The D11 Fact Sheet

There is much disinformation and misinformation circulating around the School District 11 community. Much of this misinformation is being spread by those who are intent on maintaining the status quo. This blog will set the record straight and it will educate the public on the identities of these defenders of the status quo.

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Below the Minimums

As was reported in a previous post, the D11 administration and school board received a spanking from the DAAC for not informing the DAAC that the district school calendar was changing due to weather related closures. The rebuke stated that there is supposed to be a 30 day notice before a calendar change takes effect. Just so it is clear, this 30 day requirement is not a policy, and it is not a courtesy that is to be extended if the administration or board wants to extend it. In fact, this 30 day requirement is state law.

Colorado Revised Statute (CRS) 22-32-109 1. n. (II) B. states: "Any change in the calendar, excluding changes resulting from emergency closings or other unforeseen circumstances, shall be preceded by adequate and timely notice from the board, district administration, or school administration of not less than thirty days." To be clear, "emergency closings or other unforeseen circumstances" refers to such things as weather delays or closures, but it clearly means that no 30 day notice is required when the superintendent calls for a closure or delay when he wakes up and finds the city covered in deep snow. A 30 day notice is obviously impossible for those circumstances. On the other hand, the district calendar is adopted by the board during the previous school year. Additional days are already built into the calendar during this adoption process for such things as closures and delays. For the district to change the calendar as it did, the district MUST give a 30 day notice. D11 violated state statute by announcing on January 23rd that the school day would be extended by 30 minutes beginning January 29th, which appears to be slightly less than 30 days. Who knows; maybe district math chair Dora Gonzales did the math for the administration and estimated that six days was close to 30.

I am not commenting one way or the other on the benefits of extending the school day by 30 minutes. I am commenting on the fact that the D11 administration violated state law by making this change with no input from the community. In fact, according to the D11 press release, this change was made at the instruction of the labor union, a private organization that is not mentioned anywhere in state statute as an authority to change the district calendar. The D11 press release was as follows:

January 23, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Elaine Naleski, 520-2005
School District 11 Will Add Minutes to the School Day

Colorado Springs School District 11 announces that beginning on Monday, January 29, 2007, all District 11 schools will be starting school 15 minutes earlier than currently scheduled. In addition, all schools will dismiss 15 minutes later than currently scheduled. School District 11 is committed to ensuring student success and increasing student achievement. In an effort to be proactive in case students miss additional days of instructional time, District 11 staff, the Colorado Springs Education Association and the Educational Support Professionals Council worked collaboratively to arrive at a decision to increase student contact time by adding a total of 30 minutes to the school day.

Even the school board was left out of the loop on this decision. Sadly, the labor union and administration understand all too well that none of the lackeys on the current board will say or do anything about this legal violation. These hapless souls take their marching orders from both the labor union and administration anyway, so they would not even understand how they fit into the picture. (The exception, of course, is Willie Breazell). At a local gathering where several parents and a D11 teacher were present, the D11 teacher (who is a labor union activist) stated that parents should not have had a say in the calendar change since "parents do not have a vested interest in the calendar" like teachers do. Got it? Parents do not have a vested interest in the district for which they pay.

D11 has a history of striving to miss the standards of achievement in many areas. The calendar itself was in violation of state law until we on the reform slate corrected the situation. State law mandates that all school districts plan for 1080 teacher-pupil contact hours each school year for high school and middle school students. Districts must plan for no less than 990 hours per year for elementary students. According to statute, the ACTUAL number of teacher-pupil contact hours may be reduced to no less than 1056 hours at the secondary level, and no less than 968 hours for the elementary level for "parent-teacher conferences, staff in-service programs, and closing deemed by the board to be necessary for the health, safety, or welfare of students." (CRS 22-32-109 1.n. (II)A). Clearly, according to statue, the district MUST plan for 1080 contact hours at the secondary level, and these hours may be reduced to no fewer than 1056 hours for the listed reasons. When I was seated in 2003, the district calendar showed a total of 170 teacher-pupil contact days. What it did not mention was that 2 of those days were parent-teacher conference days. Students were scheduled to attend class for only 168 days. At the middle school level, the school day runs from 8:45AM through 3:40PM, with a 30 minute lunch. The lunch period may not be counted as teacher-pupil contact time, according to statute, but the district does count the time between classes (passing time) as teacher-pupil contact time, believe it or not. This means that middle school students receive 385 minutes of teacher-pupil contact time during each school day. Multiply this by the 168 contact days in 2003 (then divide by 60 minutes to get hours), and you will find that D11 only planned for 1078 teacher-pupil contact hours for the middle schools in 2003 and years prior. To cover for this, the board and administration used parent-teacher conference days to reach the 1080 mark. In other words, they took the clear wording of state statute and turned it on its head. Statute clearly does not allow a district to use parent-teacher conference days to meet a planning minimum any more than it allows snow days to be used for this purpose. Districts may REDUCE planned hours by hours used for parent-teacher conferences, but it may not ADD days used for parent-teacher conferences to reach planning minimums.

I brought this issue up each time the board dealt with the district calendar. Connie Stanton was a district executive director who was in charge of calendar issues. Mary Thurman was her supervisor. Stanton would always argue that parent teacher conferences were allowed to count as contact days. Even when I would read the statute to her, she pretended as if she could not understand what I was saying. This violation of state law occurred because the labor union would not accept any additional days in the contract. The labor union leader at the time was Mike Coughlin. During the discussion of this issue at a public board meeting, Coughlin said that parents should bring their kids to the parent-teacher conferences if they were worried about getting their kids extra contact time. Leave it to the labor union leadership to care so much about kids. The current district calendar has 170 contact days, although the administration still shows 172 days, pretending that parent-teacher conferences are contact days. For the record, neither the labor union nor any other private entity need be consulted for permission before the school board sets the district calendar. In plain English, statute says that one of the duties of the board is, "To determine, prior to the end of a school year, the length of time which the schools of the distrct shall be in session during the next following school year..." Notice that no negotiations or permission is required from anyone.

Since the high schools have slightly longer school days than the middle schools, they always met the planning hour requirement, but they also had to count passing time to meet the minimums. The elementary schools also met the minimums, although recess is counted as teacher-pupil contact time. If recess and the time between classes were not counted as teacher-pupil contact time, then prior to 2003, the actual planned teacher-pupil contact times were 980 hours in the elementary schools and 994 hours in the middle schools. As I said, law allows recess and passing time to count, but many districts do not count this time, for obvious reasons,. The most obvious reason, of course, is because everyone knows that these periods of time ARE NOT teacher-pupil contact time.

This statute violation occurred during the board service of Lyman Kaiser, Karen Teja, Bruce Doyle, Mary Wierman, Dave Linebaugh, Waynette Rand,and Delia Busby. Anyone who knows Kaiser understands that he is a stickler for detail. He knew very well that his calendars were not within state statute standards, yet he was afraid to challenge the labor union. He and Doyle most certainly turned a blind eye to this violation of statute. The others on the board were usually so out of touch that they probably had no idea what they were voting on in the first place.

If you are a parent whose child or children attended a D11 middle school prior to 2004, and if you feel as if your child was short-changed during his/her middle school years, you are literally correct. D11 did not plan for the state mandated minimum contact hours for middle schoolers, even when it tried to use trickery to get there.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

BOE and Admin receive a spanking

Throughout my three years on the D11 board, I would hear from critics that we reformers never listened to the community, that we always wanted to push through our agenda quickly without hearing from our public. John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Jan Tanner were three people who made this criticism over and over again. The fact is that there was no truth to these claims when they made them, but as we all know by now, none of these three operate with "truth" as a guiding principle.

Due to the onslaught of winter weather during the first semester, the D11 board and administration decided to add 30 minutes onto the D11 school day. School has been cancelled or delayed several times this school year. so the district decided to add time to the school day prior to CSAPs. District spokesperson even announced to the press that parents and community members had been consulted before this decision was made. Surely people like the three board members above would take their own advice and consult the public before making a decision that would effect the entire D11 community, right? Well, not quite.

