Kudos to Unit 4 Superintendent Arthur Culver for maintaining a tradition I never even knew existed — he wants to make sure that next year’s district “fall holiday” falls on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism, instead of on Columbus Day.
But what shocked me the most about this revelation was that although the opportunity presented itself, the Jewish teachers on the committee setting the district calendar didn’t seem to mind that their most solemn holiday wasn’t chosen for the district’s fall holiday, as it has been in years past.
Where I grew up, it was just as common to have girls and boys named Schwartz as Smith. There was no school on the High Holidays — Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur — and our high school auditorium was even used by one synagogue for its observance. Obviously, if our child goes to public school here, she will have a much different experience.
I know there are a lot of Culver haters out there, and he certainly has had a controversial tenure since arriving on the scene in 2002. Since I don’t have a child in the district — yet — I don’t feel I have enough knowledge to develop a complete, independently formed opinion about him. But it’s comforting to know that the superintendent respects the Jewish students and the Jewish employees in the district, even if some of them don’t respect themselves.
12 responses so far ↓
mr. lbotp // January 16, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Oh, I’d be more than happy to give you “enough knowledge to develop a complete, independently formed opinion about him.”
lbotp // January 17, 2008 at 8:48 am
Then it wouldn’t be independent, would it.
Unit 4 parent // January 17, 2008 at 9:39 am
Mr. Culver and his administration are a very hardworking group. They inherited the consent decree, tax caps (this city has the 2nd lowest tax rate in the area and missed out on $7 million dollars last year - 70% of the cost of building a new elementary school - relative to pre-tax cap funding), and requirements under No Child Left Behind, and have done an excellent job of implementing curriculum changes to best educate a diverse population. I recently heard a new school board member with a long history in finance say the district is in very good long-term financial health. The community has allowed the facilities of Unit 4 to degrade over a long period of time (been in Dr. Howard or Edison lately?), another issue that Culver inherited. To my mind he has done good work in a tough situation. And, my kids are receiving a good education. You’d think that in a town where the largest employer is the state’s largest public university, the townfolk would make public education of its citizens a top priority.
Leeanthro // January 17, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I’m “townfolk” and not only went to the U of I, but am also employed by it (as is my husband). You better believe we voted in favor of the referendum that would have built a new Dr. Howard.
It’s convincing the “haves” in a certain area of town to do something for once that would benefit someone other than themselves. The people who benefit from new schools such as Barkstall have no incentive to build new schools in other areas of town. Because heaven forbid their taxes might increase $100 a year. That’s the cost of filling their Suburbans only twice.
I think part of the issue with the referendum was that Savoy was going to get a new school and their tax rates aren’t as high. They also don’t pay into MTD. I take issue with that.
The criticism that I have of Culver and the current school board is that when the referendum didn’t pass, that was it. No more said about a new school to replace Dr. Howard or the other projects.
As I see it, the town needs a new Dr. Howard, Central needs to become a middle school, and we need a large, new high school. But let’s start with Dr. Howard for now.
But don’t get me started
lbotp // January 17, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Leeanthro, I have to disagree with you here (a little bit). I could be wrong but I don’t think the “haves” that you mention are such a large voting block that they alone were the reason that the ref failed. I just don’t think the school board/etc. instilled enough confidence in the community that they would be able to handle the money properly that would come with a ref. And then there’s the consent decree issues which have not been resolved … But I do agree with you about DH, Central and the new HS.
FYI: People in Savoy don’t pay into the MTD either. They also don’t pay money into the Champaign Park District. Champaign schools use many CPD amenities — for FREE — and there are many kids in the schools from Savoy and other areas of town who don’t pay taxes for CPD, and I know there are people who are mad about that and want to see it changed … I guess that’s a post for another day ..
David // January 18, 2008 at 1:03 am
I’m with you, LBOTP, though with a 5th grader in the Champaign schools I feel I’ve had enough experience with Culver & Co. to come to an opinion…and that would be a negative one, I’m sorry to say. (I should add though that Unit 4 Parent above presents some important and valid points that I also agree with.) My wife and I are both UIUC grads and current employees and active member of our school’s PTA, and we both voted against the referendum (though we were for it before we were against it!). The issue of financial mismanagement in the recent past, as LBOTP mentioned, was certainly an issue, but more so was the completely inadequate way that the referendum attempted to solve the issues with the consent decree. Building a new school in far northwest Champaign, near nothing but new housing developments where I can’t imagine too many folks who the consent decree was laid out for were going to be purchasing homes, was in no way going to improve the huge socio-economic disparities that the district MUST deal with (not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because ’tis the law!). We chose to send our daughter to BT Washington (the “poorest” school in the district) way back in kindergarten, because we loved the small, family-oriented feel of the school, the great focus on arts, culture, and foreign languages, and the tremendous diversity within all the classrooms. In the past few years, because of decisions made by the Culver administration and at the school level, many of those things we loved have changed, and the classrooms are now, VERY sadly, split up, though unintentionally, along race and language lines (each of the upper grades seems to have a black classroom, a hispanic classroom, and a mostly-white-but-thankfully- still-slightly-diverse “gifted” classroom). Building another Barkstall (I’m not knocking it, it’s a very good school from all accounts) out in northwest Champaign was not going to help the situation going on at BTW and most other schools (I imagine) get any better. Now I don’t know the right answers, of course, and I feel for everyone involved…including certainly the parents who have to drive what can be 20 minutes across town from Savoy to get to their kids schools in north Champaign. That’s silly, and there’s certainly are enough kids in Savoy to warrant building a school up there, but…hell, I don’t know. Dr. Howard and BTW are in horrible shape and busting at the seams while Stratton sits very pretty and still underused (as of last year, at least), and I don’t know why. The referendum had very important and needed projects in it (like rebuilding Dr. Howard, certainly), but overall it was not what the community as a whole needed or, as proven by the dramatic defeat in the ballot box, what the community as a whole (not just the “haves”, because lord knows I’m not one of them) wanted. I can only hope that they’re coming up with a better plan (whatever the heck that may be), as they claimed they would be after the referendum failed, that the community will then support with their votes and tax dollars. I see Unit 4 Parent’s point about the community not historically supporting the schools, and that’s probably accurate, but in the case of the referendum I think it was directly because of the poor way the process was handled by the current Unit 4 administration.
