New questions – and no answers – after two public meetings

Parents clapped when Steve Hogan confirmed that the district would not be consolidating the ALC programs at Morningside and Woodstock. But there were hours of questions for Steve Hogan and Superintendent Horsley during the two public meetings on September 22nd and 23rd at Olympus High and Skyline. The PAC and district showed their true colors, leaving many parents not just with unanswered questions, but with less confidence in the integrity of the process than before the meetings.

Here are just a few of the questions and concerns parents expressed:

 

• • Why close the traditional  program at Morningside and move ALC, when that accomplishes none of the stated goals of the PAC?

• • If Steve Hogan can’t answer questions about the PAC’s own data, who can?

• • If the ‘data person’ on the PAC has retired (as we’ve been told), who can redraw the maps and recalculate population estimates if the PAC updates their recommendations based on feedback or the board approves a different plan?* 

• • Why did the PAC remove a reference to attracting out-of-boundary kids to the French DLI program from their slide deck at Skyline?

• • When did the PAC first become aware of the rumors that a neighboring school district is planning to close their French DLI program? 

• • Why does the PAC and GSD seem to celebrate Skyline’s success in attracting out-of-district students, but is punishing the programs at Morningside for doing the same? 

• • Why did GSD spokesperson Luke Allen provide a completely different explanation for the recommendation to close Morningside to the Tribune (see the article on sltrib.com and a screenshot) than the explanation the PAC gave to parents? 

• • On what evidence does Luke Allen base this reported statement to the Tribune: “While the building has a high utilization rate (87%), the ‘schools within the school’ aren’t serving students effectively, Allen said.” Parents in the Morningside Traditional track say they weren’t included in the PAC’s closed door subcommittee meetings – and that public comments to the contrary are being ignored.

• • Why is the PAC proposing to close the entire school based on low enrollment in just two grades in 1 track when this issue is not unique to Morningside (several other schools that are not being closed also have split grade classrooms), and is, in part, a problem of the PAC’s own doing, since some parents are moving their kids to neighboring schools for stability? 

• • Why do PAC representatives say “we try not to create split feeders” and yet it appears that their proposal creates multiple new split feeders?

• • Why are some elementary schools in our area “protected” (by the PAC and our school board rep) in order to prevent harm and sacrifice to those school communities, but Morningside is fair game?  

• • Why did Superintendent Horsley silence teachers at the Skyline meeting, claiming parents were putting them on the spot instead of letting the teachers decide whether to answer questions? Morningside parents implicitly trust our teachers and value and welcome their feedback and think the district ought to do the same.

• • How can Area 5 parents, or taxpayers anywhere in the district, trust that the population analysis has been fair, data driven, and in the best interest of Granite’s own students, when there is clear evidence of favoritism for certain Area 5 schools, the PAC can’t explain their own data, and they openly admit to prioritizing out of district students (including spending tax dollars on marketing), at the expense of students from our own district?

*Read more about some of our questions about the information presented by the PAC.