by Mark Brazaitis

My name is Mark Brazaitis, and I’m an associate professor of English and the director of the creative writing program at WVU. My wife and I have two daughters in Mon County public schools. Thank you for allowing me to speak with you tonight.

The Board of Education has of course read the studies about the superiority — for the children who attend them — of small schools over large schools. Members of the BOE would not be in their current position if they were ignorant of this salient fact.

It is therefore a mystery why the BOE continues to insist that a mega-school, most likely to be situation on the Mileground—on the Mileground, the most congested place in all of Morgantown, the air polluter’s paradise—is going to outperform a pair of neighborhood schools where children feel safe and welcome and parents feel connected to everyone from the administration to the people who make sure the schools are looking good.

It is a mystery that is leaving so many of us shaking our heads—shaking our heads and despairing for the loss of something good – something great.

The neighborhood school. A place where everyone knows your name. A place where children can feel important—and be important—because they are important—and are not lost in the crowd – are not sacrificed to the cost-saving gods of economies of scale.

When I came to Morgantown ten years ago, I was told—and I’ll be frank—that the public schools here weren’t all that good. “There are, however, a couple of excellent small schools,” said the man who hired me.

I know about small schools. I attended a small elementary school in a big place—Washington, D.C. It was the best educational experience I’ve had. I didn’t feel anonymous the way I sometimes did in junior high and high school – and, yes, even in college.

The principal knew my name. The librarian knew my name. Kenny, the man who kept the school clean, knew my name. They not only knew my name—they knew things about me. They knew I liked basketball. They knew that if my NBA career didn’t work out—alas, it didn’t—I wanted to be an ambassador to a country in Africa.

Of course I wanted my daughters to have a similar experience. I was grateful they could. I am grateful they can.

My oldest daughter is a graduate of Suncrest Primary. My youngest daughter will graduate from Suncrest next year. My wife and I arranged for them to transfer out of district so they could attend Suncrest. It was that important to us that they attend a small neighborhood school.

What would we have done if there were no good small public schools in Morgantown? We certainly would have considered moving to Pittsburgh or Washington, Pennsylvania. If other families had the means to make such a move, I am certain they would give it serious thought. But most do not have the means. And that is yet another reason that you must do the right thing here—because so many families cannot vote with their feet and move to better schools but must abide by your decision whether it’s wise or something less-than-wise.

My family and I understand how crucial neighborhood schools are. And we are not alone. You have heard from parent after parent, from child and after child, who has spoken passionately and convincingly about why the neighborhood school not only provides a richer learning space for children than a school situated in the middle of nowhere good but solidifies a community.

It is a mystery why you are not standing with them. It is a mystery why the Mileground – the Mileground! – makes more sense to you than neighborhood schools that define their neighborhoods, that uplift and enrich children’s lives.

All change isn’t good change. Bigger isn’t always better. And when it comes to schools, it’s worse. But you know this. You know this well. You’ve done your homework. You’ve read the studies.

So why, in this most critical of exams, are you failing?

Please go back and revise your answers. Please choose what is best for our children, our communities, and our city. Thank you.

by Susan Eason

I know that I am beating a dead horse, but architect Ted Shriver’s LEED presentation to the BOE and the public left me angry. Ted Shriver either knowingly or due to lack of effort presented inaccurate/false/misleading information about how the LEED rating system and its associated points could play out on the various sites.  To me that is outrageous!!!

The LEED rating system can be worked a variety of ways and Ted did not accurately present the potential of the Woodburn site to earn as many, if not more, points under the Site Selection category than the Mileground site.    Knowing this information will, I am sure, not change the outcome, but at least the BOE and the public should know that the site being chosen does not have the same potential to earn the highest LEED Site Selection Credit’s as the Woodburn site.

Let me focus for a minute on the specific Site Selection criteria that Ted focused on last night:  Development Density and Community Connectivity.   Under this criteria a project can earn points by following 1 of 2 options as outlined below (see full LEED for Schools Document at http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=7248 ) :

OPTION 1:  This option calls for developing on a previously developed site AND in a community with a minimum density of 60,000 sqft per acre (which is based on a development density of a typical 2 story downtown development and this must include the area of the project being built).

OR

OPTION 2:  This option calls for developing OR renovating a building on a site that meets ALL of the following criteria:

- Is located on a previously developed site

- Is within 1/2 mile of a residential area with avg density of 10 units/acre

- Is within 1/2 mile of at least 10 basic services

- Had pedestrian access between the building and the services

Please note that both options call for developing on a PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED site .  Woodburn definitely meets that.  It is not so clear if the Mileground site would meet that criteria.  A determination would be made by the Green Building Certification Institute, the entity that ultimately reviews and approves/disapproves all LEED projects.

As for goods and services and the pedestrian access between the project and the services….Woodburn has that already.  The Mileground MIGHT have that at some future date, but this would require sidewalks be built along the school side of the Mileground and operational within 1 year of school occupancy.

Within a half mile radius of Woodburn, Shriver failed to note that there are at least 10 services that you can walk to.  They are: Wes Banco, two churches, two Dairy Mart convenience stores, a nail shop, the Dominion Post, Marilla Park pool and tennis courts, Townhill Laundry Mat, The Handbag Boutique, Town Hill Bar and Grill, Richwoold Grill, Mario’s Fishbowl, Whitemore Park, Division of Motor Vehicles, Superior Photo, Brockway Hair Salon, Brockway Mini Mart, Suds Car Wash, 3 Piano studios and the Marilla Community Center.  This LEED credit criteria could potentially earn 4 points.

So…on this credit Ted was misleading at best.

Another Sustainable Site credit Ted focused on was the one dealing with availability of Public Transportation.  This credit gives 4 options for meeting the criteria.  The only one of the 4 options that would potentially work for either the Woodburn or Mileground sites is Option 2:  Bus Stop Proximity.   This option states:

Locate project within 1/4 mile walking distance of 1 or more stops for 2 or more buslines.  You can count the school bus stop as one of these lines.

Last night people paused and gasped when Shriver said that Woodburn did not earn any points in the Public Transportation credit because there are no buses that run within a 1/4 mile of the site.  You gasped because you know that was wrong (a lie).  There are two different buslines that stop at Richwood and Charles, 100 feet from the school–The Blue and Tyrone Rd. Mountain Public Bus Transportation.  Additionally you can count the school buses.  This credit earns the Woodburn site 6 additional points.