The D11 DAAC, a state mandated advisory committee that exists to advise the school board, was never consulted prior to the administration announcing this schedule change. In fact, the members of the DAAC were informed that there would be no schedule change, and within a few days, the schedule change was announced anyway. Members of the DAAC were upset, as they are the "community" advisory committee to the board. The DAAC drafted and unanimously adopted the following rebuke to the D11 administration and board:

Rebuke of the Omission of Parental and Community Input
On the Extension of the 2006-2007 School Day



THE DISTRICT ELEVEN ACCOUNTABILITY AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE (DAAC),

UNDERSTANDING:

That the DAAC membership consists of District Eleven parents and community members;

That changes to the approved District Eleven calendar require a thirty-day window to inform the public and allow for input;

That the approved District Eleven calendar provides for snow-day make-ups on May 25th, 29th, and 30th, 2007;

That the DAAC Chair specifically requested of the DAAC Administrative Liaison an update on any plans of the District to alter the calendar due to the number of “snow days” incurred by the District in School Year 2006-2007;

That the DAAC was informed at its January 18, 2007, meeting that elementary schools still had sixty-plus contact hours and middle schools and high schools between four and eight hours contact time before any changes in the calendar would be necessitated;

That, less than one full week after the January 18, 2007, meeting of the DAAC, the District Eleven Administration announced that the school day for the remainder of School Year 2006-2007 would be extended by thirty minutes; and

That District Eleven, through its Office of Public Relations, proclaimed that parents had been consulted prior to the decision on the extension of the school day,


RESOLVES:

1. To express to the District Eleven Administration and District Eleven
Board of Education the displeasure of having been circumvented during this process of decision-making.

2. To remind the District Eleven Administration and District Eleven Board of
Education that the DAAC is the state-mandated and recognized forum for parent and community input on policy decisions and policy changes.

3. To urge adamantly that the District Eleven Administration and District
Eleven Board of Education recognize and utilize the DAAC for input on future policy implementation and policy changes.

Adopted without objection by the District Eleven Accountability and Advisory Committee on Thursday, February 15, 2007.

Patrick J. Carter
Chair

Notice that this rebuke was adopted "without objection." Even long time mediocrity apologist Lyman Kaiser was furious with the board over this violation of policy and procedure. (Kaiser has never been one to care much about the tax paying public, but when it comes to policy and procedure, watch out).

While I was on the board, I certainly did not agree with all of the recommendations of the DAAC on every issue. However, the DAAC was always consulted and the DAAC was always heard. Whether I voted to accept the DAAC's recommendations, the members of the DAAC were always consulted.

The current board consists of five or six very arrogant members who take their marching orders from a small circle of masters. The opinions of the community mean nothing to them. They are not there to serve their community, but to obey their handlers.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Master Agreement, Part 3

The teacher's labor unions vehemently oppose merit pay, but the reasons go well beyond the fear of evil administrators or the inability to develop a "fair" evaluation system. The survival of the labor union depends on showing its members that it is the source of everything good that happens to them, and the defender against anything bad. The labor union has to make itself important, or it will cease to exist. (As was discussed earlier, it also has to force people to pay its wages). One of the reasons that labor union leaders are so adamantly opposed to reform is because all ideas must originate from within the union or its chosen board members or legislators. Even if a benefit were proposed from outside of the labor union circles, the union leadership would oppose it. If members thought that they could in any way improve their lot through any other channel than the union, why would they need the labor union?

The whole concept of merit pay strikes fear in the union leadership because it threatens the labor union's budget. If teachers get more pay for better work, then their own efforts increase their pay. If that was the case, then they would not need the union. If a poor performer gets less income than a high performer, and the union does not help the poor performer to earn as much as the high performer, then the poor performer does not need the union either. The key for the labor union is to ensure that pay is based strictly on the objective measures of time in service and college credits. No subjective inputs may ever be used.

Under the current system, individual teachers have no right to approach their bosses for a raise. All increases in salary must come through collective bargaining. The goal is to have all teachers feel that the only way to improve their lives is through the efforts of the union. Unfortunately, what teachers don't see is that this protective labor union that keeps all evil away also keeps the workers trapped inside.

In almost every "professional" occupation in the country, employers differentiate pay based on performance. Even in the extremely militant union occupations, such as International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the salary schedule allows workers to advance based on merit. Although the military also has a single salary scale, military members are under an "up or out" system, whereby performance and responsibility are required for promotions. You either qualify for promotion or you leave the service. You are required to perform for the promotion and accompanying pay raise. Why is the public school teaching occupation so unique and different that it is impossible to fairly judge the employees by their performance? Yes, that is a silly question - a question that labor union leaders won't answer.

The goal of school boards is to achieve maximum educational excellence in their districts. To reach that goal, they should differentiate between teachers to reward and encourage excellence in the classrooms. The D11 master agreement is the only obstacle preventing D11 from rewarding and encouraging good teachers. Some examples:

Article II E. - Addresses individual contracts with teachers. Explains that if there is any conflict between the master agreement and anything else in the world, the master agreement is the prevailing document. Bottom line is that no teacher may ask for anything for him or herself without going through the labor union.

Article X B.9. - "Openings in all summer school positions shall be filled first by teacher applicants already employed by the District,"

What if the teacher stinks and a better teacher has applied who might be better? Too bad for the kids.

Article XII H 2. - If a teacher receives a bad evaluation, he or she has the right to a second opinion by another evaluator. That seems reasonable. However, the article states that, "The District evaluator will be selected by the teacher from a list of fifteen (15) evaluators generated by the Division Head of Human Resources."

What other field of employment allows an employee to determine, from a list of 15, who gets to give them their evaluation?

Article XIV D 2. - Moves teachers up in pay scale for graduate work, but never specifies the content of the course. Can a math teacher move up in pay for taking a graduate course in government policy? Yes. Can he move up in pay for being an excellent math teacher? No.

Article XVIII D. 3. - Allows teachers with more seniority to bump less senior teachers in case of layoffs. The administration does not get to choose to layoff poor performing senior teachers if the district has high performing junior teachers. The bad get to stay. Too bad for the kids.

Article XV - Deals with stipends. I have been told by unionites that differential pay is a bad thing because you cannot say that one course is more important than another. It is not fair, they say, to pay a math or science teacher more than a social studies teacher because it would make it seem that social studies is not important. First of all, this is not true. If you are paying a flat rate for teachers, and you are receiving good social studies instruction for that rate, but poor math instruction for the same rate, then something is wrong. It does not say that math is more important than social studies to suggest that you should pay more to attract highly qualified math instructors into your district. What it might say is that higher level math is more difficult to teach than is higher level social studies, and therefore you might need to attract someone with a deep math background to do the teaching. By worrying about this silly notion of "fairness," we aren't being fair to the students at all. Anyone who turns to Article XV will see that the labor union does not recognize its own standard of "fairness" in its own contract when it comes to stipends. The contract distinguishes between "band director" and "dramatics," yet it will not authorize the district to distinguish between a kindergarten teacher and a high school physics teacher. When it comes to stipends, the labor union allows a high school band director to receive 10.4% of base salary as a stipend, while a middle school band director only receives a 3.05% stipend. On the other hand, a high school orchestra director only receives a 5.2% stipend. Why is this position only half as important as the high school band director? Why does a head football coach receive a 13% stipend, while a head baseball coach only receives a 10.6% stipend? Are we being fair to these employees by placing different levels of importance on these different activities?

The labor union's excuse of "fairness" is a bogus and damaging hindrance to recruiting highly qualified teachers in certain disciplines. If the labor union allowed differential salaries, it would be opening the door to allowing teachers some semblance of independence from the union. The union leaders cannot allow that to happen.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

D11 Board considering making a Decision!!!

COLORADO SPRINGS, CO - The Colorado Springs School District 11 Board of Education is considering closure as a possible option in dealing with a perpetually under performing middle school. East Middle School has been failing to educate kids for years, and closure is one option recommended to the board by D11 administrators on Wednesday night.

