Powered by Max Banner Ads 

Archibald’s Response to Bunderson Question

The Board has the responsibility to ensure that the budget is consistent with the district’s goals and policies.  For over five years I have taken seriously the responsibility of understanding policy and the importance of working with the superintendent so that the proposed budget is built around the district’s priorities.  It is a privilege to have “One Vote” as we approve and develop policy.  Policy 1225 is sensitive toward family lifestyles, yet rich with founded wisdom that should never be ignored but rather strictly observed.  As we do this we will be protecting the classroom and the academic programs.

Collaboration between teachers blesses everyone involved; students, faculty members and entire communities.  For this reason our district has been striving for years to have K-5 schools with a target building capacity/population of 400-600 students.  In schools that are at or near capacity, it is much easier to balance class size, avoid splits, and generally use the staff and facilities with maximum efficiency.  Over the years enrollments have been declining in several areas of the district, thus Policy 1225 is an objective formula that gives direction as to how to proceed safely.

It is my intention to use the tax dollar to maintain quality teachers, core academics, class size and technology. All school buildings reach a point at which they are no longer effective or efficient to use no matter where they are locted.  I have “One Vote” and I will uphold the directive as noted in Policy 1225 and the recommendation as to the closing of Bunderson Elementary.  My decision is based on “evidence” and correct data; the efforts of our Superintendent are commendable and integral.  It is my hope that the other six board members will listen carefully, then do what is right with their “One Vote”……for the right reasons!

Connie J. Archibald, Box Elder School District School Board Member


4 comments for “Archibald’s Response to Bunderson Question

  1. March 19, 2010 at 11:40 am

    So closing school buildings which are bought and paid for and usable, paying for busing and sending kids out of their neighborhoods, putting them in schools that have to be added on and updated in order to support a larger capacity is “Family sensitive”, and “evidenced based” on your one vote. Am I reading that correctly?

    I don’t live anywhere near Bunderson Elementary. I don’t have students who attend there. I don’t even live inside the Brigham City boundaries. So the topic really isn’t emotionally sensitive for me personally.

    What I do know is that the fiscal irresponsibility of our District & Superintendent continue to be a problem and until the county residents wake up and elect people what will truly speak for their constituents we will continue to be represented by people who clearly are NOT, “family sensitive”.

    What you are saying Connie is that despite the screaming from the people you are voted to represent, you chose what you want to do, based on the manner that the evidence is given to you. You who have the power with your ONE vote, will do what you think is best despite what those who elected you to your position are telling you that “they” want.

    I think as far as politics go, you are acting pretty much like most.

    The school district continues to employee teachers who are incapable of teaching and are only making a negative impact on our students. They continue to add on to buildings and shut others down, with out much compensation. They continue to ignore the students and parents, and side consistently with the teachers. IEP’s and 504’s are unfulfilled and gaps of time and lack of services continue to increase.

    So, lets add some more buses, move students out of their neighborhoods, trek them across the town, or across the county, with the rising cost of fuel, and not to mention the carbon foot print that has been determined to effect our air quality. Lets continue to employee ineffective teachers, and pass kids who can’t do basic skills. Lets continue to alienate the community and ignore the people you represent. That is what has happened now, for about a decade and it seems to be working. We have a beautiful special needs pre-school in the “unusable” Corrine Elementary School, and we also have a great Migrant Head Start school in the “unusable” Honeyville Elementary School. We have huge additions costing millions of dollars to add on to the High Schools and Natatoriums.

    Absolutely that is working. Perhaps your great Ron Fransen can draw up some black, white and red charts saying that all of these expenditures make sense… and you can use your one vote to further the goal for the “School District”, what ever that may be.

    At the end of the day, it does not mean anything to the students who end up paying in spades for their lack of education and the long term emotional damage done by the completely incompetent staffs that are hired (and never fired!) by the great district.

    Go Connie! Lets have that “one” vote!

  2. March 19, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    Way to go!!! It’s nice to finally see that others agree with my opinion of Connie and her ‘one vote’. Her only agenda is to close Bunderson and send more money to her district. For someone who has nothing to do with Brigham City she sure is intent on closing our schools. Thanks Connie! Brigham and Bunderson are very grateful for your concern, but we don’t need it. Go back to your constituents and tell them that you are hell-bent and determined to close a school that has absolutely nothing to do with them.

  3. Carrie Ann
    March 23, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    There are already a large number of students being bussed across town. They came from Central School. Those kids would be closer to a neighborhood school if the city were split into four equal parts with each section of town going to a school in their respective corner of Brigham City. Connie I hope you keep fighting for ALL the students in Brigham City. Thank you!

  4. Richard
    March 23, 2010 at 5:25 pm

    There are some good ideas that have been shared already. Sadly, Lisa’s post is repetitive and has more anger than points. A shame that she resorts to belittling a board member and district employee who work very hard to help everyone in the district–whether or not they agree with her.

    There is no promise that a neighborhood have a school in it. From near the high school my kids were sent to Foothill. The distance didn’t change the quality of their education, or the support we gave the school. My wife spent hours there and we felt as much a part of the school as those bordering the school grounds. Having a school in the neighborhood is not a guarantee.

    Closing Bunderson makes sense on so many levels. Certainly if I had kids there I would be sad to see it close. However, that doesn’t justify the cost of maintaining empty rooms in other schools. Plumbing, heating and cooling costs decrease. Lunch, reading and other programs can be consolidated for savings. The quality of education is unaffected (unless Lisa believes that a teacher at Bunderson can only be a good teacher at Bunderson, and not at another school). There is room for growth with Bunderson closed–six classrooms will remain open. The district saves money that is needed to maintain quality programs across the rest of the district.

    Absolutely I agree with Lisa on one thing: the school board should listen to the community. However, not just the ones at Bunderson but parents across the community who are clamoring that, however unfortunate, it is the right time to take that step.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *