I was asked to submit a biography and candidate statement for publication in NewCastleNOW. Here is what I submitted.
Jeffrey S. Mester: Candidate Statement and Biography
Candidate Statement
This is my third time running for the School Board and I can
safely say that the oddity of running for a volunteer position never seems to
go away. We are asking you, the
community, to select us as the best, most appropriate volunteer. So, first, I
would like to recognize my fellow candidates, Warren and Rick, for their
willingness to volunteer. I admire their
decision to offer to commit their time to the community.
One of the reasons I originally ran for the Board six years
ago was because of my strong belief in my responsibility as a community member
to serve our community in a way that best suits my qualifications with the
community's needs. That remains true
today.
New York State says the qualifications for school board
membership are an ability to read and write, be
a qualified voter, and be a resident of the district for at least one
year prior to the election. Not a very
high bar indeed.
Any candidate that receives enough votes can be a member of
the Board of Education, but to be an effective member of the Board requires
much much more. It is not simply about
being smart and having the time. It is
not about representing one segment of the community.
As one of my fellow
candidates will learn, there is a lot more to the job than the hot button
issues. It is easy to identify problems;
it is much harder to offer solutions and make decisions. I am the only candidate who can stand on a
proven, successful track record of doing just that.
Being a school board member is about, first and foremost, having a passion for education. It is also about understanding education law
and regulations, about understanding the budget, and about listening. Listening to the community, listening to the
students, listening to the administrators, listening to the staff, and listening to your own gut.
Going forward, I will continue to work for ALL members of
the community to reach responsible budgets.
I will further seek to reduce the burden on taxpayers by strengthening
the public-private partnerships such as with the Chappaqua School Foundation
and the Sports Boosters. I will continue
to support openness and transparency. I
will continue to support and seek public involvement and input.
The Board cannot and should not face the challenges ahead
alone. We need community involvement and
support. I will seek to bring the various interest groups including residents
with children in the schools as well as residents without, and district
personnel together to collectively and creatively find sustainable solutions for
our district.
For the past six years, I have worked tirelessly on behalf
of the members of this community to be an effective member of the school
board. It requires a person with an extensive and detailed knowledge
of the district, a complete understanding of the budget and the structural
budget issues the district faces, a person who can make practical and reasoned
decisions, a person who is flexible and can build consensus, a person who can
balance competing community interests, and a person who has vision and
conviction. There is no experience like direct experience and a
proven track record. I stand on mine.
Simply put, common sense with an uncommon commitment.
Brief Biography
I am 51 years old. I have three terrific children one
of whom graduated from HGHS last year and two currently in high school.
All three started in the district in Kindergarten at Roaring Brook Elementary
School, attended Seven Bridges Middle School, and then went on to Horace
Greeley High School. My professional background is in the trading of
equities and equity derivatives. Most recently, I have been in the
compliance side of the business. I have an undergraduate BA in Economics
from the University of Virginia and an MBA with a concentration in Finance from
the Kelllogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University.
In response to this NewCastleNOW article and the comments below that article. This is the unedited version from before I tried to get it into one 2000 character comment box. Usual disclaimers apply. I do not speak for the Board of Ed. I speak only for myself. This is not a district statement either. Shake well before using. Refrigerate after opening. Your mileage may vary.
To C-O-N-T-R-O-L: I can think of many reasons both positive and negative why we would want questions asked privately. But, I think it is safe to say that whenever the Board or Administration replies to an email, it assumes that that email can and will be made public. I do.
I do not agree with your assumption that it makes our job a lot easier if people don't hear each other's criticisms. That is only the case if you also assume our job is to ignore the public. While I recognize that some people think that, I view our job as actually the opposite of that. While I don't think we should just be a weather vane twisting in the wind with the latest opinion, I do think that we are elected as fiduciaries to the community and as such have an obligation to listen to what the community has to say which by the way can include complements. If you read the post on my blog about deciding to run or not, I address this there.
