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.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

The games they play

Everyone remembers that no matter what we on the reform side of the D11 school board proposed with regards to improving the district, somebody would scream and shout and accuse us of having ulterior motives. For each policy change or proposal that we brought forward, the Gazette would immediately run a story that quoted some detractor on what our "true motives" really were. Everything that we said or did was turned into some sort of public controversy, no matter how much sense it made when the facts were analyzed.

The LRSUS committee was a group of D11 citizens and employees who met regularly for 2 years to study the building utilization situation in the district. The group made recommendations to the board in early 2004, and those recommendations included reutilization and consolidation of under-utilized school buildings. For the record, East Middle School was not on that list. If we reformers dared to mention the LRSUS recommendations, someone would organize a public outcry against us and they would accuse us of trying to shut down the district for reasons related to "personal agendas," even though a citizens' committee (not appointed by us) looked at the issue for two years and made those recommendations.

Although East was not on a list of schools to be closed or reutilized, the current board has made the decision to close the school anyway. I and other reform board members have stated for three years that if D11 did not step up to the plate and begin to get serious about improving its schools, the state would step in and force the issue. The closing of East has come about because D11 boards and administrators have continued to ignore the educational crisis that has existed in that school for years. ABC's 20/20 ran a special on out-of-control schools more than a decade ago, and East was one of the main highlights of the show. At the March 21st board meeting, John Gudvangen stated that past board members have written him to apologize for not making the hard decisions that this board is now making. Please. First of all, Gudvangen has a very sketchy history of truth-telling, so I doubt that what he said was true. Second, when we tried to have a discussion on reutilization of schools, Gudvangen, who set the meeting agendas, refused to allow and discussion on that topic to occur. He said over and over that there was no rush to make decisions dealing with school closures or consolidations. East is at this point because spineless people like Gudvangen and his ilk have NEVER made difficult decisions in this district. If anyone wrote Gudvangen to apologize for punting on tough decisions, it must have been one of his clones, such as Lyman Kaiser or Karen Teja.

The D11 board did not have to decide to close East. The state would allow the district to radically overhaul the school instead, leaving the neighborhood kids with a better school under better management. D11 administrators have already admitted over and over again that they have no knowledge of how to educate poor and minority kids, and they have no interest in learning how to do this. The board could have turned the building over to a competent authority, such as Cesar Chavez Charter school, but the current crop of board place-holders have been instructed by their union handlers to oppose charters at all costs. Having a successful charter in a school building that has not seen academic success in over a decade would only highlight the total incompetence of the D11 leadership. Everyone wants to be called "Doctor," but no one has a prescription for quality education.

Clay Gomez is the current principal at East. According to D11 administrators, Gomez was instructed by his bosses to do everything in his power to keep the teachers and parents of East under wraps as the decision to close East was being made. When the D11 board contained reform board members, the administration worked overtime to foment unrest against us. Accountability was unacceptable to these 6-figure "doctors," so they had to make us appear to be controversial. Even though the current board is closing East with no public input on the decision at all, the administration and board are working overtime to prevent any type of dissension on the issue. The current makeup of the board is exactly what the administration and labor union leaders want. These are people with no ideas, no leadership ability, and no courage to do anything other than what they are told to do. Any appearance of controversy must be squashed immediately to protect this do-nothing board. As usual, the local press is fast asleep on this issue.

The current members of the East teaching staff have all been promised jobs in other D11 school buildings. Despite the fact that the D11 student population continues to plunge, D11 will continue to add to its teaching staff numbers, placing more and more pressure on the district budget. The promise of jobs at other buildings was a condition that the labor union demanded for it to remain quiet on the closing issue. According to D11 sources, Clay Gomez has been promised the Principal's slot at Wasson High School beginning next school year if he successfully keeps his community quiet on the issue of closing. He has performed this task well, so we should expect to see him running Wasson next year.

As has been pointed out time and time again, if anyone believes for a minute that any decision is made by D11 administrators with the interests of students in mind, they are sadly mistaken. Decisions are made in D11 to protect big salaries, to protect mediocrity, and to protect the closed society that passes itself off as public school district #11.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Same as all the rest

When D11 superintendent Terry Bishop was hoping to be hired for the top job in the school district, one of his promises to the board members was that he would focus like a laser beam on education. He pointed out that he was nearing retirement, and he wanted to spend two years making a difference in the lives of the district's 29,000 kids.