"The reality is that the state is forcing us to act because we haven't really tried to improve that school," said D11 Superintendent Terry Bishop."There are mainly poor and minority students at that school, so my data shows me that any real effort would be wasted on that type of population." Bishop emphasized that it is important to create the illusion that the administration and school board are taking some type of initiative on this issue rather than to publicly discuss the fact that the state is forcing the district's hand. "I have been on the job since July, and we have several new board members. We just felt that we had better make the community think that we have done something or this district could be ripe for takeover by another group of people who might want us to focus on educating kids. Board president John Gudvangen told me that he felt it would be very disruptive to have those types of conversations on the board again." Bishop said that he was personally thinking of some things to do around D11 to show the taxpayers that he was trying to earn his $130,000 salary. "I did some things in Austin, once, and I have been thinking about doing some things right here in D11. By taking credit for moving on East, I can honestly tell the public that I have done something."

Deputy Superintendent for Instruction Mary Thurman denies that a lack of instructional leadership on her part brought East to this point. "I stood there and told board members that I care about kids. Last year I even told them that I really, really care about kids. I told them that people call me 'The Hammer,' and I was serious about not taking excuses." When asked to provide examples of what she has done to improve the instruction at East or other schools, Thurman snapped, "I just told you that I went to the board and told them that I care about kids." Thurman said that she is considering hiring an additional executive director to assist her with her busy schedule because she felt that it was important to emphasize how much she cares. She pointed out that she was not about to pay this executive director any more than $90,000. "We pride ourselves on our fiscal responsibility," she said. D11 CFO Glenn Gustafson refused to comment. Thurman concluded that closing East would be good for D11. "By getting that school's data off of our records, it will appear that we are improving as a district. That will show the community that we really care."

Board members seemed unified on the issue of closure, and more importantly, they were getting along with each other."I don't think that we have had a fight in a long time," giggled Tami Hasling. "It just seems like we haven't been fighting!" Asked about the issue of closure of a D11 school, Hasling said that she has been warning the people about those Schuck supported privatizers who want to destroy all public schools. "This just goes to show you the lengths that these people will go to hurt our teachers," said Hasling. "Eric Christen and Craig Cox just want to sell the building to their friend Steve Schuck so that he can make a fortune off of D11 property. I am outraged." When it was pointed out that Christen and Cox were no longer on the board that was considering closure, Hasling admitted that she had not been given her updated script to read on that topic yet.

John Gudvangen said that any questions on the issue of closure were nothing more than an attack on him. "For years I have had to deal with these assaults on my integrity. The truth is that there is no ownership of truth anywhere that there is an opinion on truth. Whose truth are we talking about, anyway?" Gudvangen then pulled papers from his purse which he claimed would show that Eric Christen was downright mean. "The truth is that this person has never given me the chance to show that he is a mean person and that there is no ownership on the truth."

Charlie Bobbitt, one of the board's newest members, said that he was just happy to do whatever the administration wanted him to do."I couldn't nod my head hard enough when the administration presented us with those options," gleamed Bobbitt. When asked which of the three options he would support, Bobbitt said, "This administration really knows what it is doing. I am here to give my support."

Sandra Mann felt that this was a chance for some inter-governmental cooperation. "Since the city owns Patty Jewett golf course, which sits right next to East, we can show the tax payers that we aren't going to just hand over East to some private developer." Mann pointed out that it was extremely difficult to get an adult beverage when playing the back nine at Patty Jewett. "I just think that if we gave that building to the city, they could turn it into something productive, like a clubhouse. It seems unreasonable to have to go all the way around that course without a place to grab a beverage. This is the perfect solution." Mann pointed out that if the clubhouse stayed open late on Wednesday nights, it was not very far from the D11 board room. "I drive right past the building coming to and going from board meetings," Mann smiled.

Jan Tanner said that her biggest concern as board treasurer was whether Eric Christen would eat lunch with people if East was turned into a clubhouse. "I spent a lot of time looking over Christen's receipts when he was on the board. One time he spent over $20 on lunch with a constituent. Now that he is off the board, there is no way for me to track his lunchtime expenditures. That bothers me." Tanner said that she really doesn't care one way or the other what happens with East, as long as parents don't have a say in the process. "I sued parents once when they thought they were going to get choice, and I'll sue them again." Asked about the current state of education at East, Tanner said that it was not the business of the board to worry about things like that. "Why would we worry about that," wondered Tanner. She said that she was still trying to determine whether Christen had ever eaten lunch at East.

D11 labor union co-spokespeople Tom and Lori Watson seemed unfazed by the talk of closure. "Let me first say that Eric Christen and Craig Cox are scumbags," declared Tom Watson. "These two as----es and their little stealth agenda to destroy our schools have been shown the door by the voters of D11. Buh-byeeee Christen and Cox. Thanks for stopping by." When asked how this relates to the possible closure of East, Watson became indignant."Don't try to change the topic. Keep in mind that Christen and Cox are both scumbags. They won't even show their faces around town anymore. Buh-byeee." Lori Watson said that although she collects her paycheck from working at East, she isn't worried about losing her job. "The labor union will find a place for me in the district. I'm not worried." She pointed out that the number of teachers in D11 has climbed steadily over the past decade, even as student enrollment has plummeted. "It's not about the number of students," she said, "it's about funding the union. The union has done a lot of good things, and it is important to keep it healthy." Asked to provide examples of some union accomplishments, Watson declined, stating that the labor union is a private organization that need not be accountable to anyone.

The Watsons have angrily accused reform board members of having plans to close D11 schools in the past, but see no irony in the fact that the board that they support is actually planning on doing just that. "Christen and Cox are scumbags," said Tom Watson. "This board is closing a school because they have to. Christen and Cox just hate teachers and public schools. They are both scumbags. Buh-byeee."

The board is expected to make a final decision within a few weeks. "They will make a decision as soon as we tell them which decision to make," declared D11 facilities director Frank Bernhard.

NOTE: To my liberal friends, the above article is called a "parody." No sensitive liberals were harmed in the production of said article.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Appalling

The following “simulated letter” was forwarded to me by a reform parent. It is apparently posted on some left-wing blog in town. The author of this simulated letter from a “5th grader” is Sandy Wickham, who was a teacher at Adams Elementary School, one of the city’s lowest performing schools. Her obvious point is that accountability testing somehow harms certain categories of students.

This letter from Wickham highlights why she was unable to educate children while she was a teacher. In her mind, children from lower income or minority families should not be pushed to succeed. School should be about having fun for these kids because there is no way that they can learn. In Wickham’s way of thinking, they are not wealthy white kids, so why on earth should we have any expectations of them?

Maybe Wickham failed as a teacher because she was so busy teaching kids how to take tests instead of simply providing kids with an education. Maybe if she would have taken the time to instill knowledge in these kids, they would have performed just fine. Maybe if this middle class woman (whose own children did not attend Adams) would have taught her children with an expectation that they are capable of learning, then just maybe they would continue to be excited about school as they move forward.

Maybe Wickham and others like her just don’t like the accountability that standardized tests bring to the system. Maybe it is easier to eliminate testing than to actually make a heroic effort to educate kids. The CSAPs aren’t perfect by any means. (They are, however, formulated each year by ex-teachers and educators). CSAPs are a snapshot of how well a school is serving its community and its kids. Despite all of the millions of dollars thrown at Adams over the years, it has not served its community well.

For the record, if any of the recesses or art, music, or physical education classes have been eliminated from any of the elementary schools, then that is a stupid decision on the part of the staffs at those schools.