I think it is also important for the community to know that the Board is not always in a 5-0 agreement on how to do things, but we do act as a consensus Board. In general, after a consensus of the Board is taken, the President of the Board will fashion a response that reflects that consensus. Whether I support that consensus response, I will always support that this is a majority rules Board and that the President has certain power/authority/obligation to respond in a way that (s)he sees fit within the consensus.
As for the last meeting and the timing of the two statements, I can tell you there was nothing Machiavellian about them. After almost 6 years on the Board, I can tell you that the announcement about the administrator's contract was put first, for two reasons. One, it was not on the agenda anywhere because of the timing of the agreement with the Board (not agreed upon until after the agenda was made. Agendas are generally set on the Thursday or Friday prior to the next meeting.) so it was put first, and, two, it was good news for the community in terms of the budget impact. The meeting was primarily focused on the budget. Hence, put the budget item first.
The so called Tim Bloom response was not purposely moved to 11:00 pm or later in the meeting so no one would hear it. First, Tim never wrote directly to the Board. He wrote to the administration and published it here on NCN. So, it was a little confusing as to who the Board would actually be responding to. In the end, we were responding to the community in general, but we never got one direct piece of correspondence from anyone in the community about it. Writing anonymous comments on an internet blog is a very inefficient way to communicate with the Board. (Any Board.)
Second, there are few people attending the meetings. Most watch it on replay or on NCMCTV online. Anyone could fast forward to find the portion they are looking for. Third, it was on the agenda in the Superintendent's and President's report. Ironically enough, it comes later in the meeting because we moved the presentations to the beginning of the meetings so that the public could come to watch that and not have to wait until the end. When I first got on the Board and prior to that, the business section came first and then the presentations. We got criticized for that and changed it.
Legally, we are required to have an agenda. It makes sense to stick to it as much as possible as we are also required to publish it in advance. Some have suggested that we start earlier. We have considered that. I for one, would love to get home before midnight on a meeting night. But, there were other considerations and other points of view. In the past, we had a lot of feedback that starting earlier would make it particularly difficult for those with students in elementary and middle school to attend. Between dinner and bedtime, starting at 7:00 or 7:30 would be a hardship for many.
One of the interesting things that happened at the last meeting is relevant here. I am not sure how many people noticed it, but we received an email with several questions from a resident who was unable to attend the meeting. President Tipp actually read the questions during the appropriate part of the presentation. It is certainly a way to ask a question while not having the pressure or whatever of coming to the microphone. I will sometimes email questions to the presenters in advance so that they are prepared to answer them publicly. I don't think it is fair to the public when someone says they will get back to you on that. Then the response is not on the record. Feel free to email the Board with questions you might have in advance. If you send it to the President and/or all the Board members, I think the President would be more than happy to represent your questions at the appropriate time.
On a slightly similar note, Christine has been prodding the Board for several years to make its meetings live. One of her concepts with having it live would be to have the ability for someone watching at home to ask a question maybe through email or a text or something. It is certainly something to be considered, although I have never seen it in practice. I have suggested to Christine that I would be willing to do a live online forum answering questions. I envisioned it something along the lines of a Reddit Ask Me Anything. If I decide to run for a third term, I would definitely be willing to answer any question I legally could on any subject.
I think this Board has gotten an undeserved reputation by some of the anonymous commenters here on NCN as a closed Board. Nothing is farther from the truth. We have gone out of our way to be as transparent and forthright as we can. Some items, particularly personnel and legal items, we are precluded from speaking about publicly. It is frustrating to us too when we cannot speak about something we would want to otherwise.
Yes, we have a three minute stated limit on questions. However, I can only remember two times where we actually imposed that limit and with those two times, we simply told the person they could ask additional questions after those who have not had a chance to ask any question yet already did so. Quite frankly, if you cannot ask one or two questions in three minutes time, then you are making a speech. I cannot think of anyone who has not had a chance to ask their question or make a comment at one of our meetings.
Do we get defensive at times? Sure, we are human. We are also volunteers. We are trying to do our best. Really. I recognize that we will not always be universally applauded for some of our decisions. There are many issues where the community itself is divided. I personally get frustrated when people think because we do not agree with them or do not take a certain course of action they support that we don't listen. We listen, we deliberate, we consider ramifications and we decide.