Friends,  that is 10 additional LEED points that Ted Shriver failed to acknowledge for the Woodburn site!!!

In calculations with my husband Chris, who is a LEED AP like Ted Shriver, the Woodburn site could potentially earn at least 21 points (out of 24 for Site Selection points), putting it ahead of the 17 points (I believe) he recorded for the Mileground.  Shriver is earning 6% of the $15 million dollar project, part of that is to show how his client’s site preference would potentially earn the most LEED Site Selection points over others.  What Shriver failed to do is show how the Woodburn site could earn just as many and probably more than the Mileground site.

I am outraged that he has falsely presented this information, skewing the results to make it appear that the Mileground site objectively is the superior site.  Friends,  it is not.  According to LEED Site Selection criteria, the current Woodburn site has the potential to earn more credit points than the Mileground.

You should know that Ted Shriver has either not done the job he was hired to do with our tax dollars or has lied to the public.  Either is a total disgrace.  Do not be doped.  It is outrageous what was presented last night.  It was wrong!

by Contstance Harward

Practically everyone campaigns for city council by saying they’re going to do something about THE TRUCKS driving through town.  We all know the Greer gravel quarry is owned by the orig. founders of the Post, and the current ownders..  These trucks are a MENACE — wasn’t Green Bag Road built for the trucks to circle AROUND downtown?

Also:  the downtown post office is full of black mold, acc. to the workers.  They’re sick; OSHA has either not been notified or done nothing about it if they know.  They have 1 bathroom for both sexes; no venilation.  It’s a travesty.  next time you drive across the High Street Bridge take a look at the back of the building.  The employers at the post office tell me they’re more afraid of the building collapsing than the bad air.

Dom Post — stop running articles about obesity and then publishing deadly recipes that further obesity.  EVERY PICTURE feature someone grossly overweight, child or adult.

Let’s point some fingers at local property owners — starting with absentee landlords downtown that keep the place looking like a 1960s town with bad renovation idea.  There are no standards, no incentive to preserve older building.  I don’t think painting brick ORANGE or BLUE suffices. Nor the flashing elec. sign on the “renovated” downtown theater.  Remodelved perhaps — not renovated.  The buildings that stand empty or are scary — who owns them?  Let’s get this information into the open and get the owners (Vaughn Kiger!!!) to fix them up.

Press the issues of neighborhoods STAYING are single-owner domiciles — we don’t wish to be invaded by renters and owners who will not keep up their properties.  There is a LOT of vandalism in these area.

Get someone (again, out the slum lords ) about the vile street of road with the filthy condemned houses that are rented out to students/the poor, in lower South Park, from Buckhannon down towards 7.  It’s a disgrace.

So is Beechurst — most people’s first view and impression of Morgantown is the grubby rentals and shabby houses are you round the curve from Mon Blvd and enter town.  Chico’s, for the Pete’s sake, surely has the $ to clean up their properies.

by Tony Christini

The two main points that need to be stressed…are how very undesirable would be a school at the Mileground intersection…and how desirable would be a new school on revitalized Woodburn grounds.

One of the best features of Appalachia has long been its neighborhood schools. That is one of the best features of the entire country. It is time to stop destroying neighborhood schools. It is time to rebuild. Otherwise we would destroy and not renew some of the best of Appalachia, and the country.

The Woodburn school grounds are a perfectly sited residential place for a neighborhood school. What could be more educationally and economically negligent than not using the great site we already own?

Putting a school for little children on the Mileground, at the intersection of a busy and congested soon-to-be-four-or-five-lane highway is beyond lousy. It is terrible. It could hardly be called a neighborhood school. It would be more accurately known as the school of Racetrack Sprawl. That proposed site is amazingly skinny, about four times as long as it is wide, and the widest part abuts the screeching 705 throughway – which means it scarcely has more reasonably useable ground than does the current Woodburn site. Plus, traffic noise constantly cracks over that whole Mileground site. For wasting millions of dollars on that ground we gain nothing over what we already own but headaches.

Have you all have walked the proposed Mileground site? With your eyes and ears wide open? Have you seen the sprawl and the traffic? Have you heard it dominate the grounds? Would you really put a school for little children at the screaming loud polluted intersection of two busy and congested commuter highways? In commercial sprawl? Would that represent the best of Appalachia?

You don’t see the university offering any of its beautiful and quiet land set off from 2 lane roads. But in a heartbeat, apparently, the university would sell for a steep price its loud and lousy land at the Mileground intersection, fit for a car dealership or a warehouse, not a school. That may be the lousiest piece of land the university owns. It’s FUBAR to spend millions of dollars of our public funds, non-grant money, just to buy a crazy strip for building on, especially since the school district already owns a great site. You could build half a small school just for the horrible land cost. It’s FUBAR to build at the Mileground intersection even if the land were given for free. Those of you with military backgrounds, along with many civilians, know what the acronym FUBAR stands for. In its milder translation it means, Fouled Up Beyond Any Repair. The proposed Mileground intersection school would be no Green School. It would be a FUBAR School. And not worthy of Appalachia.

As far as schools go, bigger is basically worse, and neighborhood schools are the most ideal, as the research overwhelmingly shows. Well, let’s take some anecdotal evidence too. The problem with that is, many of the teachers are afraid to speak out. I wonder why? You should hear the teacher criticism of the district administration that we do. But they are too afraid of the administration, afraid for their jobs, to speak out. Others think there is simply no reasoning with the district, so why bother? Well, the administration consolidates and closes neighborhood schools and then the school board wonders why the overcrowding, and why the discipline problems, and why the weak graduation rates? Why? It’s time to revalue and rebuild neighborhood schools. We have repeatedly offered to help in this, thus far to little avail.

When the Mileground intersection site was revealed (so belatedly) at the special board meeting for the first time a few weeks ago, it was laughable. No wonder the site was kept secret for so long! And yet here we are today, seriously considering giving the university millions of dollars of our public funds for a strip of loud and lousy land.

It’s as if the school district is tone deaf or willfully ignorant to the public perception and to the objective reality of what the Mileground intersection is and to what it is slated to become, with the surrounding roads about to double in size and the intersection set to expand and be moved closer, potentially far closer, to the proposed school.