February 16, 2007
A Letter from Tommy

Dear Mr. Superintendent, I am a 5th grade boy in one of your schools. My teacher told me that since I'm complaining to her all the time, I should write to you and tell you what I think. Then maybe you would tell other people who decide things for kids so we could get out of this mess. I usually don't write letters -- especially long ones! But I'm so MAD, I'm going to waste some of my time to be outdoors so you can hear from a kid who is sick, sick, sick of school. When I first started out in Kindergarten, it was actually fun. We did all kinds of cool stuff, and I couldn't wait to get back to see my teacher the next day to see what she wanted to do. Sometimes, I wish I could go back, but then I'd be starting all over again, and that's not good! I think it was about in 3rd grade that things started to really change. We had to learn to take tests and then all we did was testing, testing, testing. My 3rd grade teacher tried to make things interesting, but how interesting can you make a test? And it was never good enough! The scores would come back, and we'd have to try harder. Don't they know I was trying my hardest on the first test I took? That CSAP test really sucks!!! I was put into a special class to learn better test-taking skills. How boring is that? Then when I took the test again, it still wasn't good enough. The last straw was last year when they took our recesses away so we could have more time in class. Have you ever tried to sit on a hard chair with no breaks except to sharpen your pencil once in awhile? My mom says it's not normal to have to sit that long -- clear until lunch! They must think we're not really kids anymore or something. You know what happened this year? They cut back on the music and art classes! They said that we needed more time to prepare for that stupid CSAP. I'm really good at playing the drums and doing art projects, but now school isn't fun anymore. I have to take home all this homework. It's because we don't have time to do everything in class we need to do. They expect me to work sometimes 2 hours at night to catch up on all we missed during the day. My mom says there's no way she can help me with all of that, and I don't want to do it by myself. I want to spend some time with my friends. If I don't do my homework, I get in trouble with my teacher, and then she calls my mom. I wish I was back in Kindergarten. My older sister is 15. She has the right idea. Since they only have college-prep classes (whatever that is) in high school, she says she's gonna drop out next year. She wants to do her own thing and move out of the house because she's bored with school, too. I think they should let kids my age drop out, too. I don't want to go to middle school next year, and since they call me a computer whiz, I should be able to get a job. Maybe if I could give my mom some money, she wouldn't have to work 2 jobs. She says it's to make ends meet, but I think it's goofy. She doesn't have much time with me, and she's always tired. She doesn't want to worry about me and my sister and school stuff. She has to put food on the table and put gas in the car so she can go to work. Maybe if I could work, my mom could afford to give me an allowance, like some of the other kids. Mr. Superintendent, please check on this and let me know if I can drop out early. Your friend, Tommy

(Letter by Sandy Wickham, a retired D 11 teacher. Mrs. Wickham retired after several years at Adams Elementary, so she understands well the struggles of disadvantaged students with high stakes testing.)

The post mortem was written by Lois Fornander, from all accounts just a mediocre (at best) teacher in her own day. Fornander also believes that there are certain kids who just aren’t worth the effort – you know, those disadvantaged kids.

I recall a board meeting where Eric Christen mentioned that due to the poor performance of some of these schools, some kids would be better off staying at home. His point was that if these schools were not going to bother providing an education, why bother going to these schools? Fornander was one of those who pretended to be outraged over this Christen comment. Now Fornander praises this ex-teacher who suggests that it would be more reasonable for little Tommy to drop out of school than to have to feel the pressure to succeed. In their worldview, it isn't OK to say that a child should stay home if he isn't being taught anyway, but it is fine to say that he should stay home if he is being pushed too hard, especially if he is one of "those" kids. We wouldn't want to push these kids to the next level, would we?

The interesting fact about CSAPs is that they are designed to measure the performance of schools, not necessarily the individual students. In fact, one of the big complaints heard from anti-accountability advocates is that the CSAPs place no pressure on the kids at all because they do not impact the grades of those kids. In light of that fact, Wickham’s little letter is off key from the normal left-wing song and dance on this topic. Wickham really doesn’t mean “poor Tommy;” Wickham really means, “poor teachers.” She longs for the days when she could simply place an “A” or “B” on little Tommy’s report card and shuffle him off to the next grade, whether he could really read or perform basic math operations or not.

If you teach a “disadvantaged” child to read, he will do fine on any reading test. If you teach a “disadvantaged” kid how to perform basic math operations, he will do fine on the test. If you expect the “disadvantaged” kids to fail because of their income level or race, then they will rise (or fall) to your expectations. Maybe we would have far fewer “disadvantaged” kids if we actually provided them with the education that they need to provide for themselves and their families when they become adults.

CSAPs have only been around for a few years. Adams Elementary has been failing to educate kids for much longer than that. Wickham and Fornander were much more comfortable when their failures were not so publicly known.

Liberals strongly oppose any type of school accountability at all. They vehemently oppose giving parents a right to choose the school for their children, so that removes the ultimate parental accountability from the system. The petty Democrat thief Mike (Yard Sign) Merrifield is leading the charge to remove charter schools as a choice for parents, and now the liberals want to eliminate accountability testing from the equation. In short, they want a free ride at tax payer expense. As always, educating kids fits nowhere on their agenda. It is just too hard, especially when it comes to those “disadvantaged” kids.

Friday, February 16, 2007

The Optimist meets his union masters

Considering that I am in the middle of discussing the D11 master agreement, it was nice timing to have the Mike Rosen Oped appear in today's Gazette. Rosen writes about Colorado State Senator Chris Romer, a Democrat and a freshman senator. The Oped is copied in below in total.

Labor union mouthpieces always claim that their little old union really just stays out of the way and spends its time shuffling around and helping kids and teachers. Nothing could be further from the truth. People need to understand that the labor union demands unconditional and total allegiance in exchange for purchasing a politician's election. This type of strong-arm politics does not only occur at the state or federal level. The same type of control is exerted at the school board level. John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, Sandra Mann, Charlie Bobbitt, and Jan Tanner received support and funding from the labor union. Therefore, they have no leeway to do anything other than what they are told to do by the labor union leaders. (Let's be honest, could anyone imagine Gudvangen standing up to the labor union?).

Rosen's oped highlights perfectly the problem with ever improving the state of our schools. The labor unions have a vice grip on the administrators and politicians who are supposed to have the education of kids as their top priority. Instead, any ideas that might benefit children more than the labor union are instantly squashed under the enforcement arm of the labor union.

Rosen's oped is below:

Optimist gets an education from teacher’s union lapdogs
OPINION MIKE ROSEN Syndicated columnist


Chris Romer is a freshman Colorado senator. He’s a bright fellow with a degree from Stanford in economics and more than 20 years of experience in the private sector as a public finance investment banker, specializing in municipal and state budgets. The son of former Gov. Roy Romer, he has a good political pedigree. He describes himself as a “lifelong Democrat,” but I don’t necessarily hold that against him. After all, Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat.
Romer was awarded a seat on the Education Committee. Since Colorado governments — at all levels, combined — spend more money on education than any other governmental activity, this is an important post. Romer’s first legislative effort was to sponsor a perfectly sensible bill, Senate Bill 73, that would require Colorado public schools to “adopt English language competency as a graduation requirement for high school students” starting in 2012. Whatever else students might learn in our public schools, who could disagree that English language proficiency is the single most essential area for opening up opportunities to success in our society? This is especially true today with so many more students entering our schools with a first language other than English. Most of us would imagine that after 13 years of K-12 education, this is an achievable task.
Well, silly us. As a rookie politician, Romer was quickly instructed as to the error of his ways by veteran Democrats in the Senate. More specifically, by a squad of veteran Democrats who were put in the Senate by the teacher’s unions to do their bidding. As the Rocky Mountain news reported, “Democrats, many of them retired teachers, gave freshman Democratic Senator Chris Romer a tongue-lashing.” Former teacher Sen. Sue Windels, chair of the Senate Education Committee, and the unions’ chief enforcer in the Senate, “painted Romer as a wildeyed newbie who lacks understanding of the state’s challenges in funding K-12 education.” Said Windels, “Sen. Romer, I welcome you in the legislature, but you will learn your optimism will be dashed.” (Translation: “This isn’t about ‘optimistic’ reforms. It’s about power politics. The hell with the kids or the taxpayers, no legislation affecting public education gets through this body unless it serves the interests of the educratic establishment and has the blessing of the teacher’s unions.”)
Then Windels reportedly offered up this gem: “What you’re asking of every one of our school districts is to shift (italics mine) money in their budgets.” (Translation: “Good heavens! The audacity of asking a government entity, funded with taxpayer dollars, to shift money within its budget! That smacks of prioritization. This is public education. Educrats can’t be expected to make these kinds of difficult choices. More money, you fool! Give us more money! The union is committed to paying teachers more, not prioritizing among programs. Amendment 23 wasn’t enough. Oh yeah, and ‘it’s for the children!’ ”)
From his background, Romer understands public finance and state budgets. He just hasn’t been co-opted by the teachers’ unions — yet. (Rest assured, they’ll work on him.) His bill might push schools to adopt English immersion, a far better approach than the crutch of bilingual education. But the unions have opposed English immersion. They have a stake in bilingual education since it’s the rice bowl of many of their rank and file who specialize in this area, and, politically, it’s a hot button for Hispanic activists, another Democratic constituency. Windels’ Education Committee dispatched SB-73 to Appropriations, where the majority can quietly bury inconvenient bills. This is how educrats initiate optimistic newbies.
Rosen’s radio show can be heard on 850 KOA from 9 until noon, Monday through Friday. Write to him c/o 4695 S. Monaco St., Denver 80237-3403

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Master Agreement, Part 2

One of the most critical priorities for any labor union is organizational security. The security of the labor union even takes priority over salary and benefits. There are numerous provisions in the D11 master agreement that strengthen the security of the CSEA labor union while offering nothing to the tax payers.