I just want to make one more point about anonymous comments. I get why some who make comments wish to remain anonymous. It can be scary criticizing teachers or administrators when your child is in school. There is one school of thought that your child could be subject to retaliation. Believe me when I tell you that I considered it myself when I speak out or when we negotiate, etc. While it is a concern, I know the leadership of all the unions well. I know many of the teachers in the district personally. I give them more credit than thinking they would even dream of retaliation. They are professionals dedicated to teaching. It is just not something that would enter the mind of the staff.
I personally don't mind criticism. I do mind personal attacks. Question my thought process, question my vote, question my decisions, but don't question my integrity, don't call me names, don't make statements you know to be false or ones you don't know to be true.
I oppose anonymous comments. I think using your name leads to a more civilized dialogue. I think using your name gives your comment more credibility. I get that some people want to hide behind the cloak of anonymity, but I don't condone it.
Finally, I wish the community would recognize that we are volunteers trying to do our best. We don't get paid, we don't have any perks that I am aware of, and we don't get benefits. We do spend a lot of time, we do work hard. and we do want to engage the public. If it was such a great job, more people would be trying to do it. It is a rewarding job if you care about education, care about the students and care to serve your community. A wise former board member told me on the way out the door, that it is only a thankless job if you are expecting thanks. I am not.
Edit: Feel free to post a comment here on my blog. I will reply to all that ask a question or ask for a reply.
"The Board of Ed does not even understand the BOCES fees and charges..."
First, participation in BOCES is a state mandate. Back when BOCES (Board of Cooperative Education Services) were first formed in the 1940's, the big 5 cities were excluded and districts were given a chance to opt out. Only one district in Westchester, Mamaroneck chose to opt out. Once that initial decision was made some 70+ years ago, BOCES is like a roach motel. You can check in, but you can never check out.
The Board knows full well about BOCES charges. I am not so sure that NCN did an adequate job explaining them as many comments seemed to be based on either incomplete or inaccurate knowledge. BOCES charges are in our budget every year. BOCES is used for many different reasons. One, obviously, are the on-site educational services. They are invaluable to the students and save the district significant amounts of money versus creating our own program for a handful of students. In fact, that is the point. BOCES was set up to be a more efficient and cost effective way to handle certain types and parts of the FAPE (Free and Appropriate Public Education).
There appears to be some confusion regarding the annual costs. We are not being charged $2 million (or close to that) for sending a 12 students there. The charges for the 12 students are only part of the overall BOCES costs.
We also currently use BOCES for their expertise in certain areas as well as their ability to coordinate and share services inter-district. For example, we are working through BOCES to develop on-line learning opportunities. Through BOCES several Westchester districts are developing on-line courses that will allow districts to share the resources and the expenses of developing the resources. We anticipate being able to increase our course offerings in the future to include on-line classes developed through BOCES that would not otherwise be economically feasible to develop and offer on our own.
BOCES is also used as a purchasing co-op for its member districts. We use them to lower the price of certain items and services for the district. In addition, we are able to use (purchase) certain administrative services that we would otherwise not have the need for a full time staff member to do. These purchasing costs are a pass through from BOCES. They will appear on the BOCES expense line because we are being billed by BOCES to pay the vendor, but they are not necessarily BOCES services per se.
The district is charged in two ways from BOCES. One, we are charged an annual allocation of administrative and operational costs. Two, we are charged directly for the services we use and the co-op purchases we make. The latter is obvious and easy to appreciate. The former is less obvious. We are required to be part of BOCES.
Looked at another way, what would be the affect on the district's budget if there were no BOCES? Would we spend the same, more or less? As I have been told, Mamaroneck's analysis of not being a member is that it is about the same in annual costs to the district as if they were a member. They purchase services a la carte from the Northern and the Southern Westchester BOCES. It is my opinion that you would have to break down the expense into its components.
