(from the Courier)
Programs ditched for personal beliefs
Why would the current BoE dismantle effective, school-based mental health programs at a time when depression and anxiety in children is unprecedented? Why refuse to apply for grants effectively denying over a million dollars in help for WP students?
One part of our government said to not take money from “the government”. Others said to “focus on education”. And some, Mick Bates and Cassie Kimbrel, never said anything. These programs were ditched due to “strings” like ensuring care regardless of religion, color, sexual orientation or economic status and assessment of efficacy.
These programs were ditched for personal beliefs.
Now they have implemented Capturing Kids Hearts: teachers instruct students about an attribute to practice every month. An easy program for adults because they never have to address what a child may really be struggling with. Is this meaningful with 30 kids in a class? This program was rigorously evaluated and not effective in actually helping children.
Then the BoE contracted an out-of-town agency, MindSight, to provide mental health services in the school. Most providers are unlicensed students, although supervised, and serve multiple schools. MindSight bills the parents, their insurance and needs paperwork approval from parents. Is this information protected from the BoE or Superintendent? No crisis intervention offered.
You could have caring, screened, highly qualified providers at WPSD again. Their focus could solely be the well-being of children while partnering with parents, not personal agendas. Your kids could have better. Vote.
Patricia A Perry, Woodland Park
Separating opinions and preferences from facts and interpretations
Claims being made by Woodland Park school board incumbents need attention. I’m concerned by how they and their supporters misrepresent data. For example, they manipulated teacher turnover. They didn’t count teacher retirements in turnover data, despite most retirees continuing to teach elsewhere, to look favorable to them.
Student growth is another shell game.
How can anyone know the difference without making it a part-time job? Watch for:
Cherry-picking: Recent guest editorial contributors and incumbent candidates present select data that support their argument while ignoring contradictory evidence. They overgeneralize from narrow data sets, making broad claims from spurious or anecdotal evidence.
Transparency: Without transparency or sharing decision methodologies, we can’t verify anything.
Biased Name-calling: We all interpret information to confirm pre-existing beliefs. This board refuses alternative perspectives as legitimate. They treat opposition as pestilence to distract and conquer, attack parents by name on FaceBook, and call candidates “liberal union hacks.”
We deserve board transparency, consideration of alternative viewpoints and proposals. I haven’t missed a board meeting, feeling gaslighted and ignored monthly. I am pro-public education and school choice. I’ve been concerned and involved since the appointments of Bates and Kimbrell.
Only Keegan, Barkley, and Knott are running honest campaigns that fully disclose the vast local financial and nonfinancial support received, not cherry-picked, hidden, or imbalanced. They are beholden to any no one person or group.
Only www.SupportWPSchools.com agonizes over data, cross-checking and validating everything to ensure no confirmation bias, transparently linking to all sources.
Trina Hoefling, Florissant