I encourage you to visit that site, and walk through the din, and imagine what it will be like after the highway and intersection expands. Look around, all the way around to the commercial strip and to the expressway. And listen. Then drive to Woodburn Elementary and walk those grounds. You’ll see it and hear it and feel it at once. There is no comparison in the quality.

What is proposed to be done in not rebuilding at Woodburn is hurtful and harmful. And I do not mean emotionally hurtful and harmful. The Mileground intersection site is destructive of good money, destructive of good sense and common sense, destructive of place, of educational experience, of community, of the professionalism of the school district, and destructive of relations between the school district and the public.

It is not our job to do your job for you.

It is our job to keep the school district from purchasing very expensive and lousy land, with public funds. No school at a major commuter and commercial traffic intersection can be green, and all schools should be green. We cannot stand by and let the district go FUBAR at the Mileground intersection with our children. It is time to rebuild the best features of Appalachia and of the country, and it is time to stop making some of the worst features even worse. No one should stand for a school built on an expensive, difficult, and loud site, at the horrendous Mileground intersection. The Woodburn school and grounds must be thoroughly revitalized and built anew, preferably as a small neighborhood school, or, if the administration really cannot manange two new small schools, then as a neighborhood school big enough to include Easton school students. The quiet residential Woodburn site can be readily made to welcome those students who must travel a few extra minutes to avoid an atrocious intersection school. As we have seen tonight, the Woodburn site can be developed as a high quality and great new neighborhood school.

by Russell Mokhiber

A group of citizen activists are calling on the state of West Virginia to prosecute Massey Energy for manslaughter.

The group has set up a web site — prosecutemassey.org – that allows citizens to petition the state prosecutor to bring manslaughter charges against the coal company in connection with the April 5 explosion that claimed the lives of 29 coal miners.

“If there is evidence to support a homicide prosecution, I would not hesitate to prosecute,” Kristen Keller, the prosecuting attorney for Raleigh County, said last month.

Keller says she has been in touch with the West Virginia State Police on the matter.

And she says that any federal regulatory investigation would not preclude a state homicide investigation.

“A federal regulatory investigation does not satisfy the need for a state criminal investigation,” Keller said. “If there were a car accident where one or ten or 29 people were killed – a federal investigation would not preclude a state criminal investigation. In fact, there would be a state criminal investigation.”

The group is seeking to place billboards throughout the state.

The billboard reads:

29 Coal Miners Dead
Prosecute Massey for Manslaughter

And the group is seeking to take out radio ads throughout the state.

West Virginia has an involuntary manslaughter law.

According to state law:

“Involuntary manslaughter involves the accidental causing of death of another person, although unintended, which death is the proximate result of negligence so gross, wanton and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life.”

Under West Virginia law, reckless disregard is something more than ordinary or simple negligence.

It is negligence that consciously ignores the safety of others.

And so the question is – do Massey’s actions at the Upper Big Branch mine meet the standard for reckless disregard?

The Washington Post reported last month that federal safety inspectors who visited Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch coal mine early this year said senior managers showed “reckless disregard” for worker safety by telling a foreman to ignore a citation the mine had received for faulty ventilation, according to the inspectors’ handwritten notes.

The notes, from inspections in early January, say the president and a vice president of Massey Energy’s Performance Coal subsidiary told a foreman at the Upper Big Branch mine “not to worry about it” when he spoke to them about a ventilation problem cited by federal mine safety inspectors three weeks earlier.

They told the foreman “it was fine,” according to the notes, citing the account of a mine employee.

The Post reported that the sharpest words in the notes came January 7, when an unidentified mine employee told an inspector that a serious ventilation problem – air flowing the wrong direction in an intake duct — had not been fixed because Performance Coal President Christopher Blanchard and Vice President Jamie Ferguson had instructed a foreman, Terry Moore, to disregard the issue.

The foreman said he had known about the problem for three weeks.

The federal mine safety inspector went on to say that “the operator has shown a reckless disregard of care to the miners on this section and [eligible] men that use this escapeway.”

He added later that “I believe the operator has shown high negligence due to fact of management knowing where problem is.”

He said the ventilation flaw could “result in fatal injuries” by sending methane to the coal face where drilling was taking place.

Corporations have been prosecuted for homicide for reckless disregard in the past – most notably Ford Motor Company in the late 1970s.

On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls driving in a Ford Pinto were hit from behind on Highway 33 in northern Indiana.

Within moments their car burst into flames and Lyn Ulrich, 16 and her cousin Donna Ulrich, 18, were burned to death.

Eight hours later, Lyn’s 18-year-old sister, Judy, who had third degree burns over 95 percent of her body, also died.

When an Indiana grand jury looked into the accident a month later, they voted unanimously to indict not the driver of the van that had rear-ended the three girls, but Ford Motor Company – then the country’s third largest industrial corporation – on three counts of reckless homicide.

The automaker was accused of recklessly designing, manufacturing and marketing the Pinto’s unsafe fuel tank system.

Although Ford was ultimately acquitted, the criminal prosecution of Ford Motor Company reestablished an important precedent:

In certain cases involving human health and safety, corporations and their executives could be required to submit not only to the scrutiny and sanctions of traditional federal agencies, but to state criminal courts as well.

Russell Mokhiber is the editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter.

by Chris Haddox
LEED AP
Woodburn resident and Woodburn parent

Dear Superintendent Devono and members of the Mon County Board of Education,

The past eighteen months, especially the months since November, have seen so much activity around the futures of both Woodburn and Easton Elementary Schools that in preparing my comments for this evening, it was difficult to even know where to begin.   I’ve decided to begin with the simplest observations of what is right and wrong about the entire situation.

It is right that the collective conscience of the Mon County Board of Education has finally had enough of the deplorable teaching and learning conditions it has allowed to exist at both Woodburn and Easton schools.

It is right that the Mon County Board of Education is interested in exploring green avenues for dealing with the question of “what to do about Woodburn and Easton?”

For me, that is where the “rights” end and the “wrongs” begin.

