ASD Board Remains Firm on Past Denial of Transfer Requests
by David Croyle
The parade of parents protesting the denial of certain student transfers continues at each meeting of the Armstrong School District.
On Monday night, three more parents stepped to the podium to add their concerns over requests being turned down purely for the reason that the student plays sports.
Beth Sperski addresses the Armstrong School District Board last Monday night, urging for reconsideration of student transfer requests that were denied.
Beth Sperski from Stubrich Lane in Kittanning has twin daughters that were moved to Ford City High School when Elderton was closed last year. Originally her request for her daughters to stay at Ford City was denied. However, her request was reconsidered in spite of the fact her girls play volleyball and basketball.
“My daughter has cerebral palsy and plays sports,” Sperski told the Kittanning Paper Monday night. “I found out today that they were approved to stay at Ford City because of medical reasons. At Ford City, they have elevator she uses. When she was in Elderton, she missed a month and a half because she was double- casted. Had she been in Ford City then, she would be able to go to school because they have the elevator.”
Sperski said her daughter has played volleyball this year and basketball since elementary. “She is my miracle baby! She doesn’t get to play much for basketball, but you can see the joy in her face. She is part of the team.”
Although Sperski’s request was approved, she appealed to the school board to reconsider other transfer requests.
“The kids that want to stay where they are should be able to,” Sperski pleaded. “They were sent there without consideration of what they wanted to begin win. Now they have adjusted. If parents and students feel strongly, they should be able to take that choice. There are kids that are willing to sit out a year of sports if they could stay.”
Sperski pointed out that these are not transfers to switch schools, but rather to stay where they are and have already played sports. “Most studies show that Americans as a whole do not get enough exercise. I don’t think you should take the love of sports away from the kids. Let them get their exercise with the sports they love. This is an exception rather than the rule because of the extenuating circumstances.”
School Director Christopher Choncek agreed, appealing to the Board to reconsider. “The citizens tonight have made another really good compelling argument why we need to reconsider this. We just have to realize that this is really extenuating circumstances. This is out of the norm. This is something that doesn’t take place every year. Last year when attendance lines were redrawn, some of those people who were suppose to go to Kittanning transferred to West Shamokin. We allowed them to play those sports in 9 through 12. So it is not like we are breaking any precedence. We need to look within ourselves and do what’s right.”
Last month, Choncek asked the Board to agree to take another vote, but was denied. He made his request again at the Caucus Meeting on Monday night. Director Joseph Close agreed with Choncek.
“We have never denied anyone a transfer to a school they wish to attend,” Close said. “The policy has always been what it is now. If we see a trend of sports specifically where people are trending toward one school and we see it as a problem, then I think it could be addressed case by case. We have not experienced stacking of any one particular sports team in any of the high schools. For the most part, sports has been second, third or fourth of the reasons for any of the transfers. I likewise feel we should put it up for a vote again and reconsider this
School Board President Rose Stitt acknowledged that the confusion came when the question on the transfer request form asked if students played sports.
“We never had the word ‘sports’ written on (the transfer request) that we voted on (in the past),” Stitt said. “The policy is as the policy is. At this point, as much as I would like to make everyone happy, I am staying with policy. I am not going to be bullied into changing my vote. That is the last thing that I will do when I am being bullied, which I have been behind the scenes.”
Close asked Stitt if she would consider changing the policy, and Stitt replied, “Not at this time, I won’t. I am not going to change it because there’s a certain circumstance. We need to do it when we have a clear head, whenever we don’t have other issues into it, when we can actually look at the policy because there are a lot of things that need changed in that policy.”
Director James Solak said he remained resolute on his decision over the past four months. “The people located in the Elderton attendance area knowing what the boundaries are. My vote has simply returned them to those boundaries. As far as revisiting the policy, I believe the policy is fine just as it is. I would never agree with eliminating the clause on harming a sending or receiving school.”
The school board will vote this Thursday night on other Kindergarten, Elementary, and Secondary Transfer Requests at their public meeting to be held at the Administration Building in Ford City this Thursday at 7:30 PM. The meeting will be webcast live on the Internet at www.familylifetv.com and rebroadcast on Family-Life TV Comcast cable channel 23 on Friday night at 7:30.
Uncategorized | May 26, 2010
By Linda, May 26, 2010 @ 8:57 AM
The current Board majority has re-opened EHS. That was their goal. They achieved it. Directors continue to say that the educational opportunities at EHS are adequate, particularly when the online options are added. So this is what I don’t understand: why do the majority of the current directors feel the need to PUNISH those folks who have decided that they would rather stay at another high school. It isn’t going to make any difference in the quality of the education at EHS, is it? You have asserted that the quality will be fine.
Director Solak has repeated his argument that people knew where their kids would be going to school when they moved to their “Elderton” attendance area. He says that in a way that sounds rather punishing,e.g., “…you made your “bed” in Elderton attendance area….now live with it!”
