live in a world where everyone is happy with every decision is … well, a fantasy. Our administrators are, moreover, human. To even pretend that all decisions made could be perfect would be equally fantastic. There are deeply troubling issues that need to be addressed and tough decisions will be made that leave people unhappy. This will happen anywhere. People complain about every district. If the grass is, indeed, greener elsewhere, the exodus would be permanent and significant.

There are dedicated staff at our schools that are gems. I concur. In a previous letter, I noticed that there was an idea to REDUCE our teachers (RIF—firing teachers to save money) and have us teach more subject areas. Our district runs a K-12 school with many course offerings, and the state funds the number of teachers we have through an allocation formula — money per teacher. We aren’t teacher-heavy, thank you.

I guess my momma always said that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Once upon a time, we called that critical thinking.

Sure, we could run a district of 700 kids on $2.00 a week. With all the (savings) taxpayers could run to Vegas.

Sure, administrators could become robots that just dispensed, “Yes, OF COURSE!” answers to every request ever made . . . and it would never get messy when any of these came into conflict with other parents’ requests, laws, standards, ethics, etc.

Lastly, sure, we could teach a challenging, rigorous curriculum with 50 kids in a kindergarten class and three or four high school teachers. Why not just cut all of the teachers and save the taxpayers a ton?

To good to be true.

There are always things that need to be worked on. No district is perfect, and I’m not looking to mudsling Mr. Adkins’ district’s faults. My suggestion for community members with any kind of issue would be to come to board meetings, get involved, volunteer, and see for yourself what positives are going on every day for our students. Be persistent with issues and follow the chain of command to the top, if necessary. Our budget is public. Feel free to peruse and see what you see — and ask to find out where it all goes.

But please, above all, be careful to seek to understand and know the truth.

Sincerely,

Pam Johnson