One of the signs in West Pottsgrove
POTTSTOWN PA – In hopes of bringing more public pressure to bear on the Board of School Directors, as its mulls choices for redistricting in the Pottsgrove School District, lawn signs began popping up last week to reinforce opposition to a proposal that would create grade-level education centers in its elementary schools.
The signs appear on front lawns and at curbside of properties along Kauffman Road, North Pleasant View Road, East High Street, and North Charlotte Street in Lower Pottsgrove (PA) Township; and in West and Upper Pottsgrove along Maugers Mill Road, Farmington Avenue, and Glasgow Street, Rick Rabinowitz of the “Pottsgrove Residents Against Centers” group indicated Monday (Feb. 20, 2012) in a Facebook post.
The group is fighting a plan, introduced by Superintendent Dr. Bradley Landis, to balance student population across Pottsgrove’s elementary classrooms by creating two kindergarten-through-second grade centers, and a third-through-fifth grade center. They would replace the current K-5 attendance at West Pottsgrove, Ringing Rocks, and Lower Pottsgrove elementaries.
The only other alternative discussed by the board is to re-draw attendance boundaries that wold shift students from one school to another.
Directors have said they will consider voting on the matter during their Feb. 28 meeting. The board last week (Feb. 14) confirmed the meeting would be moved from the administration building on Kauffman Road to the auditorium at Pottsgrove High School. It starts at 7:30 p.m., and is open to the public; a large audience is expected.
The group also is circulating petitions to gather signatures that it intends to demonstrate the centers’ plan is opposed by families without children in the district and those whose children have already completed their education, and not by parents of current students alone.
Related (to Pottsgrove School District redistricting):
- Bright Yellow Signs Flag Pottsgrove Centers’ Opposition
- The Case Against Centers in the Pottsgrove School District
- Pottsgrove Ed Centers’ Opponents Launch Petition Drive
- Pottsgrove Principals Distribute Redistrict Info Letters
- Debate Aside, Pottsgrove K-Classes Sign-Up Starts
- Pottsgrove’s Case For Education Centers, Take Two
- Pottsgrove Says It Will Work To Improve Public Notice
- Pottsgrove Centers’ Talks Subdued; Decision Delayed
- Notebook Worthy: Pottsgrove, The Master Of Brevity
- It’s Official: ‘Grove Meeting Moved To High School
- Pottsgrove’s Case For Ed Centers: A Nutshell View
- In ‘Horse Race’ Of Opinions, Pottsgrove Serves As Track
- ‘Grove Residents Want Proof Ed Centers Will Succeed
- ‘The Blues’ May Await Pottsgrove’s School Board Tonight
- 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
Related (to the Pottsgrove Board of School Directors’ Feb. 14 meeting):
- Bright Yellow Signs Flag Pottsgrove Centers’ Opposition
- Casual, Smiling Pottsgrove Directors Pose For Yearbook
- Pottsgrove District, Teachers Resume Labor Negotiations
- March On! Pottsgrove OKs Buying Instruments, Uniforms
- Pottsgrove Multi-Tasks Through MCIU Budget Approval
- State Suspends $3.2M In Ringing Rocks’ Reimbursement
Photo by Tracy Swanson Romig via Facebook
Joe, thank you again for your continuing coverage related to this important decision. I’d like to make one clarification related to the purpose and intention of the signs as posted throughout the district: “In hopes of bringing more public pressure to bear on the Board of School Directors”. While this may be ultimately true as the community becomes more informed about the decision on the table for the board, one of the major reasons for posting the signs was to generate public awareness of this high stakes decision to reconfigure the elementary schools. Our group originally hypothesized that many members of the community were not aware of central administration’s proposal. This guess has been verified as members opposed to Centers have been out knocking door to door; many commented (myself included, as I spent the better part of the last weekend knocking on people’s doors) that the majority of those residents without children currently enrolled in the district (especially those with preschool-aged children) were not aware about the Centers plan or upcoming decision. I would hope and believe that the Board will not be influenced one way or another by a few yellow signs; but rather would make a reflective and informed decision taking into account all of the information, research, public comment and the signatures from a community wide petition drive that now exceeds 800 people that has been presented to them up to this point.
If the intent was only to generate awareness of the impending decision, and not influence it or those making it, I doubt the group would have used its “No Little Middle” graphic or wording that blatantly demands, “Stop The Centers.” Had awareness been its intent, something akin to “Ask Us About The Centers” would have been more appropriate. Would have needed a bigger sign, too.
The group is opposed to the centers, wants others to be opposed as well, and ultimately hopes the board rejects the centers as a viable redistricting option – that’s the signs’ message. I think you’re correct: they will change few minds either way. But to imply they are not expected to influence is disingenuous at best and, I would suggest, not a clarification.
