At the board meeting on Monday, Jan. 10, the Niles Township school board unanimously passed a restructuring plan, which would affect physical welfare classes as well as certain courses in the applied sciences and technology department.
The board, as it has done for the last three years, plans to cut teaching positions as well as some elective courses to prepare students for education after high school.
“The District tends to focus its efforts and resources on college readiness for every student,” as stated in the board’s 2011-12 restructuring plan.
The board’s plan for restructuring calls for health to be dropped as a stand-alone semester course and instead worked into the year-long curriculum of sophomore Physical Education.
“Embed health in the sophomore PE course, i.e., in lieu of in addition to the PE requirement,” as stated in the boards 2011-12 restructuring plan.
In the English department, juniors class choice will be cut from seven to four classes (only AlCUSH, honors AlC, GAW, and intro to ALCUSH will be offered).
The board also discussed downsizing Drivers Ed by 240 kids per year, and cutting certain applied science courses. Some of the courses being cut are Fashion Workshop 2, Interior Design (1 and 2), Consumer Auto, and Residential Wiring and Electronics.
The cuts the board discussed that caused the most controversy at the meeting pertained to child development. The board discussed cutting Child Development B-3 (the class in which students are taught to take care of children from birth to three years of age), and changing the double period of child development to a single period.
Although the Board approved all these changes already, there is still room for negotiation, according to Pankaj Sharma, who is the president of the Niles Township Federation of Teachers (the teachers’ union) and a social studies teacher at Niles North.
“This is not a done deal,” Sharma answered in an email. “This is the Board’s proposal. Now the NTFT leadership will negotiate with the administration to protect what is best for our students, especially programs that help inspire our students to succeed in school. Sometimes it is an elective course that captures the imagination of a student, and we cannot lose sight of that.”
Principal Kaine Osburn said the Board’s intent is to ultimately help all students.
“The board’s primary purpose was not to cut or alter programs, per se,” Osburn wrote in an email. “The board is continuing to fulfill its mission, which is its promise to the community that elected it. The board’s mission is to create a student centered learning environment where every student can succeed, and its primary goal is to improve the academic achievement of every student. The board must fulfill its mission in a fiscally responsible manner. Thus, it is eliminating or de-emphasizing courses or programs that do not best fulfill the district mission. Then, the board is using much of the savings from those decisions to re-invest in courses and programs that better fulfill its mission. This restructuring process must ultimately enable the district to remain solvent over the long term. I am certain that the current re-structuring will result in long-term academic benefit for students and improved fiscal health for the district.”
Ali • Jan 28, 2011 at 4:22 PM
I don’t think it’s right that electives have to be cut just because the school’s spending too much. For instance, I honestly don’t think that we need another gym, seeing as how we have three already. (Not to mention that the strike the workers went on has only been dragging out the construction process.) Or the netbooks, for instance. Most students have computers at home, and if they don’t, they can go to the IRC. I think laptops are more necessary for college, where the work is more strenuous.
High school is where students are supposed to have fun with their classes, since in college they’ll have to buckle down and focus mainly on their major. Now is the time to experiment, and these classes can help students figure out what they want to do for a living. For instance, they can figure out if they want to work with children, in fashion, cooking, and so on.
Rebecca Yun • Jan 28, 2011 at 4:19 PM
I think that some of the classes the board is eliminating could actually help students out later in life because many of them are beneficial to numerous jobs out in the real world. It doesn’t make sense to just get rid of health because even though many of my classmates think that it is a waste of time, it persuaded me even more to think about the healthy choices I should make in life. Many teenagers these days are getting pregnant, which tells me that they didn’t learn anything from what they were (hopefully) taught in their health classes. I took the class the summer before freshman year, and even if it was only for the summer, I still got something out of it. Even if it was a condensed class, it doesn’t mean that it is less important. By intertwining health with sophomore PE, you are taking more out of the class, which can mean that some important lessons may be overlooked to save some time. To add, if a student is sitting in a classroom instead of doing physical activity, they are more idle and less likely to get active. Many students rely on gym class for their half-hour of daily physical activity.
