By Claire Walla
In the Sag Harbor Elementary School gym, many speakers ran past their three-minute limit and the event spilled into over-time. But since the goal of the Education Forum held last Wednesday, December 8 was to bring a diverse range of voices from the community together to discuss the future of education in Sag Harbor, it would seem the event was a success.

The forum attracted nearly 90 people for just over two hours of public comments ranging from specific topics like implementing a gifted and talented program at the elementary school; to broader ideas, such as making the district more competitive in a global context; and even serious concerns, like making more of an effort to reach out to Sag Harbor’s Latino community.

Forum organizer and former Pierson High School principal Bob Schneider said the forum went very well, for its first run.
“I appreciated that there wasn’t a lot of criticism of the school district,” he said.

Although, in the interest of time, not every person who wished to speak had the opportunity to do so, Schneider added that school board president and forum co-organizer Walter Wilcoxen has received emails and index cards with as yet unvoiced comments. “These will be addressed at the next forum,” he added.

It was parent Leah Oppenheimer who first raised the issue of reaching out to the Latino population who, she said, make up 18 percent of the G.D.P. on Long Island. She expressed concern that Sag Harbor’s Latino families are not given the opportunity to learn about their cultural traditions, and many children are not coming to kindergarten with enough preparation because they aren’t able to afford the pre-schools in the area.

As a social worker in East Hampton who works with many Latino families, school board member Dan Hartnett echoed this sentiment. He also commented on the importance of the International Baccalaureate program, which Pierson Middle/High School Principal Jeff Nichols is investigating for next school year.

The idea of evolving the Sag Harbor curriculum is one that was touted by many who spoke at the forum. While Pierson senior Max Moyer thanked every one of his teachers for doing a great job, he expressed frustration that, often, times the scope of his school work does not leave the four walls of the classroom.

“It does not get to a state, a global or a national level,” he said.
Community member Chuck Neuman, who said he went through a baccalaureate program as a child in Germany, emphasized the need for rigor at the school.

“It has to be tough and it has to be demanding,” he said. “I went through six years of boot camp.”

Several parents, including Alison Scanlon, spoke of the need for classes on all grade levels to put more time and effort into developing reading and writing skills. Scanlon spoke of a school in Rockton High School in Massachusetts, which at one time had a drop-out rate of one in three students.

“Decades ago it was a case study in failure,” she said.
But after organizing a school-wide campaign to incorporate reading and writing into every single class, including gym, Scanlon said the school went on to out-perform 90 percent of high schools in the state.
“And it doesn’t cost a thing,” she added.

The need for ecological programs, as well as health and wellness initiatives, was brought up by teacher Kryn Olson who said she wanted to focus on developing more energy efficient techniques within science courses. Similarly, Eco-Walk creator and parent Ed Bruehl and parent Barbara Kinnier of the Wellness Foundation of East Hampton were passionate about increasing health and wellness within the district.

While Bruehl mentioned his desire to form a committee of parents who might work together to tap into the fresh food sources available here on the East End, Kinnier spoke about further improving the district’s approach to nutrition. She lauded the school’s efforts to incorporate organic milk and healthy vending machine options.

But, she added, “It breaks my heart to hear that we have Pop Tarts in the vending machine because it keeps us out of the red.”
Technology was another hot-button issue, prompting many parents to address the lack of adequate options at the school.
“We’re a very low-tech/no-tech school,” said parent Gay Snow. “It’s time we start introducing laptops and computers.”

Snow added that she wants the board of education to approve a foundation so that parents can start soliciting corporations for grant money and donations. She added that the school should do “anything to help educate and simulate kids in the district,” including appealing to corporations, “because that’s what the times require.”

Speakers differed on the scope of the education problems afflicting the district, some blaming national issues and some blaming problems closer to home. But, most audience members seemed to agree with what teacher Peter Solow had to say at the end of the night.

“We’re not going to change the education system [in the country],” he said. “But one of the students that goes to this school may in fact change the world.”

While the event brought a good-sized crowd to the elementary school, both Schneider and Wilcoxen said they’d like to see more people at the next forum on January 12. Wilcoxen added that although there were 10 teachers at Wednesday’s event, he wished there had been more. Wilcoxen also said he was surprised that the science and math curriculum was not mentioned during the forum, but there’s always next time.
And Schneider noted that for the next forum he and Wilcoxen will specifically try to do more outreach to members of Sag Harbor’s Latino community.

