1. Although the boundaries established in the Spring of 2015 were not perfect, and I spent a good deal of time criticizing them, I believe the changes made this past May by Directors Liebig, Hemingway, Roetlin, and Yates were harmful to justice concerns in our district, and those changes will continue to harm our district unless we reverse course. Mr. Roesler has the most knowledge of the issues at play here, and he has a more reasonable view than other candidates.
The issue: The majority believed that a majority of parents in the Alexander and Kirkwood attendance areas would prefer to attend City High rather than West High and West High rather than Liberty High, respectively.
Their rationale: Ultimately their reasoning is simply that it is the stated preference of the Kirkwood and Alexander parents to whom they spoke (a relatively small cross-section of the Kirkwood and Alexander communities). The stated reasons in board meetings weren't cogent--for example, they would assert that lack of public transportation from the Kirkwood area to North Liberty would impose far too great of burdens on Kirkwood students to assign Kirkwood students to West High. What they apparently failed to realize is that Kirkwood is largely bused to West High presently, and there is no reasonable way of taking public transportation to get to West High from the Kirkwood area. While the burdens may be problematic, those are problems with being assigned to West High just as much as to Liberty High. That is, to use public transportation to get from Kirkwood to West High, one would have to come toward downtown on Coralville/Cambuses, and then take an Iowa City bus to West High. Although I won't categorically say it never happens, it is so rare as to be irrelevant for policy purposes. Furthermore, there is a very small but relatively significant number of students at Kirkwood and Alexander respectively that do not receive busing to West or City respectively because they are just under 3 miles. Assigning those areas to Liberty and West would provide busing for all, which would likely improve attendance (a necessary condition for participating in extracurricular activities).
Mr. Roesler, however, has a principled and reasonable position that isn't grounded on such poor arguments. He holds something akin to John Rawls' principle of justice that we should strive for equality, but that in special cases where differences will specifically benefit the most vulnerable, it is best to have those differences. That sort of principle informs his understanding of secondary boundaries. He wants three roughly equal comprehensive high schools, and deviations from that need to be justified by how well the differences benefit the least well off. Those reasons haven't been sufficient to justify the May 10th changes to secondary boundaries, and Mr. Roesler rightly recognizes that. In my opinion, the four member majority violated this principle and subverted justice. They demanded justification for maintaining equality rather than giving sufficient justification that the differences they are promoting would benefit the most vulnerable members of our community. Such a view is deeply problematic philosophically and pragmatically.
2. Of the three candidates, Mr. Roesler has the most reasonable position on the Hoover question, and I say this as someone who strongly supports revisiting whether Hoover should be closed.
My rationale: Last August, I wrote a primer on the Hoover closure for the purposes of informing the community about the reasons for closing Hoover and the counterarguments (see here). After discussing the equity and operational costs arguments for Hoover's closure, I argued that there were two reasonable positions that one could take:
"1. Maintain the FMP as is unless there are significant enrollment, budgetary, or other such changes that would address the reasons for its closure.
2. Commit to reexamining the FMP as it pertains to Hoover. If keeping Hoover open can be done without sacrificing the overall goals of having relatively well-balanced high schools and without forcing future increases in class sizes and/or programming cuts, then keeping Hoover open will be explored."
My rationale: Last August, I wrote a primer on the Hoover closure for the purposes of informing the community about the reasons for closing Hoover and the counterarguments (see here). After discussing the equity and operational costs arguments for Hoover's closure, I argued that there were two reasonable positions that one could take:
"1. Maintain the FMP as is unless there are significant enrollment, budgetary, or other such changes that would address the reasons for its closure.
2. Commit to reexamining the FMP as it pertains to Hoover. If keeping Hoover open can be done without sacrificing the overall goals of having relatively well-balanced high schools and without forcing future increases in class sizes and/or programming cuts, then keeping Hoover open will be explored."
I hold Position 2, and Mr. Roesler holds Position 1. His position is a reasonable one, and I heard from a great number of Save Hoover folks that they appreciated precisely how I framed that discussion last year. Now, I think Mr Roesler is wrong, but his position is still a reasonable one. He, for instance, does not believe that we need City High to become some kind of vo-tech magnet as has been suggested by other candidates. Candidates should not support keeping Hoover open if it compromises the ability of our district to have well-balanced high schools or if it will lead to future increases in class sizes or programming cuts. I'd like to see whether we can keep Hoover open without making those sacrifices, but I would vote to close Hoover if I had to choose between keeping Hoover open and having well-balanced high schools or having smaller class sizes/lost programming. In short, I disagree with Mr. Roesler about Hoover, but I support his position over the vision outlined by other candidates, and therefore, I disagree with Save Hoover's endorsement of Mr. Claussen.
3. Mr. Roesler's knowledge of the district and his ability to listen to other voices, even those who disagree with him (like me regarding Hoover!), is one of the traits I admire greatly about him. He knows the ICCSD inside and out. He knows teachers, staff, and administrators across the district, and he has worked with them and advocated for them. He has attended more board meetings that most school board members over the last two years. He knows how to get needed changes made by offering concrete solutions, yet without making the change about him. He always knows what he believes, why he believes, and he can express those reasons. He will also listen and change his position accordingly when the evidence supports a change. Unfortunately, those traits are all too rare in the ICCSD. Furthermore, because of his experience, knowledge, and intimate familiarity with the ICCSD, he will not be a candidate who speaks to only one or two pet issues. He will also operate transparently while offering good reasons for his views. You will know where he stands on an issue, even if you disagree with him.
4. Mr. Roesler will operate effectively with the rest of the board and with the administration. Rather than specifying how the administration needs to do its job, he will rightly focus on overarching goals and empower the administration to do its job, while holding the Superintendent accountable for making improvements--specifically in Special Education and as the administration interacts with other teachers and staff.
In short, I believe Paul Roesler is the best candidate for the school board seat next Tuesday. He is informed, considerate, and responsive to evidence. On issues that come up anew--whether they are like the special education issues that recently came up or a budget crisis, he will know the issues at hand, and he will hold reasonable and informed positions. He has been and will continue to be an advocate on the state level for better educational funding. He will look out for the most vulnerable members of our community as a matter of principle. And lastly, he also happens to have reasonable, and in my view, the most correct position, from among the three candidates, regarding two of the critical swing votes in this election: the secondary boundaries issue and the Facilities Master Plan as it pertains to Hoover. That's why I hope you'll join me in voting for Paul on Tuesday.
