TomTheGreat

Below is an open letter to the Bloomington School Board that I am sending on behalf of a number of concerned Bloomington residents on 1-31-11. Any formatting errors are due to the copy and paste from Word to the Blog…

———————–

Bloomington Public Schools Board of Directors

Bloomington Public Schools Administration

1350 West 106^th Street

Bloomington, MN 55431

Dear School Board Members and District Administrators,

The Elementary Neighborhood School Renewal Project (ENSRP) was by no means an easy process, being emotionally charged as it was and as it still remains. We recognize that it is impossible to satisfy everyone and that a task as difficult as the ENSRP can lead to those involved feeling unappreciated. Therefore first and foremost, we would like to thank the School Board and Administration for the efforts to date in the ENSRP.

As the school rezoning process winds down and the administration prepares to implement the ENSRP supporting policies, Policy/Regulation 503.2 and Policy/Regulation 509, a number of parents and other interested community members have been discussing the implementation of those policies in relation to the ENSRP. This letter represents three key points from those discussions that we collectively feel are important to the well being of the entire school district.

The following three concerns are district wide and not specific to any individual school unless explicitly stated as such. Our goal with sharing these concerns is to identify the areas where specific policies may have had unintended consequences or where the policy may not fully address the issues that have arisen with the recent enactment of those policies in relation to the ENSRP.

We view that a process as significant, impactful, and emotional as the ENSRP has been, that implementation is best handled as a living process through its infant stages of policy enactment. We share the view that even the most carefully thought out plans, through no one’s fault in particular, can often miss the mark when it comes time to implement those plans. We know that minor adjustments now can head off larger problems in the future and make this transition easier for all involved. Therefore we respectfully request that where possible these concerns be addressed in time for enactment in the 2011-2012 school year. We look forward to continuing the dialogue with the Board and Administration on these issues.

Concern 1 – No/limited sibling priority for transfers

We request that siblings of current students are guaranteed access to the same school regardless of incoming or outgoing transfer policy caps. We further request that any students denied transfers for the 2011-2012 school year that has a sibling that would have been considered a continuous student prior to the enactment of the policy changes be accepted to the same school if they so choose through the regular transfer request process.

The current policies do not provide a guarantee of sibling acceptance, leading to situations where families may be forced to decide to send their children to multiple different elementary schools and split up their family. We feel this is neither in the spirit of the policy nor in the spirit of what the board decided. No one wants to split up families and no one wants to have their families split apart. Regulation 503.2, section I. F. 1. bullet three provides reference to what we believe supports everyone’s goal of keeping families together, “Only child in family, to avoid separating siblings”.  While this section may not be directly related, it clearly points to the spirit of what the Board and Administration has been communicating to the community and that we wholeheartedly agree with. Keep families together.

Sibling preference exists, but it is so narrow in scope that it amounts in practice to no preference. This preference is also no guarantee. The policies state

• Regulation 503.2 Section I.C.2.a.3. – Hillcrest
  • Siblings of current students are weighted in a lottery.
• Regulation 503.2 Section I.H.3.b.1. – Non-Hillcrest (resident)
  • Siblings of DA/Elements or Special Needs are weighted in a lottery.
• Regulation 509 Section II.2.e.2. – Non-Hillcrest (nonresident)
  • Siblings of DA/Elements or Special Needs are weighted in a lottery.

For Hillcrest, the weighting for the lottery is equal to other criteria that lessen the value of the weighting for siblings. The policy also offers little guidance in how the weighting is actually handled in the lottery. This leaves significant room for interpretation that can lead to confusion for parents.

For non-Hillcrest, both resident and non-resident, the only sibling preference is if the student is a sibling of a DA/Elements or Special Needs student. The majority of students are neither DA/Elements nor Special Needs, so therefore for the majority of the community there is no preference provided to siblings.

