Wendy Barhydt

1- I strongly support both millages. 2-1 would not support the building of a third high school unless i t ' s necessity was clearly justified. I would suggest a second, more feasible alternative. It appears that little forethought was given to the overcrowding at H u r o n and Pioneer when the Middle School concept was initiated. The programs were implemeated, however, and they deserve careful evaluation before their future is decided. Many of those involved in Scarlett and C 1 a g u e seem committed to the program offered. Does it seem unreasonable to suggest that the same concept and methods of teaching could be used just as effectively with grades 7-9 as with grades 6-8? Putting sixth graders back in elementary schools would help utilize existing empty classroom space; overcrowding in some of the E ast Side elementary schools could be helped by realigning the school boundaries. Jumping into a new building program, particularly when our school population has stabilized, seems unjustified. 3 - All considerations of curriculum changes should be made in the light of long term goals and budget constraints. What are our objectives for our children? Given a limited amount of money, we must determine what parts of our curriculum best help to implement these objectives. We must be open to innovations but careful not to waste time or money without honest evaluation of on-going prog r a m s . Once established, these goals - based upon the needs of our children - must be the criteria on which we change our curriculum.