| Why?; Why was this implemented? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 7 2006, 10:47 PM (567 Views) | |
| rooseveltmom | Nov 7 2006, 10:47 PM Post #1 |
|
Principal
|
This is the question that keeps on going over and over in my head. There is no gain with the Legacy. It was developed behind closed doors. It was forced. It makes no sense. I have tried for a long time to figure out some theory, consipiracy or not, to understand this route. I have not seen any big businesses with gain, as I thought would be the case. I have not witnessed any large parcels of land sold off. I just can not make any sense of the whole darned thing. All I have witnessed is a slew of homes for sale and a lot of desperate parents trying to make this right for their children. What were they thinking? And why with such an arrogant stance? This is more backwards than it was last year. My only hope is that it can be corrected. I think a collaboration needs to be made to achieve the high standards that brought us here to begin with. |
![]() |
|
| c3hull | Nov 8 2006, 01:29 AM Post #2 |
|
Principal
|
I have also wondered the same thing for over a year now. I kept thinking someone would eventually make sense of "WHY". To date, I still have no clue how so many LPS employees/retirees could think the LIe would benefit our community. The only thing that keeps re-playing in my head was the first BOE meeting when the first picketing happened and Dr. LIEpa showed the 3 plans that could have been implemented. When asked what plan saved the most teachers jobs, the answer was the K-4, 5-6. I hate to think the Pres. of the teachers union got "snowed" by that alone, but I think so. I think Dr. LIEpa knew he need the teachers union on his side or his ship would have sunk long ago! Well, I hope the teachers and the union President now realize they got screwed too! How sad!!! We surely will have to cut several teachers and parapros next years due to the huge loss of students. Worse, if they make a realistic projected loss of students for next fall, there goes another 500+ kids! How many teachers will they have to cut to adjust for a loss of 1,000+ students? This is absolutely sickening! :angry:Trading teachers for transportation costs. Time for the Dr. to hang up his hat and go screw up some other school district with his "Innovative Approach"! BTW, that's the exact same phrase that used to be on Randon Stables website that was incoropated in Sept, 2004 a few weeks before the Demolition Committee formed. It might work in the horse racing business, but it doesn't work in LPS! :ph43r: |
![]() |
|
| Livonia Voter | Nov 8 2006, 10:27 AM Post #3 |
|
Principal
|
But how better to be noticed and applauded, than having a huge experiment with our kids? After all, if it had worked, could a nice cushy job with the state have been far behind? Alas, we are the ones that have to pay for thier gamble. |
![]() |
|
| ILIkeLI | Nov 8 2006, 11:39 AM Post #4 |
|
Principal
|
Pre-LI, the community heard over and over again that the district was in desperate financial shape. Dr. L said the LI was a financial move. The supporters jumped aboard telling us that "something needs to be done" to solve the district's financial crisis. We all know now that the finances were never as bad as they were portrayed. The sad truth is that the LI didn't accomplish it's main goal. The district is actually in worse shape financially post-LI. The fund equity will be close to depletion after it is used to bail out the administration's poor choice to force this plan without community support. 520 students driven out of the system. A loss unprecedented before the LI. Additional loss on the horizon as word spreads from parents unhappy with the "enhanced" programs, the increased behavioral issues, the inconsistencies between schools, even classrooms and the long bus rides. I would deem that a huge, miserable failure. |
![]() |
|
| c3hull | Nov 8 2006, 12:37 PM Post #5 |
|
Principal
|
This plan will go down in Livonia's history as "The Legacy that Lost Livonia". God help us all!
|
![]() |
|
| fyi | Nov 8 2006, 03:23 PM Post #6 |
|
Principal
|
Now we know why they waited so long to reveal the enrollment #'s. |
![]() |
|
| Bill Williamson | Nov 8 2006, 04:36 PM Post #7 |
|
Principal
|
It is my belief that the purpose of this shake up of the K-6 configuration best addressed the often stated "class size" statements. The inequities in class sizes from school to school were best equalized through this plan. Administration bought into the idea that K-4 seemed to best maintain some of the "boundary" concerns too. Especially in the 22 elementary schools, kindergarten enrollments varied significantly. 4th and 5th grade sizes also varied. This required the blending of grades to keep the union leadership happy. K-4 was a simple way to keep their members (teachers) class sizes as uniform as possible. Less buildings + more kids per grade per building = more uniform class size. Shortsighted, Yes---On paper, simple to create, Yes--- Effective, NO |
![]() |
|
| Grant1 | Nov 8 2006, 04:38 PM Post #8 |
|
We have just begun to fight!