I understand that the board is only doing this for our own good, but sometimes what they think is not the best solution.
Vicky Robles • Jan 28, 2011 at 4:05 PM
Eliminating some of those electives is a bad idea. Because a lot of students enjoy those classes and some other would wish to take them in the following years. But getting rid of health might be a good idea since it can be crammed into physical education.
Gwen • Jan 21, 2011 at 7:50 PM
Wow. It seems like everything’s been said. But I still want to add my own input and opinion.
Earlier in the year, I THINK it was that big questionaire we all take at the beginning of the year or something, but the question “Do you think your school offers a wide enough variety of classes?” was posed. (Or something very close to that anyway)
It seems like if this goes through and all those extra classes are cut, the answer will be faaaar from yes. Our school has always done a pretty good job of letting students try out a variety of material, some of it not the standard subject classes. That’s a pretty amazing thing. These extra classes can be life-savers to students that already know what field they want to go into and want to take classes that better prepare them for that (classes like Astronomy, Autos, cooking, child development even).
Cutting these classes wouldn’t enrich the school, and I don’t think it’s worth the money that would be saved. If the district really wants to save money they should cut stuff like, say, the netbooks. Students managed to learn successfully without those things before, they still can. What they really need is more diversity in their curriculum.
Dan • Jan 20, 2011 at 10:30 PM
Students will only lose opportunities if these cuts go threw. Plus the district had millions of dollars to throw around, cutting classes is not going to help us, but hurt us. I find my tech class really interesting at all times ( except for lecture bleh) anyway the point is where is our school’s money going to when we fire teachers we love and cut class that are FUN? thats right we buy below sub-par netbooks for our freshman and try to make the school a giant tech center. The only thing that can come out of class cuts and firing teachers is negative change for the school. If anything we need to add more classes like PLTW and other electives, not only are they fun, educational, meaningful, they are good stress reliving classes that require work. So congrats D219, your not helping us in an already stressful part of our youth, your making it worse.
bentru1 • Jan 21, 2011 at 11:35 AM
That s a good point. I really think the school waste cash on needless things. You couldn’t pay me to take one of the netbooks. The school board wants us to be better educated while still be cost efficient? Then get rid of the netbook.
Jack • Jan 19, 2011 at 10:43 PM
Getting rid of Health is a good choice. What’s the point, really? I learned absolutely nothing in that class, and I guarantee that I’m not alone. It’s a complete waste of time.
One of the best things about our school is the sheer amount of electives we have available. Sadly, it only makes sense that we would cut the ones with the lowest enrollment, even though those are the ones with the most passionate, committed students who may actually want to pursue a career in that field. Oh, well.
Jason • Jan 19, 2011 at 10:01 PM
If the board’s ultimate goal is to see to it that every student has a successful transition into their post-high school education, then I very much hope that these cuts in child development education carry through. The class offers more information than necessary. It ends up titillating these young women more than it cautions them of the dangers of sex. With the knowledge and resources provided to them by this class, the students will go off and seek partners to try and use their newly learned tricks on. These girls just may end up having children. Then, they’ll more likely than not, have to drop out of school to care for their baby. Where does that leave them standing in terms of a decent position in education? Their babies surely won’t provide them with the resources necessary to pursue a higher education.
This child development curriculum does more bad than good, and it leaves these poor young women in positions that don’t fulfill the school’s own mission statement. Dropping out of school to take care of an illegitimate child is in no way a success. If any of the school’s budgets is getting cut, it sure as heck better be this one.
Thomas Ng • Jan 20, 2011 at 10:30 AM
“If the board’s ultimate goal is to see to it that every student has a successful transition into their post-high school education, then I very much hope that these cuts in child development education carry through. The class offers more information than necessary. It ends up titillating these young women more than it cautions them of the dangers of sex. With the knowledge and resources provided to them by this class, the students will go off and seek partners to try and use their newly learned tricks on. These girls just may end up having children. Then, they’ll more likely than not, have to drop out of school to care for their baby. Where does that leave them standing in terms of a decent position in education? Their babies surely won’t provide them with the resources necessary to pursue a higher education.