I appeal to the directors to reconsider their stance. Allowing 28 more students to transfer will not change the re-opening of the school. It will not change the quality of education at EHS—-you have said so many times.
I just cannot understand why the board majority cannot be content with its major victory. Why does it need to dig in its heels about these particular students who want a transfer?
By reed619, May 26, 2010 @ 9:27 AM
This comment from Solak shows his distorted way of thinking.. “The people located in the Elderton attendance area knowing what the boundaries are. My vote has simply returned them to those boundaries.”
This might be true and relevant if someone moved into a school district that has only one high school, such as Freeport School District. With ASD having several high schools and the tax revenue of each taxpayer supporting all of them, ASD families have always had a choice of schools with the transfer policy and the board has never denied transfers in the past. Suddenly it’s an issue, but only with the students who don’t want to return to Elderton. So Solak’s saying that students in any other attendance area can transfer to whatever school in the district they choose, but not anyone in the Elderton Attendance Area? How discriminating! What a desperate attempt to try to save face from the huge mistake that he and the other board members made who voted to reopen EHS.
With ASD being a large district and the likelihood of the attendance being redrawn at any time, many families bought their homes before they had children and weren’t certain of the attendance area (such as my sister who lives in Boggs Township), or were aware of the attendance area but knew they could transfer to another school in the district if they weren’t satisfied with theirs.
In my family’s case, my husband and I moved into the Elderton Attendance Area in 1991, when my daughter was 6 months old, and my son (who’s now 14 years old) wasn’t yet born.We loved the location and the neighborhood, and it was in our price range (which ARE other things that people take into consideration when moving into a particular area, Director Solak..) At the time, consolidation had already begun in ASD, with Armstrong Central and Armstrong East High Schools operating at that time, and we actually had no idea back then where our children would be attending school when they started years later. As well as not having any way of knowing what our childrens’ educational needs would be years down the road when they started school.
As it turned out, we weren’t satisfied with the educational experience our children received in the Elderton Attendance Area. Especially for our son, who has special educational needs because besides being a gifted student, he also has Tourette’s Syndrome, like I did when I was a child, and the very small class sizes were very hard on him, because his involuntary ticks aggravate him when he’s bored or anxious. That’s why we took advantage of the district’s transfer policy and transferred him to the Kittanning Attendance Area, where’s he a student at the junior high. He’s flourished there, with the larger and more challenging classes.
The point that I’m trying to make, is that the parents, not the school board, know what’s best for their children and their academic needs. I pray that the parents of the children who’s transfers were denied are able to keep them at the school they requested. I can imagine the stress and frustration they’re dealing with. I’m so glad that my son’s transfer was approved two years ago, so thankfully he’s safe from all this mess.
By johnnymydear, May 26, 2010 @ 9:49 AM
Of course the school board members of Ford City don’t want to permit the transfers seeing that it is sports related, then their kids may have to sit on the bench! They don’t want the competition, keep living in the bubbled past!
By Mike Fichthorn, May 26, 2010 @ 10:32 AM
This has nothing to do with sports. It’s all about MJM and Rainman Solak stroking their egos.
They’re holding these families hostage.
These sports teams aren’t like Jeannette or Aliquippa. Playing sports at FC, Kittanning or Shamokin isn’t going to get you a state championship. The FC football team in 09 was the best that school’s seen in decades.. and THEY couldn’t play with the big boys.
The fact that Rose Stitt won’t debate or discuss her decision isn’t because she’s stubborn. It’s because she has no clue. How she became the candidate for an entire region is baffling.
They are supposed to be looking out for the best interests of the students and the taxpayers. You’ve screwed the taxapayers, at least do one decent humane thing.
By sweetleur, May 26, 2010 @ 2:07 PM
MM, Solak and Mrs. Stitt are a certain breed of people, they like to have their egos stroked and what better way than the school board.They can get back at those they dislike and there is no retribution.At least they think not, but that may soon change.
By Linda, May 26, 2010 @ 3:06 PM
to Mike F:
How does Ms. Stitt become a candidate for an entire region????
Ms. Stitt represents Kittanning Township, and up until now, she has represented (perhaps) a majority of the parents there in her efforts to keep KT open and keep those kids going to EHS. (It is troubling to her to find out that not all of KT wants to go to EHS. She doesn’t know what to do with that information except make sure that they cannot go to FCHS, even if they want to.)
She also represents Bethel and Burrell Townships….on paper, at least. Unfortunately, if you look at the data, Kittanning Township has more folks that the other two put together.
I’ll leave you to guess where her priorities lie.
Thus, it might make it difficult for a candidate who was not from Kittanning Township—in this current configuration of school district board regions—to be victorious in an election. But, it might not make it a “slam dunk” in the next election for her to be re-elected, particularly if enough KT people realize that she is not serving them, as taxpayers, very well at all.