For example, we would clearly spend more on the goods and services we use/buy as part of the co-op buying service. The only time we use BOCES for that now is if it would save us money vis a vis purchasing it on our own. For the educational services provided to the students we send to classes at BOCES, we would spend considerably more without BOCES. Educating one student versus spreading the cost over several or many similarly situated students is prohibitive. The question becomes, does the cost savings from co-op purchasing whether it is goods and services or education related classes out weigh the expense of simply being a member and getting an allocation of annual administrative /operating expenses.
There are other costs associated with BOCES that don't show up in the BOCES lines on our budget. For example, the cost of transportation to and from BOCES for our students is part of our transportation costs. And there are cost savings we accrue by being an inclusive district that otherwise would likely be part of BOCES. Educating our students in district within the general population not only is a significant benefit academically and socially to both the students in need of services as well as their classmates without, it is cost savings to the district.
The BOCES budget itself, is very similar to its component district's budgets. Most of the cost are personnel related for salaries and benefits. It cannot borrow money itself, so it has not debt service. As a member district, we act as our taxpayers act in relation to our district/board. We can and do demand efficiencies, we expect them to reduce administrative head count in order to lower benefits expense, we expect them to keep plain old administrative operating expenses in check, and we question what are appropriate course offerings. But we are only one member district and our opinion does not always rule the day. There are clearly districts that are much heavier users of BOCES services that derive a much larger benefit from being part of the co-op. Just like Westchester County does not get back tax dollars from the state in the form of services that it pays in taxes, some districts like the CCSD do not benefit as much as others. But, we are mandated to remain part of the system just like residents of Westchester cannot opt out of the State tax system.
I don't want to mislead anyone and say that if we were not required to be part, we would withdraw. That decision would take a lot of analysis and prioritizing of what it is that the district wants to provide its residents.
The difference though from a non-member and a member in terms of cost really comes to the forefront when there is a cash call for facilities improvements like we are faced with now. Whereas non-members are faced with higher user fees than members for services, non-members are not being asked to help defray the cost of the facilities upgrades and repairs. It is no different than owning an apartment in a co-op building. There are occasionally capital repairs that require the building board to issue a one-time assessment.
The Board is certainly aware that our annual administration charges are based on a formula that is 50% a measure of wealth as defined by property values and 50% by number of students in the district. This is actually a change from 100% based on property value wealth that used to be what the formula used. NWBOCES applied for and got an exception from the State of NY to change the formula to 50-50.
As part of the annual allocation of expenses, there is a capital cost included. That is supposed to be used for facilities maintenance and the like. I believe that last year we paid $70,000 toward that. It is clear that BOCES has not been doing proper maintenance or proper planning. The majority of what they are asking for is for structural repairs (flat roofs need replacement). This capital call raises many questions independent of how BOCES is operated and expenses shared on an annual operating basis.
What was our capital costs used for all these years if there are still millions of dollars in repairs needed? Why weren't these repairs or replacements done periodically to avoid this sort of one time expense? Why was there no replacement plan that could have been discussed with member districts so that we could properly plan ourselves for upcoming costs? Finally, who should pay for facility repairs and upgrades, users, member districts or some combination?
Simply put, on a relative basis, relative to other members of the BOCES and relative to our own local education usage, we do not use the facilities anywhere near what most other districts use. Our ~12 students are not a material part of the wear and tear on the buildings. Asking the CCSD to pay for the repairs based on property valuations and wealth vis a vis other districts is a regressive tax on our community members. One suggestion to BOCES at our meeting was to charge users a prorata cost, not member districts. Districts that use services but are not part of our BOCES are not being given an allocation of these costs.
Know too that we are not the only district grappling with this issue. A majority of the districts have questioned the surprise nature of the critical need for repairs as well as BOCES costs structure in general. I know of several districts that are meeting again with BOCES prior to their vote to express their displeasure with this situation. One suggestion that seems to be gathering momentum is to reduce the size of the capital request to a bare minimum level needed to keep the facilities operating without upgrade.
