Forum: District 113A hiring policy questioned
June 20, 2012 8:14PM
Updated: July 23, 2012 7:40AM
We are a group of concerned citizens who request that the Lemont-Bromberek School District 113A Board enact hiring practices that will lead to employing the best-qualified teachers, given the financial constraints and limitations on our district. Some of us have inquired about the hiring for the 10 open positions and expressed concern about the board’s apparent directive to not consider any teachers with experience.
We are dissatisfied with the communication we have received from the superintendent and board members, which hint that the hiring practices were discussed in closed session, are not open to public discussion and that we sit back and trust that the board will do what is best. We find that message insulting and worrisome because closed-session discussions and a lack of transparency from the board have led to many of our current problems.
It’s our opinion that the board has decided to hire only inexperienced teachers. District 113A’s financial plan says new staff must be hired at entry-level pay, but we believe experienced teachers would accept entry-level pay to be able to have a job in the field they enjoy. This hiring approach is a bad decision that will adversely impact students.
While we are not opposed to hiring some inexperienced teachers, we are against such exclusive hiring. A policy of excluding a certain class of prospective employees from consideration for teaching jobs may be discriminatory and put the district at risk of a lawsuit.
We appreciate the school board’s success in improving the district’s financial situation, but we disagree with its teacher hiring policy and the potential negative impact on our district. We want action to ensure we have the best teachers at a pay level we can afford, and we want an opportunity to discuss this in an open forum.
Residents of Lemont and families of District 113A
Support new law on pancreatic cancer
Cancer is a disease that affects millions and can be devastating, but due to progress in medical technology, most forms of cancer can now successfully be treated. Unfortunately, that cannot be said for pancreatic cancer, which for many remains a death sentence.
Only 6 percent of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer survive five years. This must change. And the good news is that it can.
Congress is debating legislation that will require that the National Cancer Institute devise a long-term comprehensive strategy to address pancreatic cancer, with a focus on increasing the survival rate.
The goal is achievable, but Congress must act. On June 26, citizens from around the country will unite and call on members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to urge them to support the bill and help bring an end to this deadly disease (visit www.knowitfightitendit.org for more info).
With your support, we can give every person diagnosed with pancreatic cancer a fighting chance.
I work in a hospice every week, and more people are dealing with this deadly disease. My husband died from it 10 years ago. There are no more drugs to fight pancreatic cancer than there were when he was diagnosed. That is pretty sad. Please help!
Soda police justified
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s decision to ban supersized sodas has resurrected the age-old debate over the role of government in protecting the public health.
In recent years, this debate has involved bicycle helmets, car seat belts, tobacco, trans fats, saturated fats in meat and dairy products and sugar (or more accurately, high-fructose corn syrup). Public subsidies for tobacco, meat and dairy and corn production added fuel to the debate.
I would argue that society has a right to regulate activities that impose a heavy burden on the public treasury. The national medical costs of dealing with our obesity epidemic — associated with consumption of meat, dairy and sugars — are estimated at $190 billion.
Eliminating subsidies for these products as well as judicious taxation to reduce their use and recoup public costs should be supported by health advocates and fiscal conservatives alike.
Ben Franklin claimed nothing is certain except death and taxes. Ironically, death can be deferred substantially by taxing products that make us sick.