It is wrong to assume that a half-baked consolidation plan, conceived largely in secrecy during the past few months, that will potentially place a large elementary school at the intersection of 705 and Mileground is a suitable answer to the question.  Much less a green solution.   It is wrong for several reasons:

• It is wrong because it was formulated by an agency of the public without significant public awareness or input.
• It is wrong because it ignores the impacts of the entire school enterprise upon the community at large.  The school enterprise necessarily considers community wide ramifications such as development patterns, which areas grow and which decline, due to the placement and removal of schools.  Both the Council of Educational Facilities Planners International and the US Environmental Protection Agency cite the importance of smaller, neighborhood schools on neighborhood stabilization–stabilization that is internationally recognized as key in curbing the unplanned, automobile dependent sprawl that is largely driven by the removal of schools from municipal centers to their fringes.
• It is wrong because it ignores research findings about the importance of small schools on educational outcomes and social development of elementary age school children.
• It is wrong because it presumes that a green project can be measured by the performance of the building only, and that the other aforementioned ramifications on the community at large can be ignored.  WVU has been approached to provide building design expertise, yet where is the land use planning expertise.
• It is fiscally wrong and unsafe because the Pittsburgh coal seam underlying the Mileground site is extensively undermined as per the Boards own engineering report.  It favors a purchase price of $2.275 million dollars and the spending of additional monies, perhaps millions as with the UHS location, to stabilize a site that according to the engineering report has a “very high potential for subsidence.”  A report that as of the Tuesday, May 12 BOE meeting, has apparently not been digested by all BOE members.
• It is wrong because the Board publicly and wrongly discounts the potential for reutilizing the existing Woodburn site:  a site that is not underlain with the Pittsburgh coal seam, is already owned by the Board of Education and for the past 100 years has held a school quite nicely.   Yet, in its application for funding to the SBA, the Board notes that utilization of the existing site is indeed a possibility.    Is that existing site the Woodburn site or the Easton site?
• It is wrong because it is happening in isolation from several key comprehensive planning exercises that are currently underway or slated to begin soon, including the Morgantown Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Strategic Plan, the Morgantown Housing Study, the WVU 2020 Strategic Plan and the WV DOH/MPO plans for designing a solution to the Mileground traffic problems.
• It is wrong because it pressures the public to say “yes” to a half baked plan as the Board has $8.6 million of SBA money essentially in hand.  For the community to say to the Board, “let’s go together back to the drawing board” creates the possibility of the Board having to go back to the SBA and say, “no thanks…not at this time.”

What, then, to do?   The options are clear to me:

• Go back to the School Building Authority and tell them we can do better. Request additional latitude in spending the funds we have.  Bring your oft touted and obviously strong relationship with the School Building Authority to bear on this issue.
• Go back to the School Building Authority with a solution that is equitable to Easton families and their neighborhood and a solution that is equitable to Woodburn families and their neighborhood.   Look to the literature for examples of thinking outside the box.  They are out there.  Take a tip from sustainable design luminary, Amory Lovins, and ask, “what box?”
• Make your jobs easier by fully engaging the communities your decisions will impact.  If it were not obvious before, perhaps it is now.  There are talented and dedicated people wiling to get involved.  You can choose to be on the receiving end of their opposition, and there is plenty to oppose, or on the receiving end of their time and talents.

To engage the stakeholders takes effort far above that expended while stumping for the Board.  It cannot be done with a few generic, cryptic flyers sent out a couple of days in advance of equally mysterious meetings.   It takes multiple opportunities to sit down as equal partners around a table where the seriousness of the agenda is clear to all.   Consider that at the October, 2009 CEFP meeting at Morgantown High School, 8 Woodburn representatives, two of which were children, comprised a significant portion of the participants, most of which were school administrators and teachers.

Engagement and creativity takes time, effort and input from multiple stakeholders.  If the true desire for creative solutions is present, however, teams will come together and creative solutions will emerge and be advocated for.

by Katy Ryan
Associate Professor, English, West Virginia University

talk delivered at the Monongalia County School District CEFP Meeting held May 17, 2010

My son is in kindergarten at Woodburn. There is no question that Easton needs a new

facility and a new location. Right away. There is no question that Woodburn needs a new facility or a wholly remodeled one. And soon. I’m a teacher. I know that classrooms with ample space and decent equipment are essential. My son goes to kindergarten in a trailer with over 40 students. Teachers eat lunch in a hallway. We need new facilities. But this largely shared conclusion does not compel, in any reasoned way, consolidating the two schools and losing the Woodburn site.

Numerous studies document that small neighborhood schools have more parental involvement, less bullying, greater graduation rates, higher student participation in extra-curricular activities, and improved educational outcomes—especially for low-income children.[1] Given these studies and given the green movement toward smaller, not larger acreage, for public schools, the burden is on the School Board and Superintendent to justify its decision (not to focus on these two schools and to meet their different needs) but to consolidate.

Woodburn Elementary is positioned to lose two critical advantages, which schools around the country and the state wish they could get back: its smallness and its neighborhood. I have been reading educational studies and legal articles about the impact of not only school size but location on educational success. The benefits of small neighborhood schools are resoundingly clear. Achievement generally declines as overall school enrollment escalates, and according to some researchers this impact is even more pronounced at the elementary level. Again, the children hardest hit are those with the fewest financial resources.

Superintendent Devono has said that a 450-student school is not a big school. While no exact number can determine what constitutes “small” (small in Chicago is not small in Monongalia county), doubling school size is not an inconsequential move.[2] On average, Woodburn and Easton have slightly less than 200 students each. It’s obvious that teachers who gather outside Woodburn after school know virtually every student. A 2003 study of 39 elementary schools in Missouri found that the schools with enrollments of “less than 200 achieved the highest . . . scores in all the five academic areas of reading, math, language, science, and social science.”[3] (If Woodburn hasn’t achieved high score numbers in recent years, let’s figure out why without surrendering a needed advantage we have.)

Long before I read about it or knew it was an object of study, I experienced the vital, informal support network that springs up around a community school. Walking home, my son and I have met students from every level at Woodburn. Students are frequently at our house after school and at the Woodburn playground on weekends. A few nights ago, a 5th grader knocked on our door, just stopped in for an hour or so to hang out with us. He’s having some trouble, and we talked about that—and he played with my son. Maybe I would have met him at a consolidated school to which he and my son are bussed—but I wonder. I’m trying to teach a first-grader, whom I also met walking home, to play the piano. Older siblings have been borrowing books for school reports. My son in turn has met adults he trusts and from whom he learns.