I should add that the teachers that our daughter has had at BTW have all been wonderful (the art teacher last year won the National Teacher of the Year award from Walmart!), and she’s had all very positive school experiences. My frustration about the overall Unit 4 situation doesn’t take anything away from the great teachers, principals, and involved parents that make the schools work so well on an everyday basis.
Sorry to get way off topic from the original post! I agree that it is quite nice that they’re thinking about the Jewish holidays as well when planning the calendar. A good move, methinks.
Leeanthro // January 18, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I agree that some of the failings were because of the consent decree. It seemed like it was a no-win situation. They couldn’t find a good location in the northern section of town that was feasible and the proposed location was a little silly because it was not in a central location. But let’s face it, many families *are* choosing to bus their kids across town. And Stratton isn’t even to capacity.
My references of the “haves” was based on my own personal knowledge. We know a lot of people who I lump in to this category. They were all against it. Also against being annexed by the MTD. Also against being incorporated and having their property taxes raised.
I was personally against the Savoy school because they don’t seem to pay taxes to subsidize the benefits that they receive from Champaign. (Did you know they are part of the Tolono library and pay miniscule taxes for that but can use the Champaign library?) I was not in agreement for their choice of new school to comply with the consent decree. But I was so in favor of a new Dr. Howard that I was willing to give Savoy a new school in order to get a new school in an old neighborhood of Champaign. The referendum was not perfect, but the actual cost to homeowners seemed small in our opinion and we were willing to make compromises.
We need a new Dr. Howard *now* and who knows when it will even be an issue again.
Unit 4 Parent // January 21, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I think that the residents of Savoy, of which I am one, should consider their own referendum for a new elementary school (though my youngest would be gone before it would impact us) . Build the school with Savoy tax dollars and let Unit 4 use it. Savoy childen would not be guaranteed a slot in the new school (any more than someone living next to Barkstall is guaranteed a slot in Barkstall), but at least Savoy residents would have their own proximity school.
Rayne of Terror // January 22, 2008 at 10:38 am
The underlying problem with school construction is that projects are paid for out of property taxes. The IL GA needs to come up with a better way of funding education and capital improvements. Putting it all on property taxes compunds our problems.
Indiana is by no means perfect, but my mom teaches in a school equivalent to Dr. Howard. My grandfather went to school in the same the building my mother taught children in up to a few years ago. Their school got on the list to be replaced, it got to the top of the list, and they got a brand-new wonderful building, no expense spared, in one of the poorest neighborhoods in town.
Papa@Home // January 23, 2008 at 6:13 am
I don’t understand how we can talk about buildings without understanding that that, at best, they stand in as a proxy for education as a whole. Do we really think that capital spending is the key to a good education in this town? I would much rather see a priority on paying teachers more and supporting them better than in spending millions on bricks and mortar. Once we have decent education for all our kids, then we can think about the environment the teaching takes place in.
Unit 4 Parent // January 23, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Papa@Home makes a good point, but in many buildings in the district, the physical environment is impacting the teaching/learning environment. Some examples from the school I know best:
-Bottenfield elementary (50 years old last year)does not have air conditioning in the classrooms. The heat of August and May/June makes for poor working conditions for the teachers and a difficult learning environment for the children. For years the PTA has wanted to purchase room air conditioners for the school, but there is not enough electrical power supplied to the school to accommodate room air conditioners in the classrooms. Further, as the classrooms add new technology –computers/printers/smartboards (often purchased by PTA) — more fuses are being blown and the teachers have to be careful what they plug in when. Some of the schools just aren’t currently wired for a 21st century classroom.
There are situations like this all across the district where programs/learning are hampered by facilities limitations.
One last point on this; many of the current buildings are very energy inefficient. Money that is being spent on excess energy consumption, could be allocated to programs, teachers, etc. I understand that the school board’s new vision committee is looking into creative ways to upgrade energy efficiency so that it funds/pays for itself over the long term.
Leeanthro // January 23, 2008 at 2:15 pm
One of my friends teaches PE at one of the grade schools. His office is in a closet. Literally, a former closet. When he was finally given a computer for his office, it was useless because there are no outlets! Talk about outdated.
And yes, Papa, teachers need better pay. But a poor learning environment (crumbling schools, dark libraries, etc.) are just as detrimental to how much a child can realistically learn. I know that I can focus more in a good environment. How can we ask children who already have limited focus to try to learn in these environments?
And I’m all for more energy efficient schools (just as Unit 4 Parent said) as well as bringing current technology into the schools.
You can beat a dead horse, but I will vote yes every time to a referendum that brings new buildings to our community, especially ones in the older sections of town (Dr. Howard, for one).
Leave a Comment