The opening sentence of the contract is the most important sentence of the entire contract, as far as union bosses are concerned. It states: “The Board hereby recognizes the Association as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all certified professional staff who are under contract with the District and for whom remuneration is indicated herein.” Although it is understood that the public education establishment holds a monopoly over educating kids, its monopoly looks downright competitive compared to the monopoly that the labor union holds over teachers.

Back in 2000, the Education Intelligence Agency, an education labor union watchdog, published a report on charter schools that was conducted by the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA). This report exposed some fascinating admissions by union leadership on the importance of unionizing teachers. The report stated in part:

“Act 195 granted PSEA and Federation a legal monopoly to represent public education employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. All we have to do is to convince teachers and supported personnel to join. Once we obtain majority representative status, PSEA becomes the exclusive bargaining agent. IN NO OTHER ENDEAVOR PSEA UNDERTAKES CAN IT ENJOY THIS EXCLUSIVE POSITION, The timeworn debate whether we are primarily a professional association or a union obscures a critical point. The main source of PSEA’s influence is that almost all Pennsylvania teachers are unionized. If we want to maintain our influence, our ability to do ANYTHING, we must make sure that education remains a unionized industry.”

The labor union wants teachers to be unionized, not to improve education for our kids, but to strengthen the power and control that the labor union holds over our tax dollars.

As a side note, a man named Mike Coughlin used to be the president of the CSEA here in D11. He now receives his paycheck from the NEA (same thing, just bigger). Coughlin has been very busy in El Paso County. His job description now has him attempting to organize and unionize surrounding school districts. His first target is Falcon D-49, and his secondary targets are Academy D-20 and Cheyenne Mountain D-12. Again, Coughlin’s goal is not to improve the education that children receive in these districts; his goal is to gain more power and resources for his monopolistic labor union.

The CSEA gained its exclusive status in D11 back in 1968. In those 39 years, it has never been required to defend itself against any opposition. Union leaders will try to pretend that the union is a “democracy,” but without any opposition, this can hardly be the case. Because teachers are never given an option of "CSEA or something else," the decisions that a few teachers made in 1968 still govern the operations of D11 today. I don't mean that they govern the operations of the local labor union; I mean that they govern the operations of D11, much more than tax paying parents can govern.

The following are the master agreement provisions that provide security to the union, but provide nothing to the D11 tax payers.

Article I D. This concerns representation elections and the threshold for decertification of the union. This is a redundant provision since decertification is already covered by state law. The union wanted this clause in the contract out of fear that the state legislature would change the state law. Now that the union backed Democrats run the state, there is no threat of this happening.

Article II A. “The Board shall not discriminate against any teacher on the basis of membership, activity or non-activity, in any teacher organization.”

This provision contradicts many others in the master agreement. If the board cannot discriminate against any teacher based on status, why, then, do union officers receive leave for union business while other teachers do not? Why can’t non-union members become president of the CSEA, and why can they not vote in union elections? Why is the CSEA president given release time and salary credits while others are not? Keep in mind that the labor union adamantly opposes giving salary credits to teachers for their performance in the classrooms, yet they can be given credit for labor union political activity. The labor union considers union teachers to be more important than non-union members.

Article II B 1. “The Association shall equally represent all teachers under the terms of this Agreement without regard to their membership or non-membership, activity or non-activity, in the Association or any other teacher organization.”

Non-members cannot even vote to ratify the agreement, so how are they being treated as equals? Any non-member teacher will tell you that they are not treated the same as union members.

Article III C 1. This provision requires the District, at tax payer expense, to deduct union dues from teacher’s paychecks and to forward those dues to the union bank account. Why can’t this private organization collect its own dues? Why do the tax payers have to foot the bill for this activity?

Article III C 2. This article gives teachers a 10 day window to opt OUT of the labor union. If the teacher does not opt out in this 10 day window, then the window is slammed shut and dues will be deducted from the teacher’s pay. Although the union leaders claim that they will only require teachers to opt out one time, the provision remains in the contract. Until the contract is changed, the union leadership cannot be trusted.

Article III D. This article is called “dues equivalency.” Some people call it strong arm robbery. Non-union members are required to pay the union 100% of the dues that union members pay unless they opt out in a 10-day window. Why won’t the union agree to have members join the union voluntarily instead of having them have to “unjoin” the union? Because membership would drop precipitously. Remember, this provision is a security blanket for union political activity. CSEA dues include an automatic payment to the labor union Political Action Committee (PAC). The last Secretary of State ruled that this could no longer occur without explicit member consent, but with the Dems in charge, there will be no enforcement of that ruling.

Article XI A. “…the Association will participate in planning the orientation and will provide time of approximately two (2) hours to address new hires on issues of the Association’s choosing (reasonably agreed upon by the Association and the District) pertaining to their introduction to the District.”

Bottom line is that the labor union gets 2 hours to convince a rookie teacher to hand over part of his/her paycheck to the union. Despite the language of this provision, the District is never consulted on the topic to be discussed. One would like to think that the discussion would center on teaching and academic needs of the District. That is mere wishful thinking. The discussion centers on politics, and then even more labor union politics. No other privat eorganization receives this type of teacher access.

Again, these provisions do not necessarily harm the academic performance of the district when looked at on the surface, but neither do they provide any benefit to the District or the public. They are meant to provide funding and survivability to the labor union. Where these provisions cause harm is through the funding of the labor union that they enforce. This damages not only D11, but other public school districts as well. This massive funding helps fuel the NEA political machine. This machine purchases weak school board and legislative candidates who will continue to resist any improvements in our education system. The labor union gets to purchase the school boards that will then be responsible for negotiating contract provisions with the labor union that bought their seats for them in the first place. That is why the John Gudvangens, Tami Haslings, Sandra Manns, Jan Tanners, and Charlie Bobbits of the world would NEVER open any part of the master agreement up for negotiations. The labor union will not authorize them to do so.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Master Agreement, Part 1

Today I am going to begin a series of posts that deal with the school district 11 Master Agreement (MA), which is the contract between the D11 board and the Colorado Springs Education Association labor union. I will add additional posts on the MA and I will address the clauses that benefit the labor union without providing benefits to the D11 parents and taxpayers. Remember, the MA is supposed to be a contract between the board (the voters) and the labor union.

I and other reform board members have been critical of the master agreement, and it is important to understand the reasons for that criticism. While some claim that I oppose the teachers’ right to organize, this is not true. I do oppose clauses in the agreement that only serve the labor union. I believe that the union contract has a detrimental impact on the ability of the district to do what it needs to do to better educate kids. I also believe that the contract gives the union a much greater influence over the operation of D11 than it gives the parents. Notice that I said the “union,” not the teachers. These are actually separate parties in contract language. All references to the MA can be verified by viewing the MA on the D11 webpage. The link to the MA is at http://www.d11.org/hr/CSEA/Master_Agreement.pdf.

Articles III, IV, and V of the MA make it very clear that there are three parties to this contract: teachers, the school board, and the labor union. There are many clauses that have nothing to do with pay or working conditions, and have everything to do with strengthening labor union power, influence, and income. Keep in mind that the labor union is a private entity. Combine this with the knowledge that this private labor union has a tremendous foothold over the operation of the school district, and it makes it seem rather ironic to hear union leaders accuse reform board members of being “privatizers.”

In any contract, there should be conditions and provisions that benefit both parties. The MA contains numerous provisions that only serve to benefit the power of the labor union. Some examples:

Article III B. 1. The Association President shall be furnished with cop­ies of all publications, directives or memoranda containing official District interpretations of this Agreement.

