Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > October > 23 > Entry
Incumbents trumpet successes at forum
Three challengers for Dayton school board all skipped Monday’s televised candidates night, leaving the incumbents two hours to tout their accomplishments.
The event, produced by students at the Patterson Career Academy, was sponsored by the Dayton Education Council, a parent and community support group for schools and shown live on the cable television.
Council President Les Weller said all seven candidates were invited. Challenger Nancy Nerny declined the invitation, he said, and Shirley Crisp, another newcomer in the race, pulled out today citing a back injury. Sheila Taylor, the third challenger, called shortly after Crisp and said she wasn’t coming either.
Reached at home, Crisp said she she simply needed to rest an injured her back. Taylor and Nerny could not be reached for comment.
The four incumbents — Stacy Thompson, Mario Gallin, Lee Massoud and Jeff Mims — took questions from the council, the studio audience and callers. They trumpeted the board’s efforts to give kids more choices, improve instruction and build new schools.
In response to a question about the graduation rate, Thompson said it had jumped to nearly 80 percent from less than 50 percent. She said new options like single gender schools, an academic magnet high school and a technology design program have helped keep kids in school.
“We need to ensure that we have programming in place to meet the needs of our students,” she said.
Gallin said a question about parent involvement raised a key issue. She said new initiatives with churches and businesses will help, as will finding new ways to communicate with district families, such as e-mail and church bulletins.
“We have challenges on that front,” she said. “We have to get people to understand we need their input and involvement.”
When a caller asked for examples of the board’s successes, Massoud cited steady enrollment the past two years after several years of steep losses to charter schools.
“That tells me people are still believing in us and entrusting us with their children,” she said.
Former board member Doniece Gatliff, asked from the audience how the candidates would support the board’s goals. Mims said they must unify to make a difference for kids.
“If we can’t unify ourselves to challenge those who are not working in our best interests then I find it difficult to believe others will jump in and support us,” he said.
Permalink | Comments (23) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Comments
By oldteach
October 26, 2007 5:38 PM | Link to this
I agree with Oldprof that DPS could reduce their administration by 50%-75%, but I don’t think they would. Too much of the “good old boys” (girls) network downtown. I also suspect that one of the reasons that so many of the Title 1 parent resource people were lost this year was that the administration spent a lot of the Title 1 funds shifting administrators at Ludlow to “federally funded positions”By Oldprof
October 26, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this
Lou and Laura: I agree, it would be nice to go back to the administration/teacher ratios of the 1950s. The people who require it are NOT local boards, there’s our elected representatives in the state and federal legislatures. I estimate that DPS (and Centerville, and Oakwood, and Kettering, and Troy, etc. etc.) could and would reduce administration by 50 to 75 percent if the state and federal government would simplify funding and reporting formulae. So when you complain about too many administrators who aren’t in the schools, then complain about Title ### funding’s requirement that a full-time administrator be hired to oversee it—for one example.By Laura
October 24, 2007 10:57 PM | Link to this
Lou, I agree with your statement that some of the people that are housed at Ludlow need to be returned to the schools. Imagine all the time they waste running back and forth from Ludlow to a school. Oh, wait, maybe that explains why they don’t have time to do any significant work in the schools. I still say that Ludlow I might have been warranted but there is no way they needed Ludlow II. Or maybe it is even the other way around. Maybe they could justify the smaller building, but I haven’t been convinced they needed both.By lou
October 24, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this
Why does the board office have to be so big? Why couldn’t they have moved into an unused portion of a building? Most of the positions are useless downtown. Put people back into the schools and make them do their jobs.By Joe Lacey
October 24, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this
Roosevelt was a solid functional structure used as office space by the district right up until they left it. And yes, 50 year old classrooms are used as efficient office spaces by Centerville and Kettering School Districts. There’s no reason why DPS could not. The $20 million wasted by DPS on buying the Reynolds and Reynolds buildings was a board decision, not a legislative requirement.By Oldprof
October 24, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