One article I read mentioned that students at neighborhood schools have “lower feelings of alienation from the school.”[4] This might seem like a vague finding, but I worked for years with young people in the court system—and every one of them felt alienated, and from an early age, from school. A sense of community, a supportive neighborhood, a school that you can walk to, is a no-cost benefit to students. It shouldn’t be treated so cavalierly.

Not all Woodburn students live in Woodburn, but for many, including some from Jerome Park, the surrounding neighborhood matters a good deal. And I would argue that the neighborhood has a positive impact on every student in subtle and more obvious ways. Proximity to the school keeps parents connected and allows me to volunteer more than I would be able to if I had to drive. It was from a conversation with a parent walking from school that I learned about the proposal to close Woodburn. So, my involvement came from the very thing that is in jeopardy now: the neighborhood school experience.

Woodburn is a place. I can’t say it any better than a 7th grader and a graduate of Woodburn did at one of our neighborhood meetings. She said, “It’s about a culture.”

Nancy Walker has said that parents tend to get sentimental about school closings and make a big ruckus and then the new school opens and the kids all run to the shiny swing sets and are happy, and she knows they’ve done the right thing. What kid wouldn’t be excited by a new playground? But I don’t think that should be the measure of whether we are making responsible decisions about our children’s education.

I have not yet heard an educational rationale for closure and consolidation. (And there may not even be a convincing financial rationale. Apparently, West Virginia has not saved any money from its past fifteen years of school consolidations.) I am bothered by the implication that kids handle this kind of change better than their parents and that those opposed to the closing of Woodburn are motivated by emotions, not facts. The facts about community schools are, as far as I can tell, all on the side of two small schools—one relocated, one rebuilt on its current site. My heart is certainly in this, too. We know better and we can do better.

_____________________________

1. For summary, see Robert M. Bastress, “The Impact of Litigation on Rural Students: From Free Textsbooks to School Consolidation,” Nebraska Law Journal 82.1 (2003): 40 n. 163.

2. See Gregory C. Malhoit and Derek W. Black, “The Power of Small Schools: Achieving Equal Educational Opportunity through Academic Success and Democratic Citizenship,” Nebraska Law Journal 82.1 (2003): 75-76 n. 115-115.

3. John Alspaugh and Rui Gao, “School Size as a Factor in Elementary Achievement.” Educational Resources Information Center. 28 Apr 2003. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/ef/16.pdf

4. Malhoit 79.

by Susan Eason

Superintendent Devono and members of the Mon County Board of Education:

I am here tonight to say it is time to stop the neglect of Woodburn Elementary.  I absolutely support a new facility for the dedicated Woodburn students, teachers and staff!  It’s about time.  I do not, however, support a consolidated school, or a school on the Mileground.

The neglect and abuse of Woodburn students has gone on far too long.  It is time to do something or “terminate your rights” for the care of these children.  At a Feb. 25th meeting of forty plus Woodburn residents with Dr. Devono, Nancy Walker and Joe Statler, Walker commented, “For 14 years I have been wondering what to do with Woodburn.”  Fourteen years is too long, Nancy, and unacceptable.  Parents and staff begged for years that the BOE provide a building for PE, art and music so that the 200 children in this school would not have to do these activities in a 20 by 20 foot square hallway or their classroom.  It took years to finally get this facility, and came only after Dr. Devono’s arrival.  However, the project began in 2007 and the parking lot created to afford space for the new building is still not complete!!  A flurry of activity erupted two weeks ago after parents signed a letter pointing out the lack of handrails on stairs and lack of grading to the ground around the lot.  After that one day, no further work has been done and the railings are still incomplete.  The neglect continues!  I could tell you more stories of neglect where children must wear coats in the school due to extreme cold or where in other areas windows must be opened due to extreme heat or where a teacher must make a decision between an air conditioner running or being heard while teaching.

These are not conditions any of us want for our children and staff.  And yet, for years, the Woodburn teachers and staff have labored hard and long to provide an excellent education, despite the neglect from the Board of Education

The case can easily be made for a new school.  After years of neglect, there is no question change is needed.  However, consolidating Woodburn students with Easton and putting them in a school on the Mileground only continues the neglectful care and administration you have showed thus far.

-Do not move our children to a congested, polluted area of our city on the Mileground and call this school a green school.

- Do not move the school out of a community where a significant percentage of the children walk to school with their family each day and more could if they chose to, and even more could if an investment in infrastructure was made that allowed them to.

- Do not close a school that is an anchor to its community and a stabilizing force for families, similar to the Suncrest argument.

- Do not move these children into a larger facility when all the latest research shows that small schools are better for children, especially low-income students, of which Woodburn has a high percentage.

In a study published by Nebraska Law Review in 2003, Bob Bastress, Professor of Law at WVU reviews the extensive literature on the educational and community benefits of small schools.  One summary notes:

Small, rural and urban neighborhoods can offer community naturally….When the school is an interwoven part of the community, both are potent educators….By separating schools from communities, consolidation may be contributing to the social problems that concern parents and educators.  The sound development of children is closely linked to the well being of communities.  Consolidating schools often destroys those links.[1]

The glitter and glamour of a green school has all our attention.  Who wants to turn their backs on a school that has high indoor air quality? Or lowered energy costs?  No one, but the reality is that ALL schools should be designed this way in this day and age.  It is not unique; it’s becoming standard.

This is why I believe you should go back to the drawing board and design two small schools– one for Easton close to its population and one for Woodburn/Jerome park children.  This approach is what is truly green and in cited studies often no more costly.

The City Council of Morgantown in its February 25 letter to President Walker captures additional sentiments of mine for why we should keep Woodburn in its current location.  Mayor Byrne writes:

1. It is important to provide elementary and primary school options for families that choose an urban lifestyle.  This includes parents who don’t drive a car and those who prefer to walk.

2. Retaining schools in their urban location encourages re-development, neighborhood stabilization, and positive community impacts. (And I would add, especially a positive impact on the families who have children in your schools)

3. This is an opportunity to develop compact urban schools using an urban scale of development, avoiding a sprawl.

The Comprehensive Education Facility Plan you propose is not acceptable.  Design a school for Woodburn students and staff built on its current site using an urban scale of development measure.  A new green school for the Woodburn students and hard laboring teachers and staff on its current site is a beginning step in ending your cycle of neglect.

---

[1] Jim Fanning, Rural School consolidation and Student Learning, ERIC Doc. No. ED384484, at3-4 (1995), available at http;//ericir.syr.edu.