We feel strongly that the lack of sibling priority will have a significant negative impact on our school district. This impact can be explained in the following ways:

• Inability to provide a competitive environment for attracting out of district transfers. Parents will be less likely to choose Bloomington schools without a guarantee of placement at the same school. An out of district transfer is a difficult decision that requires a serious commitment from a parent. Therefore this inability for our district to guarantee placement in our policy reduces our effectiveness in attracting out of district students.
• With the restrictive transfer cap (Policy 503.2 section I.C.1.b) of 4 per grade from a specific incoming school, the Administration now runs a much higher risk of being put in a position where they will be forced to split families. This has a chilling effect on intra-district transfers, and puts the Administration in a position that it shouldn’t be in at all, that of splitting up families.
• Hillcrest has an immediate concern with siblings from Washburn being split up from their families by not being able to attend Hillcrest due to the transfer policy cap (Policy 503.2 section 1.C.2.a.2) of 60 maximum from one school to Hillcrest. Based on the current implementation of the policy, families will continue to be split apart for approximately the next four years. See Table 1 below for the current enrollment estimates.

The solution to this issue we believe is to automatically enroll all siblings that apply for a transfer. This will aid in making our district more attractive to out of district requests, as well as reduce the huge amount of uncertainty that exists with the new process for transfers.

Table 1 below summarizes the transition for Washburn families that attend Hillcrest. The data was obtained from the District offices and utilizes the new Washburn boundary. The table shows two possible scenarios. One scenario is where no siblings from Washburn are enrolled; the other scenario is where siblings are enrolled irrespective of the transfer policy cap.

Table 1 – Washburn to Hillcrest Enrollment Statistics using new school boundaries

Based on the data provided by the Administration incorporating the new school boundaries the impact and key points are:

• If no siblings allowed beyond the transfer cap, and no new students, the Washburn to Hillcrest transfer caps will be achieved in the 2014-2015 school year.
• If siblings are allowed beyond the transfer cap, the Washburn to Hillcrest transfer caps will be achieved in the 2015-2016 school year.

The overall impact of allowing siblings to transfer in to Hillcrest from Washburn in respect to the achievement of the transfer cap policy is one year. Given that the transition is already a multi-year process one additional year has minimal impact on the overall transition but provides the district multiple benefits by keeping families together, minimizes the impetus to look outside the district, and strengthens the Bloomington School District as being family friendly.

Table 2 contrasts the Bloomington Public School District’s lack of sibling priority to the top five destinations for out of district transfers as highlighted in the 100520 Student Enrollment 1st Look presentation. In each case either a district wide policy or a school policy (in the case of charter/private schools) exists that provides siblings with priority.

Table 2 – Sibling Priority Policy for top five competing schools and districts

Such a policy change can readily work within the framework of Regulation 503.2 and Regulation 509. We consider this suggestion a correction of an unintended oversight that keeps within existing policies and the spirit of what has been discussed to date while being a simple yet effective mechanism to make our entire district more attractive to residents and non-residents alike.

Concern 2 – Lack of clarity on priority of resident transfer requests versus non-resident requests

We request that Regulation 503.2 and Regulation 509 be clarified as to the priority of resident transfer requests over non-resident transfer requests including clarification on what is the maximum number of non-resident transfer requests allowed. We request that residents be granted priority over transfers of non-residents to Hillcrest and that non-resident transfer requests to Hillcrest be filled only after all resident transfer requests have been filled.

The current transfer policy is unclear on the relationship between transfer requests of residents versus transfer requests of non-residents. Except for Hillcrest, Regulation 503.2 section I.C.1.c. specifies a limit of 93% of a grade level’s capacity. Regulation 509 section II.2.d states a reservation of 7% schools enrollment capacity is set-aside for non-resident transfers. The interaction between these two policy objectives is not entirely clear.

• Regulation 503.2 section I.C.1.c states a maximum percentage in terms of capacity by grade, not the entire facility. Whereas Regulation 509 section II.2.d states a maximum percentage in terms of the entire facility, not by grade.
• Regulation 509 section II.2.d is not clearly worded as to whether the 7% reservation is also a cap on requests for transfers. It could be read that the 7% is a minimum number of seats set aside but not the maximum number, so the policy could be read that non-resident requests are allowed above and beyond 7%. This same section states no limits for non-resident transfer request for Hillcrest and DA/Elements. Therefore we conclude the intent is that non-resident transfer requests will not exceed 7% of capacity, unless space is available after processing resident transfer requests. Unfortunately this isn’t clear in the policy.