|
It left out the most important factor when making decisions based on $$$$ The voice of the customer |
![]() |
|
| Anna Krome | Nov 8 2006, 04:54 PM Post #9 |
|
Principal
|
Bill, Your point makes a lot of sense. The BOE cannot "legislate" enrollment. Schools are always intertwined w/property values. It is a reality of the system we live within. AK |
![]() |
|
| Pete | Nov 8 2006, 05:13 PM Post #10 |
|
Principal
|
Just a feeling but I think some on the BOE were enamored to be the one's who are so forward thinking and to be involved. It fed their desires, like how they love self-praise and we know they love that. But Liepa, and I think others had this plan cast in stone well prior to it's ever being introduced! A great big sham! |
![]() |
|
| ILIkeLI | Nov 8 2006, 06:51 PM Post #11 |
|
Principal
|
If maintaining consistently low class sizes across the district was the goal, how will the LI account for enrollment that will vary from school to school? When classes inevitably become inconsistent from building to building what will happen? Will LPS need a 3/4 to "maintain small class sizes'? Hey, that's it, focus schools are the real answer
The idea of keeping class sizes small through a grade configuration of any kind is a stretch of the imagination. Do supporters really buy this idea that the LI will maintain class sizes throughout the ditrict? Sure, initially, it has helped to equalize them. But that is only temporary. Honestly, how long until we see the discrepancies between buildings crop up again? |
![]() |
|
| Anna Krome | Nov 8 2006, 06:56 PM Post #12 |
|
Principal
|
Good observation. Wish I'd thought of it. AK |
![]() |
|
| ILIkeLI | Nov 8 2006, 08:05 PM Post #13 |
|
Principal
|
Were we able to create more balanced class sizes and maintain class size ratios? Were we able to limit the number of combination classes in the district? Were we able to reduce the number of overflow students? These were taken from "Livonia Voters" response to a letter he wrote to Dr. L. asking him to identify the criteria that will be used to evaulaue the LI's success/failure. These particular criteria (and there are more) are extremely shortsighted. The LI may have temporarily created more balanced class sizes. But how does a grade configuration, any configuration help to maintain that balance? How can a grade configuration actually help to reduce combination classes? or reduce overflow? If it has, that would seemingly be just a coincidence and nothing to do with changing the grade configuration. Honestly, how does shuffling and rearranging students into different buildings reduce the need for those things? While these goals and this criteria may sound good to supporters on the surface, they are completely illogical. Certainly all could have been obtained without changing the configuration. |
![]() |
|
| mikefromholland | Nov 8 2006, 09:18 PM Post #14 |
|
Principal
|
The Holland "focus schools" were designed with a similar goal -- to equalize class sizes. But here, there was no pretense about smaller class sizes. The district made it clear that one of the mechanisms for the cost savings was allowing all class sizes to be close to the maximum allowed under the union contract, thus decreasing the per student cost. The claim was that improvements in teacher collaboration and opportunities for differentiated learning possible under the focus school configuration would allow larger class sizes to be used without decreasing achievement. Focus schools were announced with a promise of $1.2 million per year cost savings. This broke down approximately as follows. $400 thousand from 2 elementary building closings $450 thousand from maximizing class sizes $150 thousand from relocating administration and nontraditional programs $200 thousand from cutting specialist positions Of these dollar amounts, only the $450 thousand depended on the focus school configuration. The other savings could have been realized without eliminating neighborhood schools (other than the two closed schools) My initial estimate of student losses in the 1st year was 158. Using our foundation grant amount at that time, we lost $1.05 million in revenue. |
![]() |
|
| livoniamom | Nov 9 2006, 09:07 AM Post #15 |
|
Principal
|
Those goals may sound impressive on paper -- but as a parent, they are not worth closing my child's school and the huge inconvience of having four schools to go to until graduation. The ONLY reason I can see for this drastic extreme plan is to save boat-loads of money which it obviously didn't. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic » |






:angry:
9:09 AM Jul 11