Joe! What a silly response. You cannot say that all of Roosevelt was functional, large sections were unusable for district purposes. And the notion that you can just take a 50-year-old classroom and herd people into it and make it an efficient office is ludicrous! By analogy, the district should have just purchased abandoned big-box stores and put schools in them. As for $20 that’s not going into classrooms—well, until the legislators get off the backs of the school districts and reduce their requirements for administrators and paperwork, there will ALWAYS be millions of dollars not going to the classroom. There’s no other conclusion—you know that the R&R purchase was made for sound economic decisions, but it doesn’t suit your political aspirations to present all the data.By Joe Lacey
October 24, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this
Roosevelt was functional office space when the district ditched it and it could have housed any district consolidation, so the purchase of Reynolds and Reynolds created no cost savings from consolidation. Informed Voter talks about Roosevelt’s maintenance costs but doesn’t compare them to Ludlow’s maintenance costs. That’s not informed. Mortgage, lease purchase, or however Ludlow is financed, $20 million in general funds is not going into classrooms because of this board decision.By Informed Voter
October 24, 2007 12:30 AM | Link to this
OK Joseph, I thought I was done but here goes just for you. Firstly, I’m an informed voter so I know a little more than the average Joe about the things you continue to spout off about sir. I didn’t agree with the R&R purchase, BUT I wish you would explain the deal fairly. This purchase was not a 20M lump sum buy, I believe it was actually 15M (5M was added for repairs that had to be made) and the price is actually a mortgage paid over 25 years. It runs the district about 1M a year (Roosevelt alone was costing the district almost 2M a year). So whether you agree or not this was NOT a bad FINANCIAL decision by the board. I read that in a DDN article so maybe Scott can chime in here and tell us who is correct (me or Joseph)? It wasn’t a public relations great moment, BUT it wasn’t a bad financial decision. Period! Joseph, you are good at taking an issue, showing it in the manner you choose and riding it to uproar. This works best with people who don’t want to do their own homework and actually get the facts. My last comment on this subject is another grandpa saying: Joseph, you can fool SOME folk with bull, but you can never fool ALL folk with bull. And for the record I think grandpa had a healthy respect for strong women (heck he married two!)and in this election he would have supported the only strong women running: Mario, Massoud and Thompson!If you had bothered to find qualified candidates or had the capacity to develop some I’d applaud you, but what you did is just plain ol’insulting Joseph and you know it!By Oldprof
October 23, 2007 11:19 PM | Link to this
Joe, you keep talking about what the Reynolds and Reynolds building cost. Now, will you be forthcoming about what it is projected to save? The cost-benefit analysis at the time of the purchase was, as I understand it, rather strongly in favor of the move. If you keep saying “$20 million dollars” then I want to also hear the costs of restoring Roosevelt to a school ($25 million), the extra costs that would have been incurred to convert it to adequate office space; the costs of maintenance and utilities, security and repairs at the other former administrative buildings. Give us the full analysis, Joe, you have the accounting skills to do it, at least by reputation.By Joe Lacey
October 23, 2007 9:39 PM | Link to this
I did think of one criticism from Les Weller fairly recently. At a policy committee meeting, he spoke about a gay and lesbian support group at Stivers that he apparently felt the district should not allow. I guess his criticism would be that the district could use some more narrow-mindedness.By Joe Lacey
October 23, 2007 9:23 PM | Link to this
Scott, you had to go back to James Williams to find an example of DEC criticism of the district? Who wasn’t critical of James Williams back then? The DEC was in favor of the purchase of the Reynolds and Reynolds buildings. Did Informed Voter’s grandfather also favor spending $20 million or so of general funds for a new admin building? Forget the ocean in east Dayton, sell us some more downtown Dayton vacant office space. No blog posts showed that I told anyone what events to attend or not attend. I support Taylor, Nerny and Crisp. They are strong and independent women who are not taking cues from me or anyone. Maybe grandpa just didn’t appreciate strong, independent women so someone has to try to spin them as “girls” taking cues from someone.By Oldprof
October 23, 2007 9:17 PM | Link to this