To clarify, while our district's allocation is about $1.5 million, we would borrow the funds and repay them over time. The annual cost to the district would be around $90,000 according to the administration. If the proposal is voted down by the member districts and we are forced to pay for this on an ad hoc emergency basis, the costs to the district would likely be higher. In fact, Bedford voted yes because of its fear that a no vote would cost more.
The school board recently received a rebuttal/response from Christine Yeres regarding my post of October 2nd. One of the responses regarded my use of the term "blog" to describe NewCastleNOW. Christine prefers to use the term "online newspaper". Christine and I have had a good natured running disagreement on this since, well, for a while.
What is the difference between an online newspaper and a blog? Is there a distinction? Does it matter? Why do I insist on calling NCN a blog not an online paper? Why does Christine insist on calling it an online newspaper?
Does it matter?
Six of one, half dozen of the other. It does not matter to me what you call me, but it does matter to the reader. It is a signal to the reader of what expectations to have about the posts. While I believe there is a distinction (more on that below), I don't care what you call me (blogger or reporter or SOB. Sort of like Razzles. Are they a gum or a candy? -- candy first then a gum imho, but irrelevant. Eat or not.)
Why does Christine insist on calling it an online newspaper?
I have no direct knowledge of why, but I speculate that she believes an online newspaper is more important and relevant than a blog. Maybe it has to do with their start-up funding?
If you research the history behind the founding of NewCastleNOW, you are led to a website J-Lab.org, that has a brief history of Christine Yeres, Susie Pender and Ann Marie Fallon founding the site. J-Lab provided the initial $50,000 (I have also seen a conflicting number of $17,000) in start-up capital. I am pretty sure that they are not looking to provide funding for blogs, but do want to facilitate the start-up of online newspapers.
The article also indicates that the advertising revenue is about $90,000 after 10 months of their third year and they pay out 20% to the person selling the ads. $72,000 net to NCN as a start-up!! Great job building the small business! Very impressive indeed.
(Local businesses must believe advertising on their site is worth its cost. It certainly hits a very targeted audience of local older people with disposable income. Both NCN and the Patch have an economic incentive to drive readership. Controversy sells. There is a financial incentive to negative reporting and to "gotcha journalism". But sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar and there is no gotcha there, just a feel good story about whatever subject is being covered.)
It seems as if their mission in founding the site was accountability. A noble mission indeed. Here is a link to a case study on the founding of NCN. (Scroll down, it is the second one on the page.) Pender describes in part the mission behind NCN:
Pender says she wanted, in part, to hold public officials more accountable.
“I was shocked at how much people in a small town like this were willing to say, ‘Those people know what they’re doing, there’s no reason to question the superintendent of the school board,’” she said by way of example. “The problem is there are things that need to be investigated.”
Later in the article, the author seems to be implying that NCN has affected local elections. NCN seems to get or take credit for Gregg Bresner's victory 3 years ago.
The news site has had a discernible impact on the area. Since it launched, a challenger has successfully unseated an incumbent in the local school board election - an unheard-of scenario in a town where elected school officials typically serve until they decide to step down.
I have not been able to find causal effect or make the leap in analysis that because there was a new site writing posts in New Castle that an incumbent lost his position to a new comer. Another problem with that statement is that in every election since Bresner's when an incumbent ran against a challenger, the incumbent won. Yet another problem is how they measure their impact on an election. What were the polls saying before they got involved? Are they implying that they are trying to affect local elections for their candidates and that they are not impartial reporters?
In another interview, Yeres takes part responsibility for the changes made to the HS schedule the second year. Apparently, the district's analysis and internal review were secondary. The fact that the district said before the schedule was implemented that it would be reviewed after the first year meant nothing I guess.
New Castle NOW’s coverage of a controversial high school schedule change “had much to do with its modification a year later,” said managing editor Christine Yeres. But if the site had been operating before the controversy began, “we could have helped people to know the details of the largely hidden decision process of the Board of Ed ... and residents could have expressed their opposition more effectively,” she said.