This child development curriculum does more bad than good, and it leaves these poor young women in positions that don’t fulfill the school’s own mission statement. Dropping out of school to take care of an illegitimate child is in no way a success. If any of the school’s budgets is getting cut, it sure as heck better be this one.”
First let me let you know, that I plan on tearing up every point of your argument here Jason.
Are you kidding me Jason? Like really? I’m guessing you’re the same person who was so against the teenage dream idea. But that’s OK. That really has nothing to do with this. You said “the class offers more information than necessary”. Have you taken this class? If you have then you have the right to tell others whether or not it offers to much information, but if not then you have no right at all.
You said that this class ends up doing is “titillating these young women”. Princeton’s definitions for titillating are as follows; pleasantly and superficially exciting; erotic: giving sexual pleasure; sexually arousing; tickling: exciting by touching lightly so as to cause laughter or twitching movements. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re saying that this class about taking care of children will make the students horny? That is disgusting. You also say that these classes will “cautions them of the dangers of sex”. Yes that is a possibility (I have never taken the class), but I’m pretty positive (don’t quote me) that the class is based around that WHEN you have children, you will have a background of knowledge on how to care for your child from birth to age 3.
You then go on to say that “With the knowledge and resources provided to them by this class, the students will go off and seek partners to try and use their newly learned tricks on”. This class is not a lets grow up and have sex with every other person I see class. I can guarantee the district; teachers, students and parents wouldn’t stand for that one bit. It is a class that helps you learn how to take care of children from birth to age three. “These girls just may end up having children”. Yeah, you’re probably right. They probably will end up having children, when they are ready, when they are OLDER. Not as soon as they receive the passing grade from this class.
“They’ll more likely than not, have to drop out of school to care for their baby.” Who says they are getting pregnant now, or that they are? Yes, that is a possibility but more than likely it isn’t happening.” Their babies surely won’t provide them with the resources necessary to pursue a higher education”. So you’re saying that the students, IF they have children at an age like this, won’t be able to reap resources from their CHILDREN, their BABIES??? That is idiotic to say something like that. As for “leave them standing in terms of a decent position in education?”, if students have children at this age and are forced to drop out. There are still plenty of opportunities. One of them is obtaining their GED. Please do your research before you attempt to bash something.
“This child development curriculum does more bad than good, and it leaves these poor young women in positions that don’t fulfill the school’s own mission statement. Dropping out of school to take care of an illegitimate child is in no way a success. If any of the school’s budgets is getting cut, it sure as heck better be this one” The Mission of the District 219 Board of Education is “to ensure a student?focused learning environment where every student succeeds”. If they take this class and fail, they are not succeeding. But if they take it and pass, they obviously are. A success can be anything that you deem successful. If having a baby is a success to a person, then it is to that person.
Jason, you’re trolling, and real hard if I may say. Next time before you bash something please, please, please, I BEG YOU. Get you’re facts straight. AND LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THE THING YOU’RE GOING TO BASH. Because if you don’t. There’s a big possibility that you’re going to be wrong.
With sincere disapproval of what you have written,
Thomas Ronald Ng
Senior of the class of 2011
Jack • Jan 20, 2011 at 10:52 PM
Don’t feed the troll. Also, *your.
Jason • Jan 20, 2011 at 11:03 PM
Tom, you won. Great job. Oh, and I didn’t mean to get across that babies were making the students horny, I didn’t know the class’ curriculum only covered post-pregnancy matters. Forgive me plz. You’re so smart I wanna be just like you.
Colene • Jan 20, 2011 at 11:46 AM
Actually, Jason, the classes shows students how difficult it is to be a teenage parent. I personally went through the class two years ago. I didn’t have a kid, nor do I want to have one until much later in life. The class makes students realize they cannot handle the potential aftermath of sex at this stage in their lives, but it educates them about the potential effects of sex rather than simply how to use a contraceptive as our health classes do. It puts perspective on what most teenagers think are just fake stories or something they think couldn’t ever happen to them.