Tony Christini

My son attends Woodburn Elementary.

I oppose the closing of Woodburn school as a small neighborhood school; I oppose a consolidated school; and I oppose especially the proposed Mileground site for any such school.

The Mileground site sounds like a racetrack. The constant barrage of traffic from 705 screams and whines off the opposite cliff; it echoes and reverberates through the hollow to the school. All the time. It sounds like a racetrack, or a busy airport, or the busy commuter expressway that it is. At the proposed site, 705 traffic is even louder than the Mileground traffic, which will be worsened by the impending multilane road expansion. So, we should call the proposed Mileground school Noise Pollution Elementary or Racetrack Elementary.

The Woodburn site is nearly silent by comparison, except for the flood of bird calls, and it’s far more beautiful. The effect, the comparison of the two sites is strickening. It’s sickening in fact. So we should call the Mileground school Sickening Elementary.

What is your contingency plan for keeping Woodburn Elementary open as a small school indefinitely? What is your contingency plan for rebuilding Woodburn Elementary, immediately, as the small school that it is and that it ought to be and that many people – no surprise – strongly prefer it to be? By all evidence, you have failed to create such a plan. So we should call the proposed school Negligence Elementary.

Thus any hearing about consolidation and closing Woodburn is, in effect, merely for show. Clearly not serious. Any pretense in these meetings at considering not consolidating and not closing Woodburn as a small school is mere PR. So we should call the proposed school Propaganda Elementary.

The school board and administration have still failed to contact parents directly and through their schools about school closing and about school consolidation specifically. So we should call the proposed school Secrecy Elementary.

The belated brief mass email about this CEFP meeting (Monday, May 17) provided no information and no agenda. Thus, many busy and hardworking parents continue to be left in the dark about future plans for their school, even as the school district moves swiftly toward closure. So we should call the proposed school Covert Elementary, or Confusion Elementary, or Hush-Hush School.

The school district’s efforts are inappropriate, unprofessional, and essentially secretive. It all adds up to a severe disservice to the students. Parents have not been engaged directly in the way they are most accustomed to being engaged by the schools: by way of detailed information from their schools, through their children. Thus this process has no legitimacy. None. So we should call the proposed school Illegitimate Elementary.

Since the school district has failed to contact parents specifically about whether or not they support consolidation or closing, we should call the proposed school Parents Keep Out Elementary.

Data shows that the proposed school site is undermined, so we should call the school Undermined Elementary, or Subsidence Elementary, or, for mine-fill grouting, Costly Elementary.

The intersection of 705 and the Mileground is already high traffic and congested, which a large school would dramatically worsen. So we should call the proposed school Congestion Elementary.

The wind blows from the intersection of 705 and the Mileground toward the proposed school. When I protested the site with two dozen others at the intersection, when I arrived I was initially overwhelmed by the fumes. But then I think I became numb to it. So the proposed school should be called Air Pollution Elementary or Numbing Elementary.

The intersection of 705 and the Mileground is expected to soon be moved by the Department of Transportation hundreds of feet closer, directly toward the school, as additional lanes of traffic are added. This makes the intersection of 705 and the Mileground a perfect place for a warehouse, and a terrible place to inhabit. So the proposed school should be called Warehouse Elementary.

Everyone agrees that the current Easton school location at the high traffic intersection is terrible, so what sense does it make to move the school from one high traffic intersection to another? So the proposed school should be called Hypocrisy Elementary.

Though some Easton parents support the Mileground site, other Easton parents have said “Anyplace but the Mileground.” So call it, Anyplace But Elementary.

Easton Elementary needs to be rebuilt and relocated immediately. By all evidence, you currently have the funds to do so, in hand, without need for much if any state assistance. The consolidated school on the Mileground would steal the funds from a small school for Easton. So the proposed school should be called Theft Elementary.

Of the parents at both Easton school and Woodburn school, many - and as well as anyone knows, quite possibly the vast majority - prefer two small schools. Plus, the bulk of research shows that the smaller the school the better for everyone involved. Plenty of research also shows that small schools can be operated as economically or more economically than consolidated schools. So why is the school district pursuing the highly unpopular worst of all possible worlds? The proposed school should be called The Worst Solution Possible Elementary.

What about the environmental aspect of all the commercial and military buildings and operations on the Mileground, not least the  immediately adjacent armory and whatever chemicals, weapons, and other munitions are handled and stored there. Any chance that parents can get a complete list of the chemicals and explosives stored at the armory, which sits practically on top of where their children are to spend their growing formative years learning and playing? The university’s “Hazardous Materials Storage” facility, which contains “everything,” I was told, is located in the fields and in the windstream across route 705 from the school. Maybe the proposed school should be called Hazardous Elementary.

Even if the armory relocates at some point, as is apparently planned, will the site be left environmentally clean? And what future development can be expected there at the main intersection of the commercial strip that is the Mileground? The proposed school should be called Commercial Sprawl Elementary.

And how large is the school site, really? A full 7 acres? Not in effect, because the acreage bordering 705 and close to the expanded intersection is useless because it should be off limits to children. The proposed site is actually very narrow, and it will need drives and roads built upon it, as well as all of the parking, given the lack of municipal parking. Plus, anywhere that you could expand would be toward congested and growing highways. On the other hand, since you don’t mind putting the school on a 24/7 racetrack, it seems you may actually want this seven acre site so that you can sooner or later expand it toward more of the racetrack to add hundreds more students than you are currently telling us. So maybe we should call the proposed school Expansion Elementary or Racetrack Elementary in addition to everything else we do well to name it.

The Mileground site is a lousy site for a lousy idea. Not to mention that it would destroy the quiet, ideally sited neighborhood Woodburn school.

You have not shown at all why any supposed financial concerns must trump everyone’s best interests. You have not shown that one consolidated school would be less expensive than two small schools. You have not shown at all that the district in tandem with the state cannot afford to continue to build and operate two small schools, just as has been done for decades, a century. Why would you want to be the school board and the administration that failed, that terminated these two schools, especially the one that is a vital cornerstone of its community? Even if you could show some marginal difference in cost between a consolidated school and two small schools, you still will have failed to recognize that some extra cost can be justified by the very great benefits of rebuilding two small schools. Easton at a better location. Woodburn where it is.