Great response Joe! Nothing more needs to be said.
i don’t see what the problem is with this. education in the Pottsgrove School District needs improvement, as well as the Pottstown school district. people should not oppose this
Joe, can you shed some light on what this is about. I no longer have children in school. What is the impact of this to individual families and students?
Yes, many, as am I, are not aware…
Ed, it’s a topic we’ve covered extensively for a few months, but it’s understandable why it might have escaped your notice. My quick summary:
Classroom space in Pottsgrove elementary schools unbalanced; too many kids in West, too few in Ringing, Lower. Normal adjustment called “redistricting” happens every 10 years or so. Usually involves just shifting kids from one school to another. This time district proposes to shift grades taught at each building, a different form of adjustment. It claims move will save money, improve education by centralizing some operations. Parents group disagrees, claims kids will be no better served and instead more disrupted. Research for either side spotty and inconclusive. School board, the ultimate arbiter, to decide what it wants to do at month end.
101 words to summarize what’s happened since last August. How’s that?
101 word summary. I’d like to add, this proposal, if implemented, will decrease our property values district wide.
Rick, as a Pennsylvania-licensed real estate educator (License No. RI004105, since Dec. 14, 2001, just in case you wondered), I feel compelled to point out that your statement is speculation unsupported by market facts.
I’ve read the document (http://freepdfhosting.com/5a5d1f6706.pdf) posted today on the No Little Middle Facebook page. The research embodied there is based on other markets in both similar and dissimilar economic cycles. As the National Association of REALTORS so often points out in its advertising, every market is different, and it is loathe to make the claim you have.
If centers are approved by the Board of School Directors, no one will have evidence of their impact on real estate sales – good or bad – until at least a year after implementation, and possibly longer because the average listing’s time-on-market has significantly lengthened due to the glut of existing homes for sale. Moreover, whether centers are approved or not, if the board somehow reduces costs and holds the line on school tax increases as compared to neighboring districts, living in the Pottsgroves may represent a favorable choice to a variety of home buyer segments. Where there’s favorability, there’s demand. Where there’s demand, prices for real estate (and almost anything else) go higher, not lower.
I suggest we keep speculation, and the unnecessary scare it ultimately creates, out of the discussion.
Joe, with all due respect, I live in a development that was hit very hard by the market crash. As we are VERY close to Ringing Rocks, I do not agree with you that a decision to create centers AND to make the dividing line N. Charlotte Street will not affect the property value of OUR development, the Southview development. When prospective buyers find out that their kids will be going to West instead of Rocks, I think it is highly likely they will look elsewhere. And, I don’t think our development’s situation is that unique in the district. Many of us bought the houses that we bought because of the proximity to the school, or at least it was a major factor in the decision. I’ve looked at Real Estate ads in our area and others in the larger area, and it certainly is always highlighted when the house is near an elementary school.
Hi Joe,
You use the term “speculation” when discussing the effects on real estate values, and that is precisely at the crux of this issue. This giant leap that is potentially being made in reconfiguring the elementary grades is indeed, speculative. The total cost for the effective change has not completely been considered either. There are far too many effects to predict without further research and information. In truth, we don’t know what the effect will be in achievement or adjustment to the students of the district, we don’t know what the effect will be on our real estate values, and most importantly we can’t predict how the long lasting effect our community view towards the schooling officials will be so highly negative and distrustful. And while we can say that people make decisions without full knowledge all the time in daily lives, this is not as simple as most decisions as it is far reaching and impacts all of us now and in the future. We’re not deciding on what night to hold PTO meetings, we’re deciding on completely overhauling our elementary schools and all that goes with that major transformation in our schools and community. Let’s give it the respectful attention and description it deserves.
Cheryl, I agree the redistricting issue needs thoughtful consideration. I also agree, and said as much in my reply to Rick, that we don’t know the effect of ANY redistricting solution on property values. In light of our communal ignorance, Rick’s blatant statement – “I’d like to add, this proposal, if implemented, will decrease our property values district wide” – is little more than scare-mongering. You and Rick have already offered cogent, fact-based arguments for your point of view. Stick to them. They contribute to readers’ understanding, and they’re welcomed. But speculation that encourages fear? That smacks of desperation.
i fail to see how re-districting the school district is going to have any effects on property values. that makes absolutely no sense, other than to try to scare others into going against the district’s plans
Mr. Magnuson, what doesn’t make sense is your inability to see the obvious logic that connects school proximity with housing purchase choices by parents of young children. Joe, I stand corrected, I should have said reduction of property values in areas in close proximity to the elementary schools, and possibly district wide. The reality is that your argument that centers will result in lower property taxes is equally speculative; certainly, PGSD has made no such claim. Indeed, to your point, one of the major factors in parent opposition to centers is rampant speculation about the benefits that is not supported by hard evidence. Still, I would not describe our statements as born of desperation. We are working as hard as we can to bring every argument forward that is relevant, and property values are very relevant in my opinion. Still, Cheryl and I appreciate your continued coverage of this most important topic!