Here is a case of NCN pressing their own personal agenda. Transparency goes to both sides of an issue. A newspaper's mission is not accountability. It is to report the news, good, bad or indifferent. Accountability comes from the reporting of the news and asking questions. Part of reporting as a newspaper is to bring information to the community. The dissemination of information in itself leads to transparency and accountability. News can be "good" news as well as "bad" news. If your goal is only accountability and not reporting, your are a niche site that is a blog not an online newspaper.
I also have to digress for a moment here and tell you that the most effective way of expressing an opinion to the Board of Ed is through direct contact. Sending an email, writing a letter, calling a Board member, going to a meeting and voicing a concern really does have an impact on our decision making. Writing anonymously to a blog (or online newspaper) is not that effective.
While their mission is certainly a laudable one and one that I support, it seems to me that they sometimes get lost in the mission. Can't see the forest through the trees so to speak. Too often they are looking for the "gotcha" story, the "Watergate journalism" instead of stepping back and looking at the bigger picture.
For example, one real story about the schools is the terrific work being done in the classrooms by the students and for the students. Pender is quoted in the case study as wanting to recognize when it is appropriate to report and when not to. When it is appropriate to report feel good stories and when to hold feet to the fire.
“Sometimes we want to be The New York Times and sometimes we want to be the church bulletin,” Pender said.
Yes, we as publicly elected officials should be held accountable. Accountable to all the community, not just a loud subset. We should be transparent. Sometimes, take yes for an answer and recognize that we are trying and that there are some terrific things going on in the schools. Or at least do both.
You as a member of the community are short changed and are not getting transparent coverage when it is selective. How do you even know what to question if you don't attend meetings, watch them on tape or have someone covering the district and the Board more completely? You will read below the contrasts in coverage of our last meeting by the two local sites covering the meetings on a regular basis. (A third local blog, The Daily Chappaqua is a recent entry into the micro news coverage business. The Examiner is a weekly print publication. Here is a link to their archives.)
What is the difference between an online newspaper and a blog?
I think there is a distinction to be made. That distinction is for the reader. I write and post to a blog. I do not see the term "blog" having either a positive or negative connotation. Interestingly, while I cannot speak for Tom Auchterlonie of the Patch, I did have a brief conversation with him about it once and he refers to the Patch as a blog, although it appeared to me that he never really thought it important to make a distinction either way.
In fact, the Patch solicits blog posts from locals to expand and enhance their coverage of local happenings. I have made several posts on their site. (I have offered to make posts on NewCastleNOW, but they refuse to yield me editorial control over my own opinion pieces and refused to post a link to my (this) blog. The Patch does both.)
Here is what the Patch says about it:
ABOUT US
What is Patch?
Simply put, Patch is a new way to find out about, and participate in, what’s going on near you.
We’re a community-specific news and information platform dedicated to providing comprehensive and trusted local coverage for individual towns and communities.
We want to make your life better by giving you quick access to the information that’s most relevant to you. Patch makes it easy to:
Keep up with news and events
Look at photos and videos from around town
Learn about local businesses
Participate in discussions
Submit your own announcements, photos, and reviews
They call what they are doing a platform dedicated to providing comprehensive and trusted local coverage.
The distinction I make between an online newspaper and a blog is the content of the articles published or posted. While every newspaper has a bias (try reading the NY Times and the NY Post when they cover the same story about the President for a good example), news stories are intended to be factual accounts of the events while opinion and editorializing is done in separate articles or posts with such caveats as "news analysis" or "op-ed" or "editorial" or several other distinctions. For the most part, reporting is distinct from opinion or editorializing.
NewCastleNOW does not make that distinction. They intersperse the two on a regular basis and also use the editorial process of writing to editorialize in the general sense. For example, when reporting on school board meetings, they leave out reports on many parts of the meeting. Or, when there is no issue that appears to be controversial, they do not attend at all. The most recent specific example would be from last Friday, October 14th.
Here is a link to their coverage of the Tuesday the 11th meeting. As Yeres points out in her post, they "covered" the meeting via watching the video tape. They did not attend the meeting live. (I am actually ok with that if they have a conflict on Tuesday nights. And currently, Yeres is covering both Town meetings and school meetings that are in a schedule conflict. Remember, I pushed for moving the meeting to avoid conflicts.) Below is the actual complete text of the NCN post.