For the next meeting on January 12, half the time will be devoted to comments that were not heard at last Wednesday’s meeting (all will be limited to three minutes), and the rest of the time will be devoted to small group discussions centered on eight umbrella topics: Enrichment, Careers/College Prep, Technology, Reading and Writing, Ecology (including health and wellness), Pre-K, Communication and Curriculum Enhancement. Each group will be moderated by a teacher, administrator, school board or community member.

Sag Harbor residents voted down the $6.7 million school bond on Tuesday. Unlike the budget vote and school board elections this spring, the bond proposition failed to garner the same voter turn out. The bond was supported by 279 residents, though 358 voted against it, with a total of 637 residents voting. Only 28 residents submitted absentee ballots. In the spring, the 2009-2010 budget received 1,221 yes votes and 599 no votes.

“I’m very surprised by the turn out,” said school board member Theresa Samot. “It’s disappointing because a lot of long range planning went into this.” 

Pierson’s Long Range Planning Committee, made up of parents, board and community members, first analyzed the repairs needed at the Pierson campus to be included in the bond. The list of improvements mainly focused on bringing the school’s buildings into code and safety compliance. The bond included upgrades to the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and HVAC systems and other architectural projects.

“This was a nuts and bolts bond,” said superintendent Dr. John Gratto after the bond votes were tallied.

At a board meeting on Monday, school board member Daniel Hartnett explained that the bond is a more cost effective way of paying for these repairs compared to folding them into the annual budget. He added that the school is retiring a bond from 1997 this year, which would have lowered the net tax impact of the new bond. In previous meetings, the board has also pointed out that interest rates for bonds are extremely low and favorable for the district and construction and labor costs will likely be lower as well due to the ailing economy.

“If you had to pay for these things on an annual basis taxes would be through the roof,” chimed in business manager Len Bernard, at the meeting.

Pierson parent Chris Tice said on Monday that several school parents were conflicted about their vote. Tice reported that many said they would prefer to continue to fund educational programming and staffing. Parents at the meeting had heard that middle school guidance counselor Carl Brandl’s position would be cut. Members of the board explained that Brandl’s job was safe for this year.

“If we have to use $500,000 in one year [for some items in the bond], we would have to look at cuts. This bond spreads the cost out very evenly [over the years]. People who move into the community are going to have an equal share,” noted Hartnett.

“This is the best way we have to fund these expenditures,” added board member Ed Haye.

During meetings on the bond, the board received public criticism over the project to repave and add additional parking spaces at Pierson and the elementary school, which cost close to $1 million.

“Maybe the voters felt the money spent on parking wasn’t justifiable,” theorized Dr. Gratto on why the bond failed to pass. “I thought the vote would be closer but the economy is bad.”

Dr. Gratto also pointed out that there wasn’t a project in the bond to capture the imaginations of the voters as the bond was aimed at fixing a wide variety of facility issues, from better temperature control to replacing a portion of the roof at Pierson.

“None of these projects will heal themselves,” noted Dr. Gratto. “[But] we will have to reassess the bond.”

Once the ballots were cast and the results announced, school board president Walter Wilcoxen said the board could put the bond up to a vote again in May.

The majority of the public who voted on Tuesday at the Pierson gym failed to support this plan, but board member Mary Anne Miller believed the voter turn out showed that several key constituents in the community didn’t cast their ballot. She pointed out that there are a little over 5,000 registered voters. Miller further noted that several residents spend the winter elsewhere and young college students are also away at school.

“Sag Harbor has an uncanny spring turnout,” said Miller on the elections and budget votes held in the Spring. “A larger voter turn out better represents the community.”

According to Dr. Gratto, the future of the myriad items in the bond will most likely be discussed at a budget workshop on the buildings and grounds to be held on January 11.

Among other items, the bond would have paid for repairing and enlarging the school district”s parking lots (above).

To the concerned Sag Harbor citizens who feel the student art exhibition that is offered at the high school each year during election night is a form electioneering and favorably sways the school budget vote, we have three simple words for you — Let it go.

We find it absurd to believe a well painted (or not so well painted) landscape, sculpture or drawing can somehow subconsciously influence voters who plan to vote the opposite way to suddenly decide and okay a $29 million budget. “It wasn’t me….it was… THAT ART!” This notion is not only ridiculous, but patronizing and insulting. It also hearkens back to the days of conspiracy theories and subliminal seduction (minus the subliminal part).

As reasonable adults, we would expect voters to base their decision on whether to approve or deny the school budget on the quality and cost effectiveness of the education rather than the artistic merits (or lack thereof) of the given student body.