Take care of Easton school immediately. You owe that school the most. And then, the following year, after directly and specifically engaging the Woodburn parents – which, as of even today, you still have not done – take care of Woodburn school.

Remember, regarding consolidation and closing, you continue to operate, for all practical purposes, in secret from the vast majority of the parents. You have never contacted them directly nor specifically on these matters. And you have no contingency plan for rebuilding Woodburn school and Easton school as small schools, instead of consolidating and closing. So no one should consider these hearings on the consolidated Mileground school plan to be serious. Nor is this process legitimate. Even beyond these grave breaches…sorry to say, the proposed Mileground school…it’s a joke.

Who has come up with a better name for the planned school on the Mileground? How about we call it: Don’t Consolidate, Don’t Build There…Elementary.

The fact is that small schools are the best way to educate, the most popular way to go, and are also affordable. In 2009, University of Virginia researchers noted, in accord with the large body of research, “large schools no longer are regarded as the panacea for America’s educational challenges. Many of the problems of public education, from low student achievement to high dropout rates, are being traced to large schools….”

Professor Emeritus of Educational Psychology John Alspaugh of the University of Missouri concludes in his 2003 study of Missouri schools, ”School Size as a Factor in Elementary School Achievement,” that “There was  a general decline in achievement as school enrollments increased for both the inter-city and suburban schools.” The Professor Emeritus notes that such findings by other researchers about elementary schools and other schools are common and that they especially hold true for urban schools (of which Woodburn is one) and for low income students, of which Woodburn and Easton have many. On average, the Woodburn and Easton schools have slightly less than 200 students each. Is it not interesting then that Professor Alspaugh found that “Schools with enrollments less than 200 achieved the highest [Stanford test] scores in all the five academic areas of reading, math, language science, and social science.” (Education Information Resources Center, April 28, 2003)

In a study published by Nebraska Law Review in 2003, Bob Bastress, Professor of Law at West Virginia University College of Law reviews the extensive literature on the educational and community benefits of small schools which show that small schools are generally far more beneficial. WVU Professor Bastress goes on to explain that “There is simply no reason to conclude that a district has to consolidate schools in order to have ‘modern, safe physical facilities.’ The state could build or repair small, community schools that are just as modern and safe as any new or expanded consolidated school.” Professor Bastress points out how smaller schools are more safe and “generally have fewer discipline problems or violent outbreaks.” In addition, Professor Bastress explains that “The facts in West Virginia show that the state has not saved money from its fifteen years of consolidations…. Larger schools, it has been found, in fact generate significant hidden costs.” He adds, “The last interest claimed by the state, that consolidation will enhance curricular offerings, also lacks a factual basis….”

Community groups in Morgantown and around the nation are working to save or rebuild their small local schools. In summary, they have learned that the research shows that small neighborhood schools:

“improve student learning…reduce the achievement gap between poor and affluent students and minority students and whites…cultivate better student attitudes…cultivate better teacher attitudes…reduce discipline problems, truancy, and drop-out rates…better engage parents in their children’s learning and foster closer parent-teacher relationships…encourage walking to school [which] improves children’s health and active engagement in learning… The bottom line: New studies…have strengthened an already notable consensus on school size: smaller is better…. Researchers…offer a rule of thumb: the poorer the school, the smaller its size should be. [In smaller schools] students learn well and often better [than in larger schools]…” (saveourneighborhoodschools.com Lawrence, Kansas)

So, again, what is the school district’s major plan or even contingency plan for rebuilding Woodburn school and Easton school as small schools, instead of consolidating and closing?

DID YOU KNOW?

WOODBURN SCHOOL IS CLOSING

if the Mon County Board of Education has its way

____________________________

◄  THE IDEA ►

The BOE wants to close both Woodburn and Easton Elementary schools and consolidate them into one new school.  Their preferred site for this new school is at the intersection of 705 and the Mileground.  The BOE has publicly said it  cannot build this school on the existing Woodburn site, BUT indicated in its  application to the School Building Authority (SBA) that building on the existing Woodburn site is indeed an option.

SAVE THESE DATES & MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

 Monday, May 17, 6:00 at University High School…CEFP Hearing (on school closings & other facility concerns)

 Tuesday, June 22, 6:00 at University High School…Public Hearing for closing Easton Elementary

 Thursday, June 24, 6:00 at Morgantown High School…Public Hearing for closing Woodburn Elementary

____________________________

◄ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE ►

A.        Contact all BOE members via e-mail and telephone.  Tell them you want them to build on the current Woodburn site as they indicated is an option in their proposal to the SBA ¹.   It is a site they already own and is not undermined².  Tell them not to spend millions on undermined Mileground land and then spend additional millions filling up old mine works like they did on the new UHS site.^3,4

BOE Member E-mail addresses:

President Nancy Walker:        nancwalk@aol.com                      304-599-4870

Joe Statler:                              statler4board@hotmail.com         304-879-5773

Mike Kelly                              dulaneyoil@comcast.net               304-292-7094

Clarence Harvey                     charveyjr73026@comcast.net       304-296-6377

Barbara Parsons                      parsonsb@monhealthsys.org        304-292-0134

B         Contact West Virginia University and tell them you do not want them to sell state property.  Especially property that is severely undermined with a very high potential for subsidence at a price of $325,000 per acre (total $2.275 million)  Contact:  Narvel Weese:  Narvel.Weese@mail.wvu.edu   or  304-293-2545

C.        Attend the meetings above and take 5 minutes to tell why you want the school to remain in Woodburn.  Use notes, make posters, bring your kids and make noise.  See page 3 for info about each meeting.

Copy both Chris Haddox and the Dominion Post on all messages:

chrishaddox@verizon.net  &  newsroom@dominionpost.com

____________________________

◄ INFORMATION TO USE IN YOUR COMMUNICATIONS ►

1.     The BOE has maintained all along that it could not use the current Woodburn site for a new school.  However, the official proposal that was funded by the SBA clearly indicates that rebuilding on the current Woodburn site is an option   (SOURCE:  Mon BOE NEEDS proposal to SBA dated September 23, 2009).

2.     The current Woodburn site does not have the Pittsburgh coal seam underneath it and is not subject to the same subsidence issues as any site on the Mileground   (SOURCE:  Dr. Alan Donaldson, former Chair of Geology & Geography at West Virginia University).