Barb, if it seemed like a “set up” to you, then why didn’t you pick up your phone and call in with a hardball question? If you wanted debate, then it’s too bad that the challengers couldn’t show up. Hope Ms. Crisp’s spine is feeling better, tho’ it raises questions about whether she can fulfill the demands of the school board position if she’s likely to be struck down with pain just before an important public event. Nerny knew about her conflict in advance—Shiela Taylor hasn’t offered an excuse yet, but “I’m not coming either” is an odd way to phrase it; that’s the part that leads to suspicion that there was a consensus among the challengers (and maybe their sponsors) to avoid the spotlight.By anne
October 23, 2007 8:46 PM | Link to this
“informed” I don’t think you are really looking at the bigger picture. Yes, the no-shows could have been more forthright about reasons not to join in the events, but haven’t you seen what has been happening in Dayton? No, I don’t attribute fewer blogs to people dropping support for the only honest, intelligent member of the board. I have sat in classrooms with 30 kids who need a lot of things, who did not get these things while those downtown have everything but a nail saloon - or has that been added? Now some are sort-of admitting the Reynold’s building may not have been a good move - and what about the OTHER palace that is across the street? Lacey is the only one who objected to just a list of cuts as suggested by Mack - He at least wanted to know the positions, and the impact it might have on the kids. Remeber - it is really about them. I am not sold on all three of the “girls” who are running. I do know that Nancy Nerny spend a great deal of her time working for this community for free. She is educated and involved, and more qualified to make decisions about the schoools in Dayton than any of the suits that I have seen downtown. “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Does anyone in their right minds want to repeat the decline that has been seen during the last 7 years?By crisp
October 23, 2007 8:15 PM | Link to this
I only have a couple of comments on this issue. One, I did not attend the DEC meeting for medical reasons ONLY, whether someone on this message board chooses to believe that or not is of no consequence to me. Second, I did not denounce Joe Lacey and am not trying to distance myself. I said that I agree with many of Joe’s ideas or positions but am sure I disagree with others and to assume that I don’t have my own ideas or hopes for the school board is an insult.By Eve
October 23, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this
For those who may be interested, the candidates’ debate sponsored by the Greater Dayton League of Women Voters is also available online at http://www.lwvdayton.org/VtrServ/CandTVIntervws-daytonschoolboard.html (minus Shirley Crisp who did not attend). Scott, I’d be interested in knowing if any of the three challengers showed up for tonight’s debate at the Macedonia Baptist Church.By Scott Elliott
October 23, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this
Charterhater, I think you are being unfair to Les Weller and the DEC. For sure the group is supportive of the the school district. That is its mission and purpose. But Weller in particular and the DEC in general can be, and has been, critical of the district. I recall, for instance, that Weller spoke pretty directly about former Supt. James Williams at the end of Williams’ time. The DEC has run this event for years and it has not been a partisan event.By Informed Voter
October 23, 2007 4:51 PM | Link to this
CharterSchoolHater: You just won the ocean in east Dayton! And I guess the good citizens of Five Oaks also are in the pocket of Mack & Co? Don’t forget they didn’t show up to that one either. Lacey: It’s funny how your girls are now saying they aren’t with you and your saying your not guiding them, but previous blogs show different. My grandfather used to also say when the lights come on roaches run and hide. Sure was a smart ol’Kentucky man that grandfather of mine. This blog getting mighty quiet all of a sudden, could it be people are starting to WAKE UP! And yes, I am ranting Mr. Lacey mainly because I voted for you two years ago and believed you were in this for the right reasons and I’m mad as heck right about now to see you had me good and fooled young man, but not anymore! No siree, I’ma make it my goal to show you how to really rant and rave cause I’m watching ya and I got a big mouth!By barb
October 23, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this
I watched a good part of the forum which was televised. Some of the people I saw asking questions were past board members. That looked like a set up to me. The questions I heard from the audience were not answered. Issues were skirted. I was especially dissappointed when the board members could not answer a question about what they thought they missed the mark on. The answers were all the same: we needed to inform the public why we needed more money because the state and federal government have not given us money. I was looking for an honest answer but there were none. Of all of the candidates I felt Mr. Mims was the least honest and IF forced into a corner Mario and Thompson were the 2 I felt really are concerned about the students. Each board member piggybacked on what the other said and really came up with no new ideas.By charterschoolhater