Yeres lists two important updates from that meeting. One, an update on "random" survey, and two, President Kiesel announces that advisory committees are not required to be public. Both statements are factually accurate. But, by leaving out many other significant items from that meeting, they are editorializing by not reporting.
Interestingly, the Patch, that did attend the meeting live, wrote two articles about substantial items that were part of that meeting that were not reported at all by NCN. But, they did not "report" the NCN items. The Patch articles follow the NCN article.
NEW: Updates from Board of Ed meeting Tuesday, October 11
October 11, 2011
by Christine Yeres
• Random survey taking place now; finished by next week
• Kiesel announces that advisory committees are not required to be public
Survey is afoot
Board President Alyson Kiesel announced that the district’s telephone survey of 250 randomly chosen residents is currently taking place and will be finished at the end of this week or early next week. “Once we have the data,” she said, “we’ll have a report analyzing the data, then a presentation to the board and community from the survey company.”
District committees are not required to be public
Yesterday afternoon, Superintendent for Business John Chow declined to respond to the question of whether the meetings of the budget advisory committee will remain closed and the committee members remain unnamed, referring NCNOW to the video tape of Tuesday’s board meeting. See “New schools budget advisory committee up-and-running; meetings will be closed,” NCNOW.org, 9/30/11.
On that tape, without referring specifically to Chow’s budget advisory committee, as part of her President’s Report Kiesel stated that “the district has a whole variety of committees, some board committees, some administrative” that are “not called for by statute or regulation, and are not required to be public meetings. They may be put together for any variety of reasons by administrators for any purpose and unless two board members or more attend, they are not considered board meetings or board-sanctioned meetings.”
Harvard Project Gets Good Marks from Chappaqua School District
EcoMUVE, a virtual immersion and assessment technology, has been tried out with middle school students in the district, as an alternative to convention learning.
Avatars in virtual reality are no longer just for movies and video games. Thanks to researchers at Harvard University, they are now being used by middle school kids to learn things in creative and immersive ways.
The result of this is a virtual reality program called EcoMUVE, which students at Seven Bridges and Robert E. Bell middle schools have been trying out since last year. The program has received positive feedback from Chappaqua teachers, according to Harvard professor Chris Dede, who gave presentations on the results at this week's school board meeting and at a PTA event held at Bell.
The program was given good reviews by teachers for being engaging, in science content learning, complex causality and inquiry.
The intent of EcoMUVE is do encourage immersion in course subject matter, on "situated learning," which focuses on how people learn in life, as opposed to a conventional classroom.
“No longer do classrooms have to be isolated from the real world," Dede was recorded as saying in his board presentation (click here for it on the NCCMC website).
For example, in EcoMUVE, students using their avatars can learn about complex problems, such as how fertilizer dumping impacts a pond's eco system and harms fish in the span of about a month. Students can also drag their avatars into different terrains, and shrink down to the atomic level, like in the TV show The Magic School Bus.
Assessments done under EcoMUVE allow for teachers to grade students on how they handle inquiry and the various step they take in solving problems, as opposed to just having a simple answer from a test. The program leaves an audit trail that shows what students looked at in the program in the course of their problem solving. The virtual system that focus on assessment are compressed on-spot problems.
The program, the product of three years of research and federal funding, could be commercialized by Harvard, according to Dede, either given to a publisher ot given away free to schools if a publisher isn't found.
The next big step will be next spring, while a mobile version of EcoMUVE is introduced to students, made possible by a grant from the National Science Foundation. This will allow for kids to engage in what is called augmented reality, which Dede said “will open up a new form of education.” An example of augmented reality, Dede explained, would be to a sign in a foreign language and point your phone at it, which would translate the signage into English. This technology could be applied on a personal level, according to Dede, with students using it around town to learn local history.
Board members were impressed with the results.
“I just think it’s interesting to see how we can get a handle on that," said Victoria Tipp, pointing out its usefulness in teaching critical thinking, being creative and problem solving.