Although one might argue that the district or board could benefit from official labor union interpretations of the contract, neither the board nor the administration receive these interpretations. Why not?

Article III E. 1. The Board shall grant the following to the Associa­tion President, one of which he or she may choose: (1) Release time of one-half (1/2) day each day of the school year or the Association and the Board will share equally the cost of a one-half (1/2) time contracted teacher on regular salary or (2) Leave of absence. The Board agrees to pay an annual amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of salary with the Association paying the balance.

In layman’s terms, the taxpayers foot either ½ or ¼ the pay of the labor union leader each year while this person does not teach. No other employee taking leave of absence to work for any other private entity would be allowed to have his/her salary paid by the tax payers. In addition, while on leave, the president of the labor union continues to receive full credit towards salary. Again, this provision serves nobody but the leader of this private organization.

Article III F. 2. The Association Representative shall have: the use of the school’s communication system to make announcements at appropriate times.

What other private entity has the right to utilize the communications systems of the school buildings? How does this right benefit anyone other than the labor union?

Article III G. The Association President has the right to assign an Association member to the initial interviewing committee considering applicants for District positions. The District will provide the Association with a copy of each posting and the Association President will notify the Division of Human Resources when it wishes to participate. The Association President may also appoint members to other District committees as desired.

This article actually conflicts with Article II B, which says that the labor union will represent all teachers regardless of status in the union. This came into play when the board established a committee to study teacher incentive pay. Union leader Irma Valerio and UniServe representative Tim Cross did everything in their power to prevent a non-union teacher from participating on the committee. By only selecting union members for committees, the labor union is violating its own contract.

Article III H. The Association has priority for using buildings, as long as such use does not interfere with the normal conduct of school activities and no conflict exists with previously scheduled meetings. There shall be no cost to the Asso­ciation unless additional costs are incurred by the District. The Association shall have the right to place materials related to Association business on bulletin boards and in teachers’ mailboxes. A copy of all such materials shall be given to the principal.

Every other private organization is required to pay for use of public facilities. What benefit does the public receive when this private labor union is the exception to that rule? Union representatives often abuse this privilege by posting political materials in mail boxes and on bulletin boards. Once again, the labor union receives a benefit that the public does not. Why does this private organization receive “priority” over parents who pay for those buildings?

Article IX F. 1. Association - Teachers may be released when the Association requests such time in advance. Days shall be paid by the Association if the teachers are doing work that is not of a direct educational nature; split with the District if the work is of mutual benefit to the parties; or paid by the District if the work is in pursuit of District goals as established by past practice.

Who determines if the work is educational in nature? I have already shown how union leaders have taken association leave for political purposes and have charged the tax payers for this time off of work. Teacher absences are a major issue in D11, and this provision allows the labor union to charge the tax payers for political activities.

Article IX F. 2. Association Leader - A leave of absence without pay shall be granted to no more than two (2) teachers for up to one (1) school year for the purpose of engaging in Associa­tion activities. Upon return from such leave, each teacher shall be granted credit on the salary schedule and seniority credit as if he/she had remained continuously employed in the District.

This labor union self-serving provision allows union activists time to run for higher CEA or NEA offices. It allows activists to serve their private organization while still gaining seniority credit as if they were in the classroom teaching children. Again, no other private organization gets this treatment.

None of the above provisions are necessarily harmful to the overall academic success of D11. However, none of these provisions benefit either the school board or the classroom teachers. Only one of the 3 parties of the MA receives any benefit from these provisions. They amount to tax payer subsidizing of union political activities. All of these provisions should be removed, but the union will not even allow discussion of them.

Much more to come on the MA.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Another mess cleaned up by reformers

Back on September 12, 2006, I wrote about the unbelievable amount of public funds that D11 staff spent on hiring “purple packet” employees. These were simply people who were often friends of administrators who would be placed on the D11 payroll with no job descriptions, no work plan, and no supervision. From July 1st, 2005 through the end of November 2005, the Sharon Thomas administration had spent around $2 million on purple packet hires and had hired 216 purple packet employees.

The practice of purple packet hiring had been taking place in D11 for years. Board members such as Mary Ellen McNally, Lynn Peterson, Lyman Kaiser, Karen Teja, and Bruce Doyle turned a blind eye to this practice. Accountability was not something that these people were willing to stomach, especially if you stood to benefit from the D11 cash cow yourself, such as did Teja. Was the purple packet hiring just a way for administrators to reward friends and colleagues with public funds, or was that just a bunch of noise by overly suspicious board members. The following letter was received shortly after the board learned that ex-CFO Bob Moore had been paid around $10,000 for a month's work as some sort of liaison to the local military bases. Keep in mind that Moore spent 2 years in the Coast Guard.

August 22, 2005

Dear Colorado Springs District 11 Board Members,

I watched the August 17 school board meeting with much interest. As a prior district employee who has friends and contacts in the administration building I was surprised to hear the dialog regarding Mr. Moore’s presence in the district. Two weeks ago when I read the newspaper that he was back at the district working as a consultant I called one
of my friends. Contrary to what Mr. Gustafson and the new superintendent stated, Mr. Moore had returned so he would be eligible to purchase years of service from PERA. I found out that PERA’s rules to purchase years of service require you to be an employee and after November 1 the cost to purchase years of service will be extremely expensive. So it was basically find some work for Mr. Moore to do, so we can help him out to buy years f service from PERA. He told my friend that he took a leave from his job to come here so he could do this.

What is disappointing is that many in the administration building knew why Mr. Moore was there yet the new superintendent stated in so many words that he was the only person who could have done the work that he did. Also, disappointing is the praise given by two board members (Ms. Teja and Mr. Breazell) on what an excellent job Mr. Gustafson did by bringing Mr. Moore in to do the research. Mr. Cox was right on when he suspected cronyism. There are so many military people in this city the District did not have to bring someone in from Detroit, who has not worked in this town for many years and who’s last connection with the military was over 20 years ago. Come on board members wake up!


I hope you understand, but I chose to remain anonymous due to my friendships in the district.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.


The Gazette reported on the lavish and uncontrolled purple packet spending after I brought the issue forward. In February of 2006, D11 attorneys from HRO informed the board that the uncontrolled purple packet spending would be brought under control. Human Resource director Dave Schenkel, who was directly responsible for overseeing this purple packet spending spree, was forced to take action to curb this waste.

The following figures came from D11 and show how the effort of the reformers has brought the purple packet spending under better control.


NAME POSITION LOCATION CONTRACT AMOUNT


JULY 1, 2006 PURPLE PACKET INFO
Lavonne Jill Adler 26022 Literacy Program Hunt Elem Adult Ed 8.33/hour
Kate V. Bridgeman 16170 ESL Teacher Literacy Program Hunt Elem Adult Ed 22.87/hour


AUGUST 1, 2006 PURPLE PACKET INFO
Alisha Eddy 14357 Volleyball Coach/Bookkeeper Wasson 87.60/hour
Jamie Hardrick 26148 Asst Coach Cheerleading Palmer HS 58.00/SEASON
Judy Lynn Hertel 26191 Teacher Assistant Adult Ed 8.00/8.77/hour


SEPTEMBER 1, 2006 PURPLE PACKET INFO
Josephine Longfellow-LeBrasse 14086 Asst. Principal Doherty HS 40.99/hour
Janet L. Emmons 13161 Admin Asst. Freedom & McAuliff Elem Schools 13.90/hour
Yubia Bonilla 26240 Educational Assistant - Adult Ed 8.77/hour
Samuel E. Boatman 26231 Site Supervisor Community Ed $18.00/hour
Tara Shaw 23089 Teacher Adult Ed 80.00/day


OCTOBER 1, 2006 PURPLE PACKET INFO
Elena D. Velez Educational Assistant Adult Ed Family Literacy 9.00/hour


NOVEMBER 1, 2006 PURPLE PACKET INFO
Emma Rachel Epstein Educational Assistant Adult Ed Family Literacy 9.00/hour
Mark R. Miller Clerical Curriculum 15.00/hour
Barbara S. Day Project Manager Site Based Superintendents Office 50,000 annual-part time
Diana Lynn Valdez Health Assistant Carver Elem 9.00/hour

Quite a change in one year. Amazing what a little oversight will accomplish.