If we apply that reasoning to other areas of the school, then one could say a shiny and clean gym floor, a well-kept bathroom or gardeners tending the perennial beds on the night of an election unfairly promotes the school’s safe, sanitary and attractive facilities and thus unduly influences hundreds of voters to pass the budget. Will the school be forced one election day to cover up the floor with white sheets or let the bathroom get good and filthy, just to be on the safe side?

Until the art show displays works where candidates are rescuing babies from burning buildings, while wearing “vote for me” campaign buttons, this “art as propaganda” argument is baseless and trivial. Furthermore, asking the school to divide the voting area and the exhibition is not only cumbersome but costs students a valued audience. After all, how many opportunities do the students get to show off their work to the larger community? The anti-art argument seems to be saying “Don’t let the school show the residents what the kids are up to in class, or you risk humanizing the students.”

In the end, the exhibit will be separated from the polling area with room dividers and your griping will most likely cost the exhibition viewers. But quite frankly, we feel it will do little to sway the minds of budget supporters, or naysayers for that matter.

Perhaps this time around, your efforts could have been better spent educating the public on the budget and helping them make an informed decision when they do finally “run the gauntlet” and make it to the voting booth. At future elections, if student art is still bothersome you could simply avert your eyes — or put on a pair of blinders. That is unless the separation of art and state becomes the status quo in the Sag Harbor School District. In which case, the blinders will be put on for you.

 

This week we learned the final numbers for the 2009-2010 Sag Harbor School District budget, and though we know times are tough financially for schools and taxpayers alike these days, we feel the school board has come up with a fair and reasonable spending plan.

The proposed budget is $29.5 million and it’s something the administration has clearly labored over for months. We feel the board has taken into consideration an array of concerns from different community organizations and individuals who attended meetings related to the budget in recent months, and the board has remained flexible.

We also understand the board has had to take into consideration the current dismal state of the economy and, as witnesses from the front row, no one can say board members have not done their homework in putting together a well thought out package.

When school superintendent Dr. John Gratto visited the Noyac Civic Council meeting to explain portions of the school budget, it was very well measured. Dr. Gratto’s presentation initiated discussions with the civic council on intelligent cost-saving measures, including the purchase of a bus and van which, in the years to come, will allow the district to cut the costs of some transportation services provided by an outside company. Other measures considered spoke to the concerns of residents in the district, including the decision to cut services purchased from BOCES.

And while $29.5 million is not an insignificant amount of money, remember this: this May, should the budget fail to pass after two public votes, the district’s contingency budget would automatically be enacted. The amount of the contingency budget is just $200,000 less than the proposed budget — which equates to a tax savings of $35 a year on the average $1 million property.

As taxpayers, we don’t want to get hit with a huge increase in these troubled times. As parents, we don’t want to see deep cuts to programs for our local school kids. We feel this school board has done a very admirable job in serving both sets of constituencies.

 

 

There were some lessons learned Tuesday night at the meeting of the Noyac Civic Council, we think, about how and why the cost of educating our students continues to soar. It seems stunning or preposterous to anyone born, say 40 or 50 years ago – or more ? that it could cost upwards of $25,000 per year to teach a kid.

The truth of the matter is that it really doesn’t cost that much – not to teach them ? since there are non-educational expenses such as transportation mixed in with the budget. But it’s fair to say the cost of education is not cheap, and, considering state and federal mandates, there are expenses some of us may never have expected decades ago.

For those who choose to measure the local schools by the cost per pupil, there are two things schools superintendent Dr. John Gratto made clear Tuesday night.

One is that we are affected by the economies of scale. We are a relatively small district that has agreed relatively small class sizes are desirable. There are built in expenses and mandated programs, the burden of which is divided by an ever fewer number of students.

The other is that, as a community, we decided that we want what Dr. Gratto called “rich programs.” Not that they are for rich people, but they are programs rich with value and educational opportunities. We think here in particular of some of the arts programs where students get to work with men and women who make their livings in the field.

Confronted with these two realities, though, there is an undeniable need for the staff and administration to be as conservative as possible in areas that don’t affect programs. We think the administration has taken steps in the right direction to find economies such as relying less on contract bussing and reducing staff through attrition. We hope other cost savings can be made, and, as contract negotiations continue, we are optimistic an arrangement fair to the community can be achieved.