Bishop agreed to take a salary of $130,000 when he took the job, as opposed to the $170,000 wasted on his predecessor, Sharon Thomas. That was a decent gesture to save the district some money, but the Bishop's are not suffering in poverty by any means. With Terry's wife Barbara pulling in over $90,000 as a principal, they are doing just fine.

The culture of D11 has always been one of cronyism and nepotism. Friends and relatives often get the jobs with the most money behind them, whether the friend or relative has any qualification to perform the job or not. The Bishop's son Kevin was hired into the district under shady circumstances, which I questioned while on the board. He was hired with doubts as to whether the job was properly posted and whether anyone else more qualified was actually ever considered. The answers from the administration were typically less than straight forward, and Kevin continues to earn over $52,000 working for D11.

Terry Bishop publicly stated to the board and community that he was not going to make his old job (Deputy Superintendent for IT) a deputy superintendent job again once he became superintendent. He said that he was going to simply make that job a Director's slot to keep the salary lower and save the district money. Sadly, once a person has lived within the back-slapping, backdoor dealings of D11, it is impossible to live a clean life again.

The following job posting was recently placed by D11:

Title Deputy Superintendent
Category Education/Training District Wide
School Population:
Grades:
School Name:
Location:Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Qualifications/Job Description
COLORADO SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEVEN
1115 North El Paso Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
Division of School and Instructional Support Services
SUMMARY OF FUNCTION:
Provides essential leadership in partnership with the Deputy Superintendent for Operations and Instruction for increasing student achievement and expanding learning opportunities for all students. Improving teaching, learning and management at the district and school levels in all areas for which each is responsible. Directs, facilitates and oversees functions, management, operations and administration of information, technology, assessment, evaluation, research, staff development and specified departments and programs including; Learning Resource Services (LRS), Information Services (IS), and Assessment Research, and Evaluation Office (AERO), and Professional Development. Works closely and collaboratively with other division heads, administrators, divisions, and departments to increase school and district performance and effectiveness.
ESSENTIAL JOB FUNCTIONS:
Provides essential leadership with the Deputy Superintendent for Operations and Instruction for increasing student achievement, expanding learning opportunitities for all students, meeting legislative requirements, improving teaching, learning, and management at the district and all school levels.
Provides essential leadership in partnership with the Deputy Superintendent of Operations and Instruction in implementing standards based instruction, current research and trends in the areas of standards-based learning, grants acquisition, special need learners, data driven instruction, strategies and initiatives for improving student achievement, and legislation impacting student learning.
Partners with the Deputy Superintendent of Operations and Instruction, other district staff including principals to assure that the functions of information and technology literacy; 21st. Century Learning Skills; data driven decision making; research, planning, assessment and evaluation; information access and application; and staff development have maximum impact on the district's mission of increased student achievement.
Coordinates and confers with other Deputy Superintendents/ Division Heads, Superintendent, Board of Education and administration regarding information, technology, research, assessment, and evaluation. Establishes related projects, directs and implements projects as needed. Coordinates division activities with related activities of other district divisions.
Participates in the development and monitoring of long range plans for the district as a whole, as well as, those of the Division of School and Instructional Support Service and the Division of Operations and Instructions, including individual school improvement plans.
Models, with others, leadership in instructional knowledge, curricular design and development, information and technology literacy, 21st Century Learning Skills, data driven decision making, continuous quality improvement, planning, customer service, communication skills, collaborative processing, and effective organizational design.
Participates in the accountability/accreditation process. Works with district liaison and as a resource to District Advisory Accountability Committee and District Accreditation Committee. Assures the Board of Education and administration are in compliance with Colorado Accountability/Accreditation law and rules.
Develops and directs district programs and curriculum/instruction evaluation and reporting system. Develops and monitors assessment mythology, technology and reporting systems.
Supervises and directs district-wide human resource development in the implementation of Board of Education and Superintendent's directives. Monitors program/project progress and effectiveness. Evaluates program/project effectiveness.
Analyzes, interprets, and relates educational data, issues and trends simultaneously with that of research and technology to develop effective and efficient solutions.
Coordinates the development of Board of Education Policies and