Tit for Tat on School District Numbers

Opinion

Since I posted a link to Tom Gargus' "Voice of the Day" column, "Numbers don't back district's claims," as a recommended reading the day it came out in the "Springfield News-Leader," I feel I should also post President of the Springfield School Board Gerry Lee's response, "Numbers don't add up in criticism of district," of the same source. But, I have to tell you, since we all know numbers can be manipulated to make certain points, and since Tom Gargus spent over $100 in Sunshine Law requests and, more than likely, considerable time researching and analyzing the results of those requests, along with information available at the School District's Web site [according to the News-Leader], I think it might have been appropriate for Mr. Lee to explain why Gargus' numbers were wrong, instead of an equally appropriate exploration and interpretation.

Lee could have made his point in a more humble and respectful manner than he did, and Gargus, after spending considerable money and time in researching and analyzing the issue, was deserving of a more respectful attitude.

For instance, why would enrollment data present a more accurate picture than actual attendance data? Mr. Lee accuses Mr. Gargus of being deceitful for applying attendance data, but offers no explanation about why the use of attendance data offers an "inaccurate" and "deceitful picture," whereas Lee's choice of enrollment data would offer an accurate one.

I felt the president seemed to accuse, or imply that Mr. Gargus was intentionally providing misinformation, being purposely deceptive and simplistic.

I seem to remember, when the bond was passed for air-conditioning the schools, there was talk about all the schools being air-conditioned. My memory is certainly not perfect, but that is the way I remember it. I don't remember it as being a promise to air-condition a certain number of schools, rather I remember it as being a promise to air-condition all the schools. Now, if that isn't the case, I'll be happy to correct myself. I'm not posting such a comment as intentional misinformation, or a deception of the facts.

I'm not sure that Mr. Lee could have been more condescending and accusatory than he was in his rebuttal of Gargus' column. I can understand that Lee might have taken Gargus' accusations personally, however, they were not a personal attack on a person, they were, after monetary expense and sacrifice of time, an editorial commentary of Mr. Gargus' understanding of the issue. An issue, I might add, that involved considerable expenditure of tax-payer dollars.

I'm simply saying Mr. Lee's response could have been much more tactful and presented a better educational opportunity for all readers of the paper in the process, instead of seeming so adversarial and defensive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~