One of the reasons people move to the East End is for our excellent school system. Our students have remarkable tests scores, and many of them go on to attend top level public and private institutions. These achievements are due, in no small part, to the amazing teachers in the Sag Harbor School District.

We commend local teachers for their abilities and the amount of effort most of them put into their position, but we believe a different model for calculating pay increases needs to be considered.

Teachers and public employees everywhere have relied on pursuing parity with their peers to justify one aspect of their pay raises. Teachers, as well as other public employees like police, receive annual contractual pay increases and so-called steps based on furthering education. When renegotiating a contract every few years, base salaries are regularly boosted to, arguably, come into line with what peers are making in other districts or municipalities. While we have no problem with our local public employees making a good wage, and receiving pay and benefits comparable to their peers, this pursuit of parity is self-propagating — one settlement continues to drive up the other settlements — and rarely has any relationship to other salaries in the community in which the public employees serve.

It’s not the teachers (or the cops), it’s the system that makes it unfair to the people who have to earn the money to pay the salaries.

In response to an article about teacher contract negotiations posted on our website, one local resident wrote “Yes, they, [the teachers], work very hard – - but so do I. And I work all 12 months of the year. My earnings are down 50% today from a year ago. I know it would be almost impossible to take back anything from any union people, but to grant ANY increases when the town and residents are living with less isn’t justifiable. Most of us in the Harbor struggle just to put food on the table and pay the mortgage.”

And, unfortunately, that story is repeated throughout small towns across the East End, the state and the country.

A teacher’s base pay in Sag Harbor is $46,000 a year even if they only have a bachelor’s degree. There are some people in this village who have worked 20-plus years and still don’t earn that kind of salary.

Of course many public employees are professionals, and need to be compensated well for their services. We trust our children’s education to some of them, we trust our lives to others. They have devoted years to schooling and training and deserve salaries that are higher than some, not as high as others. Think of store owners, or carpenters, or artists, or bank tellers. People who make up the fabric of the community and who woke up last September to find that their retirement savings had disappeared. And those who still kept jobs found that their wages had been frozen, or their hours at work cut back. We know of very few people who are expecting much of a raise this year. Or next.

We’re not suggesting that teachers salaries be frozen. We’re not suggesting staff  be cut. We’re suggesting that teachers could be heroes if they broke from the cycle of pursuing parity with their peers, and instead looked at the community in which they work and accept an increase similar to that which local workers can expect.

 

As computer technology becomes increasingly important in our daily lives—from emailing and Facebooking to researching and Photoshopping — we feel that the Sag Harbor School District is commendable in charging forward with their laptop program. Although most of us here graduated high school without the use of the Internet (some of us without computers at all) we do realize how crucial a tool this has become in the 21^st Century. And as an ever-growing medium we feel it is necessary for our children to graduate with a complete understanding of the technology that will help them be successful in the work force.

Not only will this give our kids a greater understanding of a variety of software, but the use of computers in the classroom has been linked to higher test scores, most likely because the information is made readily available. And let’s face it — much faster to access. 

In the “real world,” we rely on computers in so much of our day and we would like to make sure that students at the high school have the same exposure to this opportunity.

With the experience kids will get from using the laptops, they will be better prepared for the future.

We also feel that the leasing program seems to be the best option for the school. (We’re even considering it for our office.) With the replacement of computer technologies moving at such a fast pace, we acknowledge that these laptops will quickly become outdated. By leasing the equipment it seems it will provide the school with consistently new and updated equipment and provide better insurance opportunities.

We believe the school district is on the right track with this one and that this is money well spent.

On the other hand, we also learned this week that 12 staff cell phones are costing the district nearly $17,000. We feel there is surely some investigating to be done in this area.

 

This week, as we sit back and look at all that has been accomplished by the Long Range Planning Committee members over the last few months. We applaud those who took part in the discussions. They did a good job at processing the voluminous amount of information presented to them.

But now, we are left slightly confused as to what the best course of action is, given the fact that this committee’s recommendations are going next to the board of education.

Do we have a realistic, up to date projection of the future population of the school? Whatever long term projects are implemented today need to serve the students in the years to come. Are we at a population plateau or are we seeing steadily increasing numbers adding to the school’s population? Any chance those numbers will be going down in the next decade?

We would like to see how the school’s theater and music departments are planning to utilize this space in the future. If, for example, we were to spend $12 million on the “Cadillac” of plans for the auditorium, how would the theater and music departments change to take advantage of the new facility? With the creation of an orchestra pit, for example, does that mean the music department  would be on track to offer an expanded strings program that actually teaches kids to play orchestral instruments?