Hillcrest is our community school. It is intended first and foremost to serve the Bloomington community as a whole. By not having Bloomington residents be a priority in the Hillcrest lottery, Hillcrest is unable to accomplish that goal. Furthermore with no limits on the lottery into Hillcrest as stated in Regulation 509 II.2.d, it is entirely possible that Bloomington residents enrolling in Hillcrest as new students will be completely shut out by sheer volume of out of district applicants.

Take for example the huge upheaval in Eden Prairie and the reported 1,000+ parents applying out of district. If those parents were to apply to Hillcrest under the current policy, you could have hundreds of new applications all competing against our residents for the same slots. We also want to point out that DA/Elements already has a tiered priority for Bloomington residents that is similar to what we are requesting for Hillcrest. Implementing a similar tiered acceptance process for our community school follows existing precedent.

We acknowledge that the Bloomington Public School District is strengthened by out of district transfers into our school system. We welcome these students, the benefits they provide, and the ties they help us strengthen with our neighboring communities. Yet this should not be accomplished at the expense of the primary community the Bloomington Public School District is meant to serve, Bloomington residents.

Concern 3 – Lack of process related to Kindergarten redshirting

We request that any Kindergartener student that is accepted for transfer to a school that is held back for reasons of preparedness have a spot reserved for them the following year.

Currently there is no criterion in Regulation 503.2 to address Kindergarten redshirting. The situation where a child with a birth date in the interim months of the year that has been accepted to a school is found to not be prepared for school and is held back until the following year. Previously the school would typically hold a spot for that accepted transfer student for the next year. That is no longer the case and the student loses their spot and has to reapply for a transfer. If the spot is not held, the family may choose to send the child rather then take a chance on not getting a spot the next year, which is not in the best interest of the school or the student.

I know your not supposed to make fun of your own children. Yet, if they don’t know I am making fun of them is it still wrong?

I also know your not supposed to repeat words they say incorrectly the same way they say it. Your supposed to say the word normally.

All that being said, one of the joys of being a parent for me is the developing language of the kids and either directing it or twisting it to my own amusement. Here are examples.

When Ty says “medicine” it sounds like “mexican”. So this morning I had him saying things like “dirty medicine” and such. I know its not politically correct, and I wouldn’t want him saying the real thing, but it is funny.

I taught Ty to say his mom toots hard. I taught him to say other things on command, like when asking what his mommy is the response of “Hot Mama”.

My daughter isn’t the best speaker for a 2 1/2 year old, and I cannot understand everything she says. She is starting to speak mostly in sentences now, but some of the words are just confusing. Like right now she is telling me something is a “bitch”. I am sure she doesn’t mean the word “bitch” but that is what I hear. I want to know what she is really saying, but I also want to reinforce her “bitch” word. Of course I won’t, but in my twisted sense of humor, it would be funny…

It is probably common knowledge that men and women parent differently. Some times this difference is more pronounced then others.

A few days ago my wife, Heidi, and I took the rugrats to get haircuts. I was in charge of the girl, Heidi got the boy. The boy went and had no problems, but the girl threw a fit. Screaming, crying, limp body, rigid body, the whole nine yards.

Heidi came over and tried to comfort our daughter. Another stylist came over and blew bubbles for her. It didn’t really work to well. This would be the female method of parenting, redirection, comfort, and everything nice.

I on the other hand, held my daughter in place and forced her to remain still while she got the rest of her haircut. That would be the male method of parenting, structure, discipline, and action.

I can’t say either is wrong, just different. Although I am sure Super Nanny would critique me.

Ada getting a haircut

One of my “joys of parenting” is in teaching my children things that I find funny. This can be lots of things, but one of them involves tooting.

All kids are gassy, and they don’t hide it. But not all kids laugh about it. So whenever my kids tooted I made it a point to laugh. I kept doing that, the louder the toot the louder the laugh. I then had to make sure when I had to toot, I would find the kids and do it by them and laugh. That itself was actually funny (the finding of my kids and tooting right by them).

After about a month of this, they would toot and start to laugh. They don’t laugh as much as I want them to, so I am still working on it.

I have also expanded this toot training to include funny comments. When someone toots really loud, my son Ty, will often say that so and so “tooted hard”. I have a follow up question when he says this of, “Who else toots hard?”. His trained response is, “Mommy”. I usually make sure he says that where his mommy can hear him.