October 23, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this
I got news for you informed voter, check out the group that sponsored this event. Mr. Waller and his group are nothing more than puppets of Mack and his cronies. Mr. Waller and his group come to meetings all the time sponsored by Mack and co all the time where they are brainwashed what to say and think. Mack also uses this group to pick their brains and find out what threats there are out in the community to his agenda and how to counter it. This group is not non partisan in any way shape or form. They used the facilities of the schools for goodness sake to produce and show their event. Non Partisan? HA HA!!By Joe Lacey
October 23, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this
I haven’t told anyone what candidate night they should or should not attend. I do openly support three of the candidates. I’m not sure why this person rants about a conspiracy.By Informed Voter
October 23, 2007 9:14 AM | Link to this
Mary, my grandfather used to have a saying for comments like yours: You can stick you head in the sand and refuse to see the truck coming at ya if you choose too, but you’ll still get hit! For the record this is perhaps one of the most neutral candidate night’s because it’s primarily hosted by the parent groups and community interests of the district, unlike other events that are held by various neighborhood and priority boards where a particular candidate might live or have a strong base of support. BUT for fun let’s say your assumption is valid, do you really want three people on the DPS Board who can’t handle challenging situations to the degree that they CHOOSE TO HIDE AND AVOID? There is great intensity about the DPS Board and arguably the incumbants are the one’s most attacked by this community, BUT they were there, and from what I’m hearing they’ve been at each forum. I just learned yesterday these opponents also skipped the Five Oaks Candidate’s Night forum. Now, Mary I know your heads in the sand, but please tell me 1.) why three folk running on Lacey’s platform to save schools would choose to avoid Five Oaks where Julienne is located, and 2.) who do you think had the hottest seat in there, ie, the incumbants or the challengers? Yet, all the incumbants were there! Now again, you can stay in the sand and life will go on BUT don’t expect the rest of us to join you down there. This is simple, the challengers Lacey has put in this race are not qualified to be on this board (or any board), he knows it (but figures if he continues to scream loud enough and act crazy enough you’ll miss it), the DDN knows it (and has tried to tell you again and again), people who bothered to come out to some of the early candidate nights know it (even this blog has quieted down some recently on the Lacey bandwagon) and most important of all THE CHALLENGERS THEMSEVLES KNOW IT and that’s why public avoidance is now the strategy! My assessment is the DDN nailed it, one thinks the Dems and Unions can pull her in despite the only qualification she has is she’s worked on other candidates campaigns, the other thinks she can walk door to door and fool you and the third didn’t bother to research her affiliations (Lacey)before she made them so she’s decided to plaster the city with signs and hope that will do it. Funny thing is all of them are now denouncing and backing up from Lacey (read some of the older posts)while he continues to mail and drop off literature for them. Do not be fooled Dayton, I’ve got a classroom full of children who deserve much better than this and I believe YOU KNOW IT!By Mary
October 23, 2007 7:54 AM | Link to this
A lot times these types of forums are not the unbiased, open community assemblies they pretend to be. When you check sometimes into who is running them, you will find the same personalities and groups of status quo cliques - even the questions that are selected for the candidates to respond to for spin. My bet is the challengers knew this was one of those forums and knew who was running it.By Informed Voter
October 23, 2007 1:25 AM | Link to this
If anyone believes these challengers skipped this event for any reason other than fear of being caught on tape unprepared and unqualified to even be in this race, I’ve got an ocean in east Dayton for sale. C’mon big man Lacey, explain the real reason your handpicked girls were no shows at an event sponsored primarily by the parents of DPS students and taped live? Do you really think this community is dumb enough to vote for people you coach to walk door to door asking for support but avoid public opportunties to discuss their merits? One I might accept, but all THREE not showing, now that’s far more than a coincidence. Suddenly the DDN editorial board opinions are starting to make sense, afterall they did interview these folk didn’t they? I must believe my fellow Daytonians are not naive enough to give their vote to people who don’t even respect us enough to attend one of the largest candidate events and present themselves openly. Shame on all three (or adding Lacey, all four of ya’s)!