What kind of money could the school realistically bring in if it were to rent out the new and improved theater to outside sources, as has been proposed? Perhaps other professionals in the community should be consulted, like those at the Bay Street Theatre. They’ve been in the business for a while and may have some creative cost saving ideas for the renovation of the theater and an ability to bring a real sense of savings.

The building needs work, we are aware — especially the auditorium. We wouldn’t hesitate to spend money on improvements, but we’re just wondering if there might be some other creative ways that haven’t been considered to get more for our kids while paying less.

Sometimes we get the feeling that the red tape of bureaucracy that often surrounds municipalities and school districts causes them to take what appears to be the most obvious path — but one that is not necessarily the most cost-effective nor the best thought out.

For example, as we consider the expanded parking recommendations for both schools, we lament the fact that more parking will do nothing to encourage people to walk or bike to school. A year ago, many village residents took part in forums and workshops with the hope that Sag Harbor would be able to secure a Safe Routes to School grant. Though those efforts ultimately didn’t succeed, we are reminded that much of what the Safe Routes folks advocated when they were here was the value of PR and education — low cost and no cost efforts that can change many minds without money. It’s a lesson we wish the school district had learned.

It’s a real shame. Instead of seeing groups of kids (and parents) walking to school, we’re now talking about spending another $1 million on black top. We can’t help but feel that money could be spent in better ways at the school. Because if there’s one thing we’ve learned about parking lots, no matter how many you have at some point in the near future, you’re going to be told you need more.

And as far as the $3 million proposed for maintenance projects throughout the school, that surely better include more than just fixing a few doorknobs and railings. 

Sag Harbor school district taxpayers may be looking at spending over $16 million to tackle a number of items in and around the district’s buildings, based on recommendations settled on this week.

As the district’s Long Range Planning Committee met for the last time on Thursday evening, members were finally able to reach consensus on a variety of items, including health and safety issues, storage, maintenance concerns and other upgrades to both the elementary and high schools. The committee members also looked at other big ticket items like changes to the parking lots and a new or improved auditorium.

The committee, which will now bring those recommendations to the board of education, is made up of members of the community, faculty, school board, and the district’s superintendent, and was charged with establishing project priorities. The study was conducted by the district’s architect, Larry Salvesen and his firm BBS Architects and Engineer, P.C.

“I don’t think we should have fear to present this to the community,” said committee member Peter Solow, a Pierson teacher. “It is not a need, but a want. And let the community decide if this is something they want to invest in.”

On Thursday, the committee, which has been meeting monthly since September, agreed that revamping parking at both schools was indeed necessary and the committee will be suggesting the board of education okay $1.3 million for improvements to three lots on Jermain Avenue, Atlantic Avenue and Hampton Street. The Jermain Avenue lot would be redesigned to create an additional 17 spaces, at a cost of $375,000. The lot at Atlantic Avenue would add another 26 spaces and would cost $340,000. The lot at Hampton Street would cost $320,000 and add an additional 25 spaces.

Members of the committee also agreed the district should spend $3 million on a list of maintenance items marked as top priorities for both the elementary and high schools. The items include replacing door hardware, guard rails at the elementary school’s main entrance, and heating and ventilation equipment — things that need to be on par with current health and safety requirements. However, Salvesen is working on Energy Performance Contracts for certain projects included in the maintenance portion, which may be taken out of the total.

For example, he said the boiler that the district is now considering purchasing, which costs $300,000, could be paid for by an Energy Performance Contract (EPC), in which the district will have the ability to pay back this outlay with money saved from conserving energy if the projects can pay for themselves within 18 years.

Perhaps the biggest ticket would be for a rehab of the aging auditorium at Pierson. Members of the committee, however, could not agree on the creation of a new auditorium or improvements to the current one, even after the district’s architect came back with three different plans.

One of those plans — a complete redesign of the facility using the courtyard — came with a $12 million price tag, while the lowest alternative, which would be an upgrade of the auditorium, was $1 million. Members of the committee suggested that perhaps some improvements can be made to the auditorium for less than the $1 million plan — items that would alleviate some of the problems including heating and ventilation and the ripped curtains.

Most likely, said Salvesen, the district would only ask for an additional $60,000 from taxpayers for buildings and grounds use in this May’s school budget. This money could be used for improvements in the auditorium.