Its little things like this that can make parenting fun.

My wife, Heidi, and I decided to be open about the human body with our children. When referring to body parts we use the clinical/medical terminology, in this case penis and vagina. Our four year old son, Ty, knows that boys have penis’s and girls have vaginas.

I think I maybe made it a point to teach him that early. At the time I am sure I had a reason other then I find it funny. Its also worth pointing out that our family is somewhat a naked family in the mornings. We make no efforts to hide it, and Heidi frequently yells at me because the neighbor can see through our side window. Personally I think the neighbor should thank me, as I am quite an attractive man.

Anyways, for sometime things were fine. Ty used the terms correctly, and not in any inappropriate ways. In the past six months or so that has changed. Both for our son and our two year old daughter Ada. Here are some examples.

Whenever Ada sees anyone naked, especially someone with a penis, she likes to point at the nether regions and laugh. Its quite emasculating.

Ty came home from his preschool one day and informed Heidi and I that the penis goes into the vagina. I know for a fact that we didn’t teach him this, nor has he accidentally seen any penis’s enter into any vaginas. I assume some vulgar child at his preschool is spreading these rumors. I neither confirmed nor denied his claim.

Lately Ty has been showing his penis to his sister. Even at one point asking her to touch it, and then laughing. I of course yelled at him, being the yelling sort that I am. My yelling was also a cover so I wouldn’t start laughing.

For a while Ty would walk around the house saying “poopycock”. I believe he heard someone say “poppycock” and being the hellion he is, changed it to something more sinister. You can see the relation to the topic, even if it is tenuous at best.

Ty seems to like to hold his package. It is disturbing to me when he holds himself while holding a normal conversation. I usually ask, “Does your penis hurt?” or “Do you have an itch?”, or “Do you need to go potty?”, after which he generally stops touching himself in public.

I haven’t decided if we will teach him the term anus when he asks, or scrotum. He did ask what his testicles were once and I said “nuts”, to which Heidi started laughing and I had to apologize and tell him they were testicles and scrotum. Thankfully he hasn’t asked since.

A side benefit that I am hoping one day to exercise with all this is for one of my children to use the appropriate term in a factual way, and get yelled at by a teacher or other adult. Then ideally I will be notified, so I can then rip that person apart. Seeing as how I am a pretty big fan of our first amendment.

The real point of all this though was this little nugget of truth I learned. It doesn’t matter what you call it, little boys are always going to find genitalia funny.

I got home from work today and Heidi was downstairs watching the news, while the kids were playing upstairs (split level house) in the sun room. I quickly yelled at Ty to stop taking the balloon from his sister Ada. His reply was, “Well, well, she gave it to me.” Keeping in mind he said this after I watched him for a couple minutes rip it from her hands while she is screaming. Heidi either didn’t want to hear, or more likely couldn’t since Ty (my son) closed the sun room door and the sun room isn’t attached to the ducting, so when the door to that room is closed it is almost sound proof.

So after yelling at Ty, I go downstairs to chat with Heidi for a couple minutes. By now the kids are quiet again, which is never a good sign. Some time later. Yes, we took advantage of the quiet even though its never a good thing. Anyways, some time later we hear the kids laughing and our daughter comes running down the stairs.

Her entire right arm is tatted with markers, and not the kind that washes off. So is her left leg, and a quarter of her face. She also colored her toe nails which included most of the toe in purple.

My son Ty is right behind her, holding up his hand like a trophy. The left hand was completely dark purple. Like a bad Michael Jackson glove, except not silver, not sparkly, and not creepy. Heidi and I looked at them, and I couldn’t help it, I started laughing. Meanwhile Heidi is trying to remain calm but she couldn’t and starts laughing. The kids are now running in circles downstairs very excited and laughing as well.

Figure it will last about a week, before the marker finally washes off completely. Not sure what the point of washable markers are if the kids always use the other ones.

It was funnier when it happened. Ty was so happy about his hand, and it was so not what Heidi and I were expecting. You would think he just won the Special Olympics or something. Ada is a light sleeper so I didn’t take a picture of here, but I took one of Ty. Notice the purple hand and the slightly blue face.