School board President Alyson Kiesel noted that if the students feel the learning environment feels like play for the students, “It’s just a beautiful thing.”
Going forward, the technology could progress to the point where teachers and even students can create their own augmented realities for the curriculum, Dede explained.
And:
Greeley to Get Fireworks for Homecoming Rally
Revamped pre-homecoming event is intended to cater towards families and make the Greeley Sports Boosters a more vital organization, its president says.
Next week, students at Horace Greeley High School, along with their families, will have a chance to watch fireworks, partake in athletic clinics and root for their teams at a revamped homecoming pep rally.
The new lineup got approval from the school board at its meeting this week and will be held the evening of Oct. 21, the night before the Oct. 22 football game against Harrison. It will also include recognition of all fall sports teams.
The changes, backed by the Greeley Sports Boosters, will serve several purposes, according to Boosters President Jim Nottingham. They include making homecoming more of a community event, which will include students' parents and siblings, and to make the Boosters "much more of a go-to organization" than it has been before.
A format including fireworks is uncommon in area, although Armonk's Byram Hills High School holds them, according to Nottingham.
Preparing for the event, Nottingham consulted Assistant Superintendent for Business John Chow about insurance logistics, as well as the Chappaqua Fire Department's second assistant chief, Russell Maitland.
Maitland came to the board meeting to assure the members of the event being safe. The fire department will be there with a presence.
School districts officials were receptive to the goal of the revamped pep rally.
“I think it could be very exciting," said school board President Alyson Kiesel.
Greeley Principal Andrew Selesnick was supportive of making the pep rally a family oriented event.
(Special shout out to the New Castle Community Media Center for hosting the videos of school board meetings and for generally, as it says on the tin, building a community through media.)
So why is the Patch a blog and why does it consider itself such? They have not chosen to report on all the details of the meeting, instead they chose to report in detail on two interesting stories that are happening in the community and in the district that was discussed at the Board meeting. They left out a mention on the update to the survey and the explanation of the advisory committees likely because they did not deem them to be significant items.
NCN, while wanting to be called an online newspaper and called reporters which would presume that they are going to report the material events of a meeting, chose to focus on only two items from that meeting and those two items were in my opinion smaller items that specifically eliminated some of the positive things being done in the schools and the community. (In fairness, they did report the fireworks item in a separate post not having to do with the meeting.)
If you intersperse opinion with fact, if you editorialize through omission or exclusion without making it clear to the reader that you are doing that, then you are blogging, not reporting. If your mission is solely accountability without wanting to cover the issues that do not provoke a healthy skepticism, you are blogging. Not a big deal, just a distinction.
Back to "Does it matter?"
Again, to me there is no negative or positive connotation between the two terms, but there is an important distinction that needs to be made to the reader. Accuracy is only one part to being a fair and honest reporter of the news. Completeness of materiality is another. Readers of NCN are making the assumption that what NCN reports is accurate (certainly NCN's intention) and complete.
Let's face it, 99% of the folks in the CCSD do not attend the typical board meeting nor do they watch them on TV or online. They are relying on either word of mouth or local publications to either summarize, highlight or report on the meetings. (Or they just don't much care.) NCN is doing an injustice to the community by being selective about what it reports if it is indeed an online newspaper.
Quite frankly, I do not know if there is enough time in the day for one person (Christine Yeres) or hopefully soon two people (Susie Pender) to be able to report completely on all the town and school happenings twice a week. I applaud her for her efforts while her partner is unavailable. Lord knows she tries. But, let the community know that you are blogging what you want the community to know or what you have time to report. Sometimes priorities have to be made and the school board falls low. I get that. Ok, but let the reader know.
JSM
Bonus video: Interview with Christine Yeres and Ann Marie Fallon regarding NewCastleNOW.org. This video was posted originally by J-Lab. The sound levels are low. You can adjust them higher by using the leveler on the lower right. Also, the complete interview is not available as far as I can tell. The edits are all J-Lab's, but it is good background info re: NCN.