At Monday’s board of education meeting, building and grounds supervisor/athletic director Bill Madsen told the board it would cost $45,000 to replace the curtains and rigging in the auditorium, which members agreed was a health and safety issue.

In order to finance the other projects the committee is recommending, Superintendent John Gratto suggested committee members ask the board of education to add a proposition onto the John Jermain Library vote, which will take place in September 2009.

Gratto suggested that the district could present four different proposals for the auditorium on the ballot and let voters decide.

Although district business manager Len Bernard did not attend the meeting, he sent a memo suggesting ways that the district may be able to fund the projects.

“Based on current town assessments and anticipated non-tax revenues, $300,000 of new debt service [which is the cost to fund $3 million in borrowing per year over 15 years], would cost the owner of a $1 million market value house approximately $53 per year in additional school property tax right now,” Bernard said in the memo, adding that this would be for both Southampton and East Hampton residents.

“It’s the cost of a cup of coffee [per week during one year’s time],” Gratto said.

Bernard, also explained in his memo that there is a $3 million bond being paid off in the 2009-2010 school year, and suggests that the district could borrow another $3 million in 2009-2010 with “no real impact on tax bills.”

Bernard also said that there is a bond from 1997 improvements, which will be paid off by 2009-2010.

Bernard explained that $3 million can be paid for with the money from the 1997 bond, and a new $3.3 million bond for 2009-2010 would only cost taxpayers an additional $53 per year. This would equal $6.3 million, which would be used for the big ticket items like parking and improvements to the auditorium, and $300,000 for the remainder of the maintenance projects.

In previous meetings, the committee members focused on ways to fund the projects, but at last week’s meeting, Gratto quickly reminded committee members that they were not responsible for finding ways to pay for the projects, but simply to make suggestions to the board of education. 

“I think we need to prioritize, but it is up to the board to say what is palatable,” Gratto said.

 “If we educate them, [the board of education and the public] they will be convinced by all the facts,” said Gratto.

Illustration above shows proposed parking lot configurations, including 25 new stalls in front of Sag Harbor Elementary School; 26 new stalls at the rear of the elementary school; and 17 new stalls at the front left of Pierson Middle/High School. Parking at lots on Montauk Avenue and on the Division Street side of Pierson would remain unchanged.

 

First of all we would like to say “bravo” to the Sag Harbor School District for the implementation of video on their website. It is an innovative step in the right direction.

At the same time, however, we find it puzzling that a school district which is so forward thinking in its efforts to become technologically advanced has taken so long to fix a serious district-wide phone issue.

Twice, we can understand the phones going out, three times maybe even, but every time the wind blows? Seriously, a functioning phone system is a necessity for a district with nearly 1,000 students. Not only is it important that parents be able to reach staff and, in turn, their children in the event of an emergency during the course of the school day; but how can any business, let alone the biggest employer in the village, function with a non-working telephone system?

Technology is frustrating at times, we understand that. There may be things that we don’t quite get or aren’t able to interpret without a professional; but when do we say enough is enough and ask that the problem be attended to with some real immediacy?

We learned this week that parents have been calling each other trying to find out where the problem lies. On the website, there are emergency contact numbers in case the system is down. These are actually the cell phones of people in the school offices. But unless you are a parent trying to get a message to your child, you are at a dead end. Everyone else hoping to conduct any other business with the district is out of luck when they call these emergency contact numbers. We would like to know how the school’s business offices are handling this problem. What happens if a call from the new potential phone provider is unable to get through, to say nothing of a real emergency situation at the school such as a lock down which did, in fact happen at Pierson High school just a year ago? At times like this, open lines of communication are not only important, they’re vital.

So the problem is said to be caused by rain and wind getting into the system. What happens if the rain and wind last more than a day? What about if the school is used as a shelter for those fleeing hurricanes or other emergency events?

The district assures us they’re working on it, but until the phone system debacle is sorted out, we think that the district needs to come up with a more acceptable alternative. A series of cell phones, perhaps, that can be called not just by parents, but any member of the public who has business with the school district. If it involves putting a few administrative employees in charge of answering these cell phones and relaying messages to the appropriate departments, so be it. After all, it’s not like these people’s desk phones will be ringing off the hook.

We’d also like to see the district offer a decent explanation on the website as to what the actual problem is with the phone system. That would help alleviate the other game of telephone, which is going on around town in which parents are calling one another to figure out what’s going on. Not an ideal situation, we assure you.

So with the new year come hopes of a new school phone system to go along with it. We only pray that the problem will be alleviated by the end of the month. Stay tuned.