What do the employees want?

Since the election of 2003, there has been much discussion in D11 about the "agendas" of the 4 Board members who were elected that year. Those who oppose us continue to claim that we are not looking out for the best interests of the District and that we are creating "chaos" and a climate of fear.

In the spring of 2003, which was before the 2003 elections, Jim Shipley & Associates conducted a staff survey of D11 employees. Shipley is the force behind the Continuous Quality Improvement system that was implemented in D11 back in 2000. The purpose of the survey was to give the Board and senior administration the pulse of the District from an employee standpoint. The following results are taken directly from that survey:

Let's look at some of the results of this survey and compare those results to the "agendas" of those of us who were elected in 2003.

From the first page, "make the Master Agreement (union contract) more kid friendly;" "trim down the size of Central Office;" "totally reprioritize financial resources;" "all sites are empowered but held accountable;" "return to site-based decision making;" "hold principals and teacher teams accountable;" "DAAC & BAAC not being used for school improvement;" "CSEA (union) gives negative information;" "Change;" "District 11 is right for change;" "We need bottom up decision making;" "There is a lack of focus in the District."

If those of us who were elected in 2003 are really all about destroying D11, then we find ourselves in interesting company. All of the comments about site-based management and bottom up decision making are directly addressed by our adoption of a site based model. We ran on the promise of moving D11 to a site based system and we kept that promise. We have been saying that the Master Agreement is all about adults and not at all about kids, and employees agree. We have been demanding accountability at all levels, and employees agree. We have said that our DAACs and BAACs, which are accountability committees, are not aligned with state statute and that they are not effective in their current configuration. D11 employees agree. The final comment about a lack of focus falls directly on the shoulders of Lyman Kaiser, Karen Teja, Mary Wierman, Dave Linebaugh, and Waynette Rand, all of whom were on the Board at the time, and all of whom are involved in the recall effort against Sandy Shakes and Eric Christen.

Page 2: "HR department is not good;" "We need less focus on adults and more focus on kids;" "the mind set of staff needs to come into the 21st Century;" "we have no way to measure people's performance;" "HR is the District's biggest problem;" "We need to get rid of dinosaurs;" "Too many leaders with individual agendas."

One of our stated reasons for moving towards a site based system is to allow school staffs to have a say in who is selected to work in that school with that school team. As it now stands, Human Resources (HR) limits the candidates for school positions. Most candidates are completely screened out prior to the school site ever having a say. The staff at each school has a better understanding of who it is they need in their buildings than does an administrator downtown. In my view that is based on experience and feedback from employees, HR works on a good-old-boy system where the best and brightest are not necessarily the employees who will get hired to fill the job openings. It is common knowledge around D11 that those who have connections with the right administrators are those who will make the final cut. The comment about focusing on kids instead of adults is a comment that Christen repeats over and over again. It is a problem that staff obviously recognize as well. The comment about a lack of performance measuring device has been rectified by those of us who were elected in 2003. The employee evaluation system is not perfect, but until we were elected, an evaluation system never existed. The dinosaur comment came from an employee, not any of us. However, I concur. Finally, the last bullet was made during the reign of the aforementioned Board members who now accuse us of having "personal agendas." It appears that the "agenda" issue was a problem in D11 long before we came along.

Page 3: "Too many layers of gatekeepers;" "no one seems to want to be accountable;" "District demographics are changing and no one seems to acknowledge this;" "Schools need to take responsibility for results;" "the Board frequently falls below the line;" " the union is an impediment to student achievement."

As to the layers of gatekeepers and the information flow, those of us from 2003 ordered an administrative hiring freeze. We agree that there are too many bureaucrats who interfere more than they help. Black and Hispanic students constantly fall well below the performance of white students, and their graduation rates are far below those of whites. We hear nothing but excuses as to why this problem is not being addressed; apparently our employees notice this lack of focus on the changing demographic as well. Schools will be held accountable for results under the site based system that we approved. Employees felt that our predecessors on the Board were necromancers. Again, these are the same ex-Board members who now rally the public against the current Board. If the union disagrees with the final statement, I would welcome a list of ideas and accomplishments that the organization can point to from the past 30 years that illustrates how the union has improved public education in D11. After running D11 for 30 years, union leadership must certainly be able to list numerous ideas that they have implemented (through their chosen Board members), that have directly impacted student achievement.

These survey results lay waste to the claims of those who continue to say that we are out of touch with the employees of D11. These comments are the exact comments and concerns that each of us has expressed over and over again. The big difference between us and prior boards is that we have actually taken action to address many, if not most, of the concerns that were expressed prior to our election.