POTTSTOWN PA – As with so many other hot-button issues, the debate over a proposal to create grade-grouped educational centers at Pottsgrove School District elementary schools as a way to address classroom overcrowding and teaching efficiency has taken both sides to Facebook.
Got an opinion about redistricting? Let The Post know! Comment on our Facebook page.
Opponents and advocates of what is called the “centers model,” under consideration in Pottsgrove, this week both announced they created pages on the world’s most popular social media platform to distribute information to similarly minded district residents.
The district is wrestling with how it can best reduce and balance class sizes at its three elementary schools: Lower Pottsgrove, West Pottsgrove, and Ringing Rocks. One proposal would redraw attendance boundaries for each school; a second would reconfigure grades at the schools to create two kindergarten through second grade centers, and a 3-5 center.
The first Board of School Directors’ meeting at which the public was allowed to comment on either proposal was held Tuesday (Dec. 6), with a substantial number of about 200 in attendance voicing opposition to a centers plan. On Wednesday and Thursday (Dec. 7 and 8), two new Facebook pages arose to address the topic.
- “Pottsgrove Parents Against Creating K-2 and 3-5 Centers,” a Facebook group page created by centers opponent Rick Rabinowitz, can be found here. As of Friday at 6 a.m., it had 129 members.
Rabinowitz offers several informational links to studies that refute the centers concept or point to its problems. So far, however, the majority of posts there consist primarily of supportive comments from other members. Demonstrating community opposition to the proposal is a goal, he noted: “… We need our (membership) numbers to get over 600, I think to send a clear message!,” he wrote in a comment on the page.
- “Pottsgrove Redistricting Informational Site,” a Facebook community page created by centers advocate Danielle O’Brien, can be found here. As of Friday at 6 a.m., it garnered 5 “likes.”
In a comment on the page, O’Brien noted she is not out to change minds, but inform them. “We are here for informational purposes only for BOTH options,” she wrote. “What you decide is up to you only.” To that end, she has posted links to eight different studies or external websites, most of which support the centers concept or purported gains from some of its use. She also has allowed links to data from visitors with opposing views.
Related (to Pottsgrove School District redistricting):
- Both Sides In Pottsgrove Redistricting Head To Facebook
- Pottsgrove Crowd Vocal In Opposing Educational Centers
- Advocate: Pottsgrove Centers ‘Best Access’ To Resources
- Debate Over Pottsgrove Redistricting Gets Started Tuesday
- No Matter What Plan Pottsgrove Adopts, Buses Ready
- Redistricting Info ‘Slanted,’ Pottsgrove Volunteers Charge
- Pottsgrove Redistrict Discussions Quietly Move Ahead
- In Pottsgrove, Redistricting Study Work Gets Started
- Pottsgrove Sets Dates For Redistrict Committee Work
- As Expected, Interest A’Plenty In Pottsgrove Redistricting
- Landis Calls For Pottsgrove Redistricting Volunteers
- Touchy Pottsgrove Redistricting Now Being Considered
Thanks for the free advertising :) The reason I made the page a community type of page (on 12/7/11) is so that anyone can go and research without having to join. There is so much animosity going on right now that I don’t want anyone from either side to be afraid to look at different options. If you have to join something that gives others access to your name and other information. Allowing Facebook users to remain anonymous enables those afraid of retaliation or comments that may not be so nice to not have to deal with it. I know I have had others attack me already for standing up in what I believe in.
I, too, want to thank you for the free advertising. We have 159 members as of this morning. To be clear, joining a Facebook group does give others access to your name; but it does not give access to any other information unless your settings allow “non-friends” access to your information. Your implication that there is retaliation in our group is incorrect. If you were to look at the posts to date, you would find that everyone has been quite civil, which is our only rule. Also, you can’t remain anonymous on your site if you want to post something. And, anyone who visits your site won’t be seeing the post of the top 100 schools from Schooldigger that I put up, because you deleted it.
Rick, it’s part of the mission of The Post to help continue conversations on topics of importance to the community. It’s The Post’s intent – as it seems to be yours and Danielle’s – to keep people informed of developments and options.
I’m unsure to whom your last comment is directed. I sincerely doubt The Post has published or done anything to imply or indicate there is “retaliation” among members of your group. Our latest story, the one to which these comments are appended, reported “So far, however, the majority of posts there consist primarily of supportive comments from other members.” That’s accurate, and it also gives Post readers who have not seen your Facebook group a feel for the activity that’s currently occurring there. I agree that, online at least, most of those involved on both sides of the issue have been civil.
I must report that I know of nothing that has been deleted from your comments to The Post. If you meant to include a list in a comment, I have not seen it. Readers have no ability to upload files of any type, so if you attempted an upload it would have failed.
As The Post often does for other community-related documents, it will happily volunteer to make publicly available relevant documents, studies and materials for both sides of the redistricting argument. If you or Danielle or anyone else cares to provide these, Rick, feel free to e-mail them separately to The Post at sanatoga@yahoo.com. All such submissions will be handled as noted in the three-year-old Post’s Reader Submissions policy, found here.
Joe, my apologies for the ambiguity. I have no issues with the post and have been quite pleased with your continuing coverage of this most important issue. To be clear, I posted a link to the top 100 schools from Schooldigger.com on Danielle’s site and it was deleted. Perhaps she did so in error; but I thought, when I posted it, that it was an informational posting and therefore in keeping with the rules for her site. Again, my apologies to you if I unintentionally implied that you deleted anything!
Also, the group I created is an Open group. You need not be a member and reveal your name to have access to the discussions and research that are being posted. But if you are against the centers idea, please join so that we can present ourselves as the clear majority the board meeting revealed us to be. Ms. O’brien’s research, like so much research, is not clearly positive towards the center idea. Most of it, in fact, speaks to the very same concerns that were raised at the board meeting and that are revealed in my own research. At best, there is no real data in support of centers. There is some anecdotal data from individual schools where the idea appears to have worked. The research seems to suggest that the heart of the matter is the quality of administration. I believe, right or wrong, that radical change is warranted in cases where there are significant problems that can’t be solved through conventional means. In this case, the redistricting committee was formed because of overcrowding at one school, and moving 78 children to another school solves the problem. Though other problems exist in this district, Centers are highly unlikely to solve them and will more likely create more.
Hi Rick, I will respond to this from you and that is it. I am getting a bit tired of the way you are targeting me. This will be the last time I correspond with you.
I deleted the post because schooldigger.com is not considered a reputable source for information. While I am sure the dad that created and maintains that site has good intentions I could not find anywhere that referred to state or federal data. I like to use the approach my college professors taught me (use information that can be verified by at least 2 other resources and from sites or books that are peer reviewed or are considered by most to be reputable). If state or federal data can be found to back that information up (so far I can’t find any) than I would be more than happy to re-post it.
Have a fantastic holiday and please leave me alone Rick. Just because I do not believe what you do, I should not be targeted, pestered or bullied. I will not change my mind based on that type of behavior.
Danielle, I am hardly targeting, pestering or bullying you. I could easily lay the same charge towards you about me. You claim to have a site that is for informational purposes on both sides, but then you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of the quality of the information presented. That is your right, as it is your site, but I would say you were targeting me when you did. And, when I was speaking in front of the board, I wasn’t interrupting with disagreeable words like ‘you weren’t there (at the committee meetings)’; but you were. In fact, I was one of five people who clapped for you because I recognize that your belief in the centers proposal is genuine. But as long as you post in public, anything you say is fair game (as is anything I say). Believe me, I know it’s impossible to change your mind.