Rieke parents thrash the school board!

Back in 2003, battle lines quickly formed when Rieke Elementary was threatened with closure. You'd think the district would have learned its lesson from the uproar occasioned by even a "hint" of closure. But apparently not.

Based on the thrashing the school board took last night from a superbly well-organized group of Rieke parents, one would expect never again to hear the words "Rieke" and "closure" juxtaposed in district planning documents. If the hearing at Wilson had been a prize fight, it would have been stopped in the first round.

Former candidate for school board Jon Jacobs' opening remarks followed by Jeff Dobbins' devastating power point deconstruction of the district's rationale for closing Rieke, had the board --and Superintendent Vicki Phillips-- reeling from the outset. Dobbins, a Harvard educated courtroom lawyer, convincingly demonstrated that the only possible reason the district could cite for shutting down Rieke is --- it's too small!

Since the hearing wasn't a boxing match, the testimony continued. Mike Miller talked about what "no prudent educator" would do. Another parent "called out" Superintendent Phillips and her sidekick Cathy Mincberg for pushing a large school agenda despite ample research demonstrating the superior academic performance of small schools. And Vicki Phillips' pursuit of Gates Foundation "small schools" grants, and past statements from her Lancaster, PA, tenure praising small schools. Oh, and the reference to the district's tiny charter schools as "gems".

The hearing at times grew heated. At one point, the normally unflappable Doug Morgan cautioned speakers about leveling "personal attacks" at the board and district administration.

The closest thing to a personal attack I heard was a criticism of Bobbie Regan for saying at an earlier hearing that the board only hears from those opposed to the "plan", while the "silent majority", those who support school closures, remain silent. But if that's truly the case, why does the board bother with public testimony at all?

Despite the valiant Rieke effort, I still predict a 4-3 vote in favor of the plan. Although... and this almost slipped my mind- -

Toward the end of testimony, someone, perhaps Rieke parent and former board chair Karla Wenzel, warned the board that a split vote either way would fracture the community.

Was that warning a "shot across the bow" of the three probable naysayers?