3.     The proposed/preferred Mileground site at the intersection of 705 and the Mileground is severely undermined and has “a very high potential for subsidence.”  (SOURCE:  TRIAD Engineering report to the Mon BOE dated March 9, 2010).

4.     The Mon BOE planned to spend $1,178,189 to fill old mine works on the UHS site and ended up spending an additional $695,936.90 before they could even start work on a building.  (SOURCE:  Mon BOE Certificate for Payment to Howard Concrete for UHS mine grouting).

5.    The lack of information along with the misinformation released by the Mon BOE has made it very difficult for meaningful citizen input. A few examples:

Statement by the project architect, Ted Shriver, that it didn’t appear that the proposed Mileground site was undermined (SOURCE:  Made at the March 23, 2010 BOE meeting).  This statement made publicly even though the TRIAD Engineering report stating otherwise was in hand).

Statements and presumptions made by the architect and BOE members that the SBA would not consider the Woodburn site and that the process of requesting a waiver to the preferred site size requirements was a drawn out process that had not been successful (SOURCE:  said at the March 23, 2010 BOE meeting).   The SBA later indicated that waivers have been granted and that the process of requesting a waiver requires only a letter to the SBA attached to the proposal. (SOURCE:  meeting between SBA Executive Director and three Woodburn residents on April 12, 2010)

Board member e-mail information supposedly being on the BOE website, but it was not (SOURCE: May 12, 2010 BOE meeting.  Verification on May 13, 2010 confirmed with the Superintendent’s office that the information was NOT on the website).

Information about the Comprehensive Educational Facilities Plan supposedly sent home with students, yet both Woodburn and Easton confirmed nothing had gone out as they were waiting on information from the BOE (SOURCE:  Conflicting stories uncovered in conversations with Woodburn administration and Dr. Frank Devono on May 12, 2010).

Faux site review process that allegedly gave fair assessments to the existing Woodburn site, the old UHS site on Willey Street and the “site near or along the Mileground” as it was then being referred to.  Information was withheld, including the exact location of the Mileground site and geo-technical information about the Mileground area site (SOURCE:  from review team members who severely criticized the “review” process as bogus and a farce; TRIAD Engineering report for the site located “near or along the Mileground.”)

____________________________

IF WE DON’T FIGHT FOR OUR SCHOOL, WHO WILL?

Contact Chris Haddox at chrishaddox@verizon.net for more info on how to get involved

____________________________

ABOUT THE MEETINGS

What they are for and what to expect

CEFP Hearing:

Monday, May 17, 6:00 p.m. at University High School

This meeting is to hear public opinion about the BOE Comprehensive Educational Facilities Plan (CEFP).  This CEFP is created every 10 years and covers such things as school consolidations, closings and facilities improvements.

WHAT TO EXPECT:  Superintendent Devono will introduce the plan and ask for commentary.  You can view the 2010 CEFP Executive Summary at this link:  http://boe.mono.k12.wv.us/news/MCS2010ExecSummary.pdf

YOUR ACTION AT THIS MEETING:   Tell the BOE what you think about consolidation and the closing of Woodburn.  Use the talking points provided on pages 1 and 2 of this flyer.

____________________________

Easton Closure Hearing:

Tuesday, June 22, 6:00 at University High School

This meeting is to hear public comment on the BOE plans close Easton.  Each speaker will have 5 minutes to comment.  The BOE will supposedly take this public input into consideration when they vote on whether or not to close Easton on June 29, 2010 at ???

WHAT TO EXPECT: The BOE will make some introduction about the planned closure of Easton and ask for commentary.  You can view the BOE justification for closing Easton at the BOE office, at Easton Elementary and at the Morgantown Public Library.

YOUR ACTION AT THIS MEETING: Take up to 5 minutes to speak your mind on the closing of Easton.

____________________________

Woodburn Closure Hearing:

Thursday, June 24, 6:00 at Morgantown High School

This meeting is to hear public comment on the BOE plans close Woodburn.   Each speaker will have 5 minutes to comment.  The BOE will supposedly take this public input into consideration when they vote on whether or not to close Easton on June 29, 2010 at ???

WHAT TO EXPECT: The BOE will make some introduction about the planned closure of Woodburn and ask for commentary.  You can view the BOE justification for closing Woodburn at the BOE office, at Woodburn Elementary and at the Morgantown Public Library

YOUR ACTION AT THIS MEETING: Take up to 5 minutes to speak your mind on the closing of Woodburn.

____________________________

BOE Special Meeting on Tuesday, June 29 at  12:00 noon

at the BOE office on S. High Street

At this brief meeting, the BOE will vote whether or not to close each school.  Be assured they plan to vote to close both.  Dr. Devono wanted the BOE members to vote at the conclusion of each hearing, but the Board decided to hold the vote a few days after conclusion of the meetings.  Be there!!!!!

____________________________

◄ More talking points ►

- The SBA wants badly to build a green school in Monongalia County and thinks that a school project with a net result of closing two neighborhood schools in favor of a new consolidated school on a previously undeveloped site that is 98% transportation dependent is somehow a green project.  A high performance building can be built anywhere……green is much more than just a high performance building.

- The removal of neighborhood based schools in favor of fringe based larger schools is a primary cause of sprawl

- This new project is happening without any coordination with several major planning projects underway in Morgantown, including the City Comprehensive Plan, the City Comprehensive Housing Study, the Downtown Strategic Plan and the WV Department of Highways planning process for dealing with Mileground traffic.  In fact, the WV DOH only recently learned of the BOE plan to situate a school on the Mileground.

- Community based schools are critical for maintaining and stabilizing neighborhoods.

- The Council for Educational Facilities Planners International recommends neighborhood based schools over fringe based schools and recognizes that much of the country is turning away from consolidation and larger schools in favor of  neighborhood based schools.

- The US Environmental Protection Agency echoes the recommendations of the Council for Educational Facilities Planners International.

- Neighborhood schools are safer, have more parental involvement and allow for greater after school use of the facility

- The BOE states they want to do what is best for the children.  Destabilizing the neighborhood our kids live in by removing the school is hardly in line with doing what is best.

- I’m sure you can come up with your own.  Please come and make heartfelt statements.  Don’t be afraid to let your emotions show.  The BOE commented they would like to hear from folks other than Woodburn, so get your friends to come out as well.