Faculty closing ranks?
From: Dianne Osborn
I would like to set forth the following facts to correct information contained in Ms. Hudak's letter of this week ["In defense of principal," July 22, 1992, Anne Arundel County Sun.]
I am one of the small group of unethical parents with my own agenda referred to in her letter.
The July 7 meeting at the Crofton Library was not a PTA function. A good thing, too, inasmuch as only five of our faculty members are members of our PTA.
As parent and PTA board member, I would be elated to see such interest displayed by our faculty for any evening event, fund-raiser participation, science fair, etc.
Our children lack faculty support in all of these areas.
The "agenda" was an exchange of information and discussion of issues pertinent to the pending Board of Education and criminal investigation of fourth-grade teacher and Mr. Shubert's removal to Brock Bridge School. Brock Bridge parents, upon their request, attended to glean information.
It is interesting that it is bothersome to Millersville faculty and other higher-ups at the BOE that communication is taking place among school communities and that we are gathering information with which to form our own opinions -- taking the initiative and not having those opinions of BOE shoved down our throats.
The issue, and only issue, at hand presently is the alleged abusive situation that existed in our fourth grade during the 1991-92 school year.
At a June 9 meeting with Dr. Wilhoyte and Mrs. Collinson, parents left, sickened at the stories told by some 10 to 15 parents of incidents of verbal and physical abuse by a fourth-grade teacher.
These incidents, with specific times and dates set forth, allegedly took place over the majority of the school year.
Can you imagine!
Although written complaints to Shubert in March went unheeded, police were finally called to the school on June 10 -- less than 24 hours after the saga unfolded to Dr. Wilhoyte. Investigations by county police have resulted in three charges of assault and battery against this fourth-grade teacher.
R. Neil Turner offered what I consider a meager defense of Mr. Shubert, saying that "he inherited a bad situation and now he is being punished for it." Pray tell Mr. Shubert would try to remedy this situation! (Mr. Turner was allowed to rearrange third-grade curriculum seven weeks into the school year, thus causing great upheaval.)
Another teacher, Shirley Miller, announced that she had great support for Mr. Shubert: "He leaves me alone and lets me run things the way I want."
Are these the practices the mark of a good administrator?
Could it be that some faculty would have to change their ways or be put on task with a new boss -- and that is where the source of their dismay really lies?
Ms. Hudak, the fact that Shubert carried your chorus folders and provided sticks of furniture for our art teacher doesn't a good administrator make. Nor does it provide a safe and healthy environment for my child.
Most distressing is the fact that a number of these faculty members who rose to Shubert's defense at the Crofton and Brock Bridge meetings have made disparaging remarks about Shubert to myself and other parent volunteers during the course of the school year. Teachers have confided to myself and others that Mrs. Snyder hasn't belonged in a classroom for years.
Ah, yes! Professional loyalty!
My question remains: Did administrators and faculty, out of professional loyalty, turn their heads to the situation at )( Millersville? After the revelations of the June 9 meeting, are they turning their heads now -- defending an administrator who allegedly knew of these offenses and did nothing?
This "swarm" of professional loyalty, the closing of ranks, makes it even more clear that I must advocate for my child. It is apparent that no one else will. . . .
To BOE officials who think parents and children have no rights and who find it incredulous that we question your judgment -- get used to it! This is the dawning of the Age of Accountability. . . .
You will be hearing from us.
Bring back business
From: George Greenwood
Quite a bit of comment has appeared recently in your newspaper about the so-called "super block." Glen Burnie has experienced what you would call a severe case of "apathy."
Having lived here for 42 years and operated a business 19 yearsI feel in a position to comment.
For many years Glen Burnie had a thriving business area: Three food chain stores, plus many independent grocers, furniture, clothing, stores of every variety. A complete bustling town.
Lack of cooperation among business people and county officials resulted in lack of parking space. The people failing to find parking simply decided to shop elsewhere.
The Urban Renewal Office was created after the business had left.
Former Sen. Alfred Lipin succeeded in having the District Court locate here. A county office and Senior Housing development, but no business!
Today, the average resident needs an auto if he wants a loaf of bread. In my area, they even removed the postal deposit boxes. To mail a letter, either catch the letter carrier or use your car.
After many years of Urban Renewal directors and many taxpayers' dollars, we have improved sidewalks, tree and wide areas of blacktop that formerly contained business.
A free parking garage, in case anyone attends the movies or District Court!
The Urban Renewal has attracted plenty of lawyers, in case you want to sue your neighbor.
An important political job, Urban Renewal director was created -- if I live long enough it's possible a 7-Eleven convenience might locate here!
L That would save me polluting the air to buy a loaf of bread.
Maybe later I will be able to walk to a postal deposit box and mail a letter without having to "post a guard detail" to watch for the mail man.