There is one point of interest here. Barbara Day was hired as a part time consultant for $50,000. Day was a longtime friend of Dr. Bishop. It is not clear what, if any, site based background she possesses. During the discussion of hiring a site based consultant, Sandra Mann led the charge against a consultant, claiming that a project manager could be hired part time for only $25,000. Mann and her non-too-alert colleagues on the board never said a word when Day was given $50,000 for a part time, 9-month job. I guess the moment for political posturing had past.

Friday, February 09, 2007

More on Math

The below link is another YouTube video on the topic of K-12 math. The video deals specifically with Washington state math issues, but you can easily substitute "Colorado" or "D11" for the word "Washington."

Some of the terms you will hear are IMP, CMP, and Everyday Math. Each of these curricula are used in D11. Coronado is one of the last high school holdouts to use IMP, even though all objective evidence shows that the IMP math hurts students. Holmes Middle School math teachers work hard to teach kids real math for 3 years, and then those students have to have their math skills eroded by a math department at Coronado that refuses to allow facts to prevent it from doing the wrong thing.

Everyday Math is used in about half the elementary schools in D11, and it is pushed by D11 math chair Dora Gonzales. Dora has seen the facts on this math, and she knows how damaging it is to students, yet she pushes it anyway. Coincidentally, Dora does not have elementary kids in D11 who are being harmed by this math.

It is ironic that the anti-parent/status quo crowd in D11 and across the nation despise the word "reform." Reformers are called "anti-public school" and are accused of trying to destroy our schools. When you hear the term "reform math" in this video, that term was invented by the educartel. Our reform slate was totally opposed to this junk math because common sense people can see clearly how damaging this is to students.

For the record, the teacher's labor union supports this junk math because they feel that it is easier for teachers to teach. Having children sit around in groups and "discover" equations together is apparently easier than teaching kids math skills and equations that have been in existence for centuries. As always, the labor union continues to look past the interests of kids.

As I have said before, Dora Gonzales needs to go, as does Mary Thurman for allowing this proven detrimental math curriculum to remain in D11. Terry Bishop continues to demonstrate a striking amount of lethargic leadership himself on this issue. He claims that he can't do anything about the math situation. As superintendent, Terry, what can you do?

The math link is below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymvSFunUjx0

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Educrats and Unions protect sex offenders and other bad apples

The following article was published in the January 2007 Reader's Digest. It caught my attention because I grew up in the Akron, Ohio, area and still have nephews and nieces attending school there.

Protect Our Kids!

How is it that sexual predators are getting a free pass in our children's schools?

From Reader's Digest
January 2007

Passing the Trash
When Randall Crane came to teach at Jennings Middle School in Akron, Ohio, the superintendent felt lucky to get him. After all, the principal at Crane's previous school in Manchester had given him a glowing letter of recommendation, noting his "outgoing personality" and saying, "I wouldn't hesitate to hire him again."


Oh, really? That same principal helped oversee an investigation into Crane's relationships with his female students, after accusations that included "too much touching of girls," "too much like boyfriend/ girlfriend," and "taking girls into rooms with the door closed." Crane denied any wrongdoing, but agreed to resign. No one at Jennings knew about Crane's earlier conduct because, the Manchester superintendent told a local newspaper, "you don't want to pass problems on to other schools, but at the same time, you weigh that against what you can say that might cause litigation for your school too." So Crane got his sterling recommendation and a new teaching job. Last June, he got something else: a two-year sentence for having sex with a 14-year-old student.

After being shown papers detailing Crane's inappropriate behavior in Manchester, the Akron superintendent said to a reporter, "No other district would have hired that individual knowing what you just s howed me in that file." "It's called 'passing the trash,'" says Kansas State University professor Robert Shoop, an expert witness in nearly 50 school abuse cases. "I've worked with individuals who are in their fourth or fifth district, and you find out they've been molesting people for 20 years." This shuffling of sleazy characters from school district to school district is just one way we're failing to fully protect our children. It's no small concern: In 2004, a U.S. Department of Education study found that nearly 10 percent of public school students have endured unwanted sexual attention from school employees, and close to 7 percent had experienced actual sexual contact -- anything from pinching to kissing to outright molestation.

Let's make one thing clear: Most teachers are honest, hardworking, and truly care for their students. And it's important to protect teachers from false allegations, especially when harassment and abuse charges are used as punish ment for bad grades or strict discipline.

Still, there's no denying that the threat from molesters exists in every state. In West Virginia, for example, sexual abuse of students is the No. 1 reason teachers lost their licenses over the past five years -- a whopping 35 percent of all licenses lost. And a Detroit News study found that, in the 15 months from January 2004 to April 2005, 22 present or former school employees were convicted of sexual misconduct involving minors or the mentally impaired. The vast majority were teachers, although a coach and a janitor were also among those convicted. Perhaps the creepiest thing is all the sexual predators we don't even know about. When The New York Times recently investigated pedophiles, it found that "the most frequent job mentioned was schoolteacher. " How many parents shuddered when it turned out that a slime ball named John Mark Karr -- the man who claimed to have murdered Jon Benet Ramsey -- taught elementar y school?

Zero Tolerance
We obviously don't have enough safeguards in place to keep perverts out of the schools. And the biggest problem is a background-check system that looks like Swiss cheese. Most states require a criminal background check for school employees, but some schools only check state databases, not national ones like the FBI's National Crime Information Center. Schools also need to be candid about former teachers when another school inquires about an applicant. That's how an Iowa school in the Northwood-Kensett district got burned in 2000 when a teacher, Daniel Eveleth, was accused of having a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old student. It turns out that Eveleth had been at the center of sexual controversy before. A few years earlier, court records reveal, he had been accused of sexual harassment at another Iowa public school district known as BCLUW -- a charge that investigators believed to be credible. Eveleth subsequently resigned. Yet, according to the Northwood -Kensett superintendent, before hiring Eveleth, he contacted the BCLUW school district and no red flags came up. Not only that, in exchange for his resignation, Eveleth got a positive letter of recommendation from BCLUW school officials and a promise that the district would keep mum about the accusations against him. Appalling settlements like this aren't unusual. In many cases, the first priority of school districts is to avoid expensive battles with unions and the bad headlines that can come with legal action. So they'll let an accused teacher resign quietly, sometimes with a financial settlement. Since 2000, West Virginia schools, for example, have reportedly paid nearly $7 million in settlements to suspected sexual predators. In the 1990s, Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft studied 225 complaints against teachers where there was convincing evidence sexual abuse had occurred. In more than half, school superintendents allowed the accused teachers to re sign or retire with no blemish on their records. And, Shakeshaft says, in none of those 225 cases did the superintendents notify the police, a legal mandate as of 2000. You'd think politicians would be demanding tougher laws, but many shy away from measures like mandatory background checks, in part because they're afraid to cross powerful teachers unions. At a minimum, schools must warn state officials when they have concerns about a teacher -- and the police should always notify schools about any troubling past charges. States might also follow the lead of New York, where a superintendent can be charged with a felony for letting a teacher resign rather than face a sexual misconduct allegation. Or Iowa, where after the Eveleth case, the state legislature passed a law saying that if an employee is terminated or resigns due to the sexual exploitation of a child, it must be reported to the Board of Educational Examiners. And, of course, any principal caught "passing the tr ash" should get the book thrown at him too. It's easy to say we have zero tolerance for sexual predators in schools, but we haven't yet passed the test.

So what does this have to do with D11? No passing of trash could ever happen in D11, correct? D11 is one of the only districts in the region that has a teacher's labor union, so of course this type of thing occurs locally. The labor union leaders openly admit that their role is to represent adults, not children.

