There has been a strong response to the Nyack High School’s July 6 decision to change the “Open Campus” policy (see articles by Kendi Kajago and Dave Zornow).
We would love for you to take a 5 question survey to find out what more people think.
Click HERE to take the survey.
Don’t disagree, richo123…. Note that when hiring the current superintendent, there was a lot of input from community, parents, etc. as reflected in the minutes.
You do make a point. “The more openness the better in a decision that has profound consequences for the District”. So very true…
I’ll be back — think I’ll listen to the pod cast again to better understand how the decision was made. And to think that I can listen to a pod cast! Open/transparent. Much more effective than minutes….. Times have changed since 2004/5!
I strongly disagree that the hiring of the Superintendent should automatically be a completely closed process. Indeed the Board minutes from 2004 make clear that the openness of the process WAS an issue at the time. The management consultant advised the Board to keep the process closed and the Board accepted that advice. I frankly see nothing wrong with 2-3 finalists giving vision statements at public meetings and the Board subsequently accepting written submissions from the public. The more openness the better in a decision that has profound consequences for the District.
If you want to argue that the public interest is maintained in the completely closed hiring of the Superintendent by having a democratically elected Board make the decision then I see little wrong with adopting the same attitude in connection to the open campus matter.
In response to richo123, the hiring of a Superintendent is a personnel matter so cannot be an open process.
It is the responsibility of the Board to make this decision, at the recommendation of a committee that was comprised of a mix of Board members, community/parents, and school personnel.
Not sure there is a comparison of a hiring/personnel decision to a change in policy and implementation of it at a school building.
It is interesting to hear these calls for openness in Board decisions by former Board members. I went back and reviewed the Board’s minutes for the period August 2004 through January 2005 and found that they hired the departing Superintendent in a “highly confidential” fashion. The reason given for this almost completely closed process (none of whose deliberations are anywhere available that I could locate) was that good candidates with current positions would be frightened off because their application would be exposed to their current employer. A number pf community “stakeholders”, presumably also selected by the Board, were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements.
The net effect of the above process was that a decision on the most important position within the District was made by a very small group of individuals (including the commenter above) and without full and effective community consultation.
I can see the reasoning for keeping that process closed by the Board. I can also see strong reasons for why it should have been kept open as well.
It is pretty clear that while openness is a desirable objective, this has not been carried out in the past in important cases and that decision for a closed process was made by some of those complaining loudest at present over the latest Board decision.
Maybe the “educational value” is in allowing teenagers some responsibility for their own time-management. But the discussion Mrs. Woertendyke is contributing to is precisely the one that the Board’s action on July 6 cut off prematurely, and that precedent is one that I believe is risky for the future. There will likely be a majority of parents who believe the campus should be closed, but they may not like the next decision taken in that manner by this Board. And the questions that should have been answered remain: is a closed campus a locked-down campus? Is the campus the entire area enclosed by the grounds’ perimeter? What are the sanctions for leaving? How will this fiscally responsible Board pay for the additional hardware and personnel successful implementation of their 2-month “trial program” will require? The discussion about the policy was an important one that was not allowed to happen. So much for transparency and “community” input. This survey is a red herring.
I think the survey misses the point. The issue was the process – changing a policy with no input, against the advice of the administrators – not whether the campus is opened or closed.
People may not know if they think it should be changed because the committee never completed their work. Are there safety issues? Are they related to 9th and 10th graders leaving the campus for lunch?
I’d like to see a question about the process, or at least an option to say “I don’t know,” or “need more information” instead of just yes and no responses.
I have to agree completely with the sentiments expressed above by Ms Woertendyke. Congratulations to the incoming Board for tackling this difficult issue decisively. Consultation with the student body on a matter like this is quite inappropriate in my opinion and I am relieved to see a democratically elected body stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility for the District.
The Board is now hiring a new Superintendent for the District. This will be a very important decision for the future of the Schools and I wish the Board success in this task. They are off to an excellent start.
I’d like to know what educational value comes from letting students leave school during the school day? How does it make the school more secure? What accountability is there for administration if someone gets hurt? If students abuse the “policy” and cut classes before and after their lunch or “mandatory” study hall, what are the consequences? The questions are as obvious as they are numerous.
It is inane that we have to argue that children should be in school during the school day. It is equally stunning to me that the former school board president seems to be encouraging delinquency and unexcused class absences.
Certainly democracy is magnificent– but we are going too far when we think we have to ask our students/our children if they think they should have the freedom to leave school during the school day. Their answer will be a resounding, “Yes!” Of course they would want to go out. Do we ask if they want to take tests, or other academic requirements for graduation?
This “policy” does not promote anything good in regards to education or the safety of our children. Let parents decide if they want their children to leave the school campus during the day, rather than blanket ALL students with the freedom.
Ironically, because of this “policy,” many students have more freedom IN school than at home. Parents’ concerns and wishes for their children are circumvented by an irresponsible “policy.” In fact, it seems to be a practice, rather than a “policy” and it encourages the students who need the most attention in school to evade it with impunity.
The school must be held accountable to the parent/guardians wishes, even before the students’.
Maybe if we consider students’ tastes and various cultures, they would actually want to eat in the school.
In addition to abandoning the “Open Campus Policy.” Nyack High School should seriously consider a Unit Lunch with Block Scheduling, so that both administration, faculty, and students could be available to each other for extra help, clubs, or healthy and safe socialization.