Rick, you are far too quick to put words in my mouth, and I resent it. I have NEVER suggested, nor would I, that centers will result in lower property taxes. It would be foolish and speculative on my part to do so; I have no proof to make such a statement.
What I wrote, specifically in response to your ill-advised claim about supposedly declining property values, is this: “Moreover, whether centers are approved or not, if the board somehow reduces costs and holds the line on school tax increases as compared to neighboring districts, living in the Pottsgroves may represent a favorable choice to a variety of home buyer segments.” That’s a far cry from argument about anything, Rick. It’s a statement of fact. Both buyers and existing property owners favor lower taxes over higher ones. They use tax rates paid in neighboring districts as a comparative yardstick to gauge what they pay. And IF taxes in the Pottsgroves can be kept from rising or – miracle of miracles – even be reduced, that creates a scenario which is likely to entice buyers, assuming they find properties here that meet their needs and desires.
I wholly agree, property values merit discussion however redistricting plays out. But I repeat: your fear-inducing claims regarding future real estate pricing is speculation unsupported by market facts. If your crystal ball was that good, you’d already have won the lottery.
The Post will continue to do its best to report accurately, fairly and (hopefully) succinctly. I often disagree with your statements, Rick, but I do appreciate your readership.
Joe,
Thanks for your continued coverage of the entire story and the many perspectives being offered from people on both sides of this discussion. I also appreciate your attempts to level-set with the readership. It can be challenging to say the least, expecially when emotions are running high.
I am still confused as to how “Centers” are going to improve a child’s education. Sounds like a lot of extra money spent and time wasted. So many things sound good in theory, but in reality…a waste! As a former teacher from a neighboring district, I can only see how this would hurt the students. Teachers are obviously going to spend countless hours in this transition. Time that could be spent on teaching. Teachers are already spread WAY too thin. So do we sacrifice the education over the next few years on a project that “might” work? These centers are being touted as a way to concentrate on departmentalized learning. If this isn’t already being done in our district, then we have serious problems and centers are the least of our concerns. You don’t need to be in a separate building for this to take place. And FDK…REALLY??? They know that this is just a paid babysitting service, don’t they? If you have ever worked with children, you know that not much happens in a five year old’s mind after a half day of school. You have to remember there is a WHOLE class not just one or two of them. It’s so sad that people really think they are producing long term, smarter students as a result of FDK. And the “New Reality 2013″ (from the other article)is a joke. Stop and think about this for a minute. Better yet, pull out your old Kindergarten report card and compare it to one in 1990, 2000, then 2013. They seem to be “learning” more. However, ask a graduating senior who we fought in the American Revolution. Better yet, what country we fought in the Civil War. (Did you catch that?)(Have a hanky on hand.) I’m sure we’ve all had to tell a 20 yr. old cashier how to calculate change. I’d love to see an exiting poll on that one. You see, this may all look good on paper, but sadly, it is NOT producing smarter children. Isn’t that the bottom line?
Joe,
Not to debate anyone on real estate market, but if the Board manages to hold the line on taxes then Pottsgrove will be attractive…. I do not remember the board being able to reign in the taxes.
Proximity to schools is a factor for buying a home, so why would I want to buy a home immeadiately near Rocks, if I found out my kids would go to West ? I would look on the other side of Rocks where the kids go to ROCKS, regardless of if the taxes are held.. of course I live in Lower, so my kids would go to Rocks anyway (even if I was in Walnut Ridge, close to lower.
When the housing market makes a more favorable recovery and more young families move in, will renovating the High School be sacrificed because space is running out at lower (isn’t it about 5 years since the last renovation) guess they can add some trailers and have the specials on carts.
The board says room won’t run out for ten years based on the past few years data (during the worst housing time) but can they gaurentee 10 years ?
Joe:
The explanation was great. Thank you for it.
Ed
Tax Payer, as a mother of a 5 year old I can tell you a lot goes on in a child’s mind after a half day of school. That child is using the knowledge he/she learns in school and from parents in all aspects of their play and life.
I personally am all for the centers. I believe it is a great way to allow Pottsgrove to use their resources better which in turn will help with learning. There are many pro’s to a centers based approach; however that seems to be overshadowed by the negativity some have towards it.
Lastly, I could care less how much more time teachers spend during the transition. Every job has transition/change at some point and need extra time and effort. This extra time and effort is not permanent; so if they do not want to spend the time needed when change happens than they should have chosen a different career.
What we should be doing as parents is being grateful that our school board took the time to make us aware of possible changes in advance and allow us to voice our opinions. I am thankful that our board is taking on a very hard decision in a time of economic turmoil. So kudos to them for all their efforts.