In the 2002/2003 time frame, (prior to the election of the reform slate), the principal of a D11 elementary school was released (not officially terminated, but forced to retire) because of sexual harassment issues. The school board, under Lyman Kaiser, Karen Teja, Bruce Doyle, Mary Wierman, Delia Busby, and Waynette Rand, decided to pay this principal a $250,000 settlement. The police were never contacted (nor was a recall initiated, I might add). The principal was accused of inappropriate sexual contact with a female employee and of inappropriate sexual conduct in his school. After I was elected to the board, the board was briefed on the settlement by attorneys from HRO. HRO attorney Deb Menkins showed me and Sandy Shakes a crude sex toy that the principal actually hid in a 5th grade classroom in his school. There aren't too many places to hide such objects in a classroom, so the object was clearly within reach of 5th grade students. The principal was never charged with any crime, so of course he felt confident enough to continue to harass HRO and D11 for further payments beyond his 6 figure buy-out for sexual misconduct in a D11 school building.

Norm Ridder agreed to the buyout, and he did nothing to punish this principal. Dave Schenkel from Human Resources pushed for the buyout to avoid litigation. The teacher's labor union remained silent, even though there was a sexual deviant working in a school.

The following emal exchange was initiated by a D11 parent on a different topic. She still has kids in D11 schools, so I removed her name from this post. The email exchange highlights how D11 administrators turn their backs on wrong-doings of employees to avoid litigation from the labor union and the employees.

From: xxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:52 AM
To: sshakesd11boe@aol.com; mannmedia@yahoo.com; craigcox@adelphia.net;tamihaslingd11@adelphia.net; JohnGforD11@adelphia.net;breazell1@adelphia.net; ericchristen@adelphia.net; bishotn@d11.org
Cc: SteveJr@d11.org
Subject: question
Just wondering how a teacher who was dismissed mid year from Doherty HSwas now hired at West Middle School. My child was one of the witnesses, talked with the District lawyer regarding this teacher and at the end of the legal proceedings we were told (as I remember) that she was not fighting her dismissal. How can she be dismissed (for the reasons she was) from one D11 school and then hired at another?I noticed this after reading the last board minutes and the personnel recommendations. mom of D11 students.

This message is sent on behalf of Dr. Terry Bishop:
Dear Directors of the Board: On Wednesday, October 18, 2006, all Board members received an email from parent, (email below). Also, attached is an email from David Schenkel about the situation. According to David, the teacher was not dismissed and she was going to fight her dismissal. If you need additional information, please contact me at 520-2001 orDavid Schenkel at 520-2176. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----From: SCHENKEL, DAVID
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:34 AM
To: BISHOP, TERRY N.
Subject: RE: question
Dr. Bishop,There is not a teacher from Doherty High School that was terminated and working in a middle school this year. This individual is referring to a teacher who was up for termination that we went to mediation about and settled the issue by her accepting probationary status for this year. I have not heard of any problems at the middle school this year but if there are we will deal with a non renewal. The issues involved could have led to a very expensive legal battle on top of the other one we just settled last year. This mediation agreement gave her another chance and avoided large legal expenses to the District. Both principals involved agreed to the settlement as well as the Superintendent (Sharon). If you need further information please let me know.
DFS

Notice how Schenkel's response mirrors the issue in the Reader's Digest article. No one on the board was ever briefed as to the details of this allegation. Administrators kept claiming that the issue was "confidential." Even the mother who reported the issue in the first place, whose child was involved, was never able to receive an explanation for why the teacher was merely transfered to another school (trash passing). This was likely not a case of sexual assault on a child, but it illustrates how even the D11 administration places student concerns well below concerns of the labor union and litigation issues.

Monday, February 05, 2007

The Brain, redux

One can hardly digest all of the intellectually brilliant utterings from D11 board president John Gudvangen these days. Now that all of the “meanies” are off of the school board (with the exception of the dangerous Willie Breazell, as Gudvangen’s allies call him), Gudvangen has nothing to stand against. Due to the fact that he has never stood FOR anything, he is struggling to be relevant, or at least to appear to be so. Gudvangen used to spend board meetings informing the listening public that he was a poor picked on soul. The meanies, he said, were not allowing him to govern the way he wanted to govern. Apparently Gudvangen has found his governing niche. Since academics are no longer discussed at D11 board meetings, Gudvangen is more free to pen his next mindless quote for crack Gazette reporter Shari (My editors won’t let me write it) Chani-Griffith. While Tami Hasling and Jan Tanner giggle and pass little girl notes back and forth past Sandra (Where’s my Martini) Mann, Gudvangen has time to develop that next quotable quote.

Let’s go back to the January 14th Gazette. In an article on D11, Gudvangen is credited with the following::

Gudvangen said the fact that there’s a new board should not give district employees the idea it’s time to kick back and relax; instead, he said, it’s time to show progress can be made.”

This is as close as Gudvangen will come to ever saying anything that smells like the truth, so we need to give him credit for a “first.” Gudvangen is admitting here that the whole purpose behind wanting reformers off of the D11 board was due to the fact that we demanded accountability and performance. If that is not the case, why would Gudvangen make a statement such as this? He is clearly suggesting something that everyone else also knows: Gudvangen and his other labor union puppets on the board have no intention of holding anyone accountable for anything. They follow in a long tradition of inept board members who performed accordingly (Lyman Kaiser, Karen [Almost nobody should get a voucher, almost] Teja, Mary Wierman, Mary Ellen McNally, Lynn Petersen, and on and on). Thank you, Gudvangen, for warning the employees that they should not “kick back.” Your 8 years of sitting on boards and contributing nothing to academics will probably not cause fear in anyone’s mind that you are actually serious about showing progress. By the way, what progress could he possibly be talking about? This is the same Gudvangen who stated that he could not think of a single thing that needed to be improved in D11. Hmm.

Sean Paige did an excellent job of highlighting Gudvangen’s latest display of ignorance. In the February 4th Gazette, Paige chastised Gudvangen for having no idea that the mission of a school district is to actually educate kids. In an earlier article (February 4th), Gudvangen blamed a poorly governed board (of which he was the president, by the way) for parents removing their kids from D11 schools. It took Willie Breazell to point out the obvious, which is that parents might be removing their kids because they probably have this old-fashioned desire to have their children receive a thorough education. Gudvangen cannot comprehend something so silly. Is it really the fault of the reformers that people are leaving D11? The facts show that the D11 student population began to decline in the late 1990’s when school accountability measures began to be implemented by the state. Parents were able to see that D11 was not keeping up with surrounding districts, so these selfish parents had the nerve to find better places to educate their kids. No reformers were on the school board in the late 1990’s, but allies of Gudvangen were on the board.

Why did D11 have a greater loss of students than predicted this school year? Was it really the fault of reformers, who were trying to make the schools better, or was it the fault of people like Gudvangen, who claim that D11 schools are good enough? Gudvangen, Hasling, and Mann were elected in 2005 with the money of 3 Denver millionaires, the Progressive Majority out of Washington, D.C., and the National Education Association labor union, also out of D.C. It seems much more likely that those parents who saw this sickening alliance of ultra-liberals purchasing their school board decided that education was certainly not going to be a priority in D11 anytime soon. As the D11 budget woes continue to grow due to declining enrollment, let Gudvangen and his band of blind mice continue to play make believe at the expense of the taxpayers and students of D11. Who knows - maybe D11 will even name a half-empty school building in the southern end of D11 after Gudvangen. Somehow that would symbolically be extremely appropriate.

This is how Sean Paige handled the Gudvangen excuse making in the February 4th Gazette:

End the excuses How predictable. In Thursday’s story about falling enrollment in District 11 schools, board president John Gudvangen tried to blame “instability” and an “unhealthy organization” for the situation (we thought the catchword was “chaos,” John), though he probably can’t produce a speck of evidence to prove it. Oh, geez — are we really going to be hearing the reformers blamed any time the news out of D-11 is bad? How long does the new “Stepford board” think that will work? What happens on a school board is important, no doubt — and the struggle for the soul of the D-11 board in recent years made a compelling story. But most students and parents probably couldn’t name more than two members of the board if they had to. They care about education at the retail level — and obviously are finding the product lacking in D-11. Now, what do Gudvangen and other members of the kinder, gentler, less “chaotic” board intend to do about it? Absolutely nothing is the short answer, because almost everyone on the board willing to try new approaches, and willing to speak frankly about the district’s challenges, has been purged or resigned in frustration. Gudvangen & Co. might get away with playing the blame game for the next year or so. But how many more parents will leave the district in disgust, and students graduate with a subpar education, in the meantime?

free html counters
Circuit City Discounts