This has been done on occasion. It has yielded nothing that has been earth-shattering. Historically, they do this for appeasement to present a picture of "community inclusion" but in reality, it has yielded no real plausible results nor improvement. At best, the school people listen to the people with close ties to the schools and who think like they do and accept the comments of the people who are predictable supporters of the school's programs. They reject new ideas not in the flight path of their idea of what the schools should be all about. The same holds true with community meetings. If you go, you are in the vast majority by saying and agreeing with all that is said if it conforms to the program. If you are one of those who offers a differing viewpoint, you are looked upon as a malcontent trying to upset the apple cart. With this type of close-minded attitude from the school people and their supporters, we are destined for no improvement if they are unwilling to hear new ideas. No reason for participation unless you agree with 100% of the program. You will be shut out. Happens on council too. Example? Josh Laubach.

If you are a levy and program supporter who says all the right things, speak out. If you have issues with the schools and don't fit the mold, there is no need for you to participate. They don't want to hear any new ideas that might change things or criticize their performance even though it has been bottom dwelling for years. Basically, business as usual while going through the exercise of making contact with the pubic.