If you have to wear a pregnancy suit around school, some people think you’re actually pregnant. Even if it’s just for a day, you’ll be getting dirty looks from other classmates and rude remarks to “go home” or “leave.” If you have to wake up in the middle of the night with an electronic baby because the newborn schedule it’s based off of wakes up at midnight then 2 am then 430 am, you realize you don’t want to be doing that while you’re in high school. It makes it clear that it’s very difficult to be a parent while in high school.
Also, the class doesn’t promote sex or teenage pregnancy. It does teach about childcare, but mostly it goes into the description of what it’s like from conception to age three. Students can use this knowledge to provide childcare services as a babysitter; they don’t just go off and have their own children to practice what they learned. Maybe they’re expecting a new baby brother or sister, so they’re parents recommended they take the class so they can learn how to properly care for their new sibling. I honestly think that’s a disrespectful assumption if you think so little of the girls in high school that they could be influenced so easily, and it’s pretty disrespectful to think the school is naive enough to provide a class that promotes teenage pregnancy. It’s not Parenting 101; it’s Child Development, which also provides an opportunity for students to explore the occupation of a teacher by allowing students to help in the Niles West Little Cubbies Preschool.
So, just for your information, students who take the class are educated about children and the responsibility that comes with them, not learning tricks so they can “seek partners to try and use their newly learned tricks on.”
bentru1 • Jan 19, 2011 at 7:47 PM
I agree with my fellow student that by eliminating elective programs will hurt the student body. Without electives such as cooking, fashion, and the other wonderful electives offered at District 219, we, the students would be rob of the chance to peruse our interests, passion, and what I believe then end goal of electives are, to find something we want to with the rest of our lives. My passions are within the PLTW and business courses. I know theses courses are not being cut; however, if they were, I would never found what I love to do. By cutting out programs, the district robs the students the chance to find themselves as individuals. Also, I believe it is wrong to place the health class as part of the Sophomore PE program. The Sophomore PE program would not have the amount of time to cover all the topics that would be covered in health class, nor would the topics taught in PE class have the same impact as it would have from health class. Mr. Clish spends great deal of time on topics from drugs to sex.
By putting a semester of Health into a few weeks as part of Sophomore PE would be irresponsible because the students would lack the impact from the lessons. Also regarding the change to the Junior English program, I believe American Composition Literature (ALC) should also be offered. For students who are not in ALCH, they might not find ALCUSH appealing. I know I didn’t because I could not find the place and time to have ALUSH back to back, nor did I want to be with the same class for two periods. I believe the school board should not cut any of our programs. Why fix something that isn’t broken?
Colene • Jan 19, 2011 at 2:37 PM
Cutting some of these programs is going to be a great disservice to the students. While electives might not help you score better on the ACT or other tests that get you into college, they do help you figure out what you want to do with the rest of your life. The way I see it, college is supposed to help you prepare for the job you want to spend the rest of your life doing. I mean, isn’t that why we choose majors and earn degrees? If they cut electives, they’re cutting our chances of discovering what we love doing, and then a lot of students won’t even have an idea of what they want to study.
I think one of the biggest mistakes would be cutting the Child Development programs. I personally went through the Child Development B-3 class my freshman year, and it was honestly the best birth control and child care education they could offer. Nothing brings teenage pregnancy into perspective better than when students have to wear a pregnancy suit around school or take care of an electronic baby designed off of real newborn schedules. Also, the Child Development Workshop class gives students an actual feel of how it feels to be a teacher. I went through the Preschool class and I’m currently in Workshop. There’s a great difference in the way being with the preschoolers for one period is from two periods. One period gives you the slightest feeling, but two makes it more realistic because no teacher spends 40 minutes with their students. The class made me realize I want to work with children, most likely as a teacher, so cutting the program is going to rob other students of the opportunity I had; I think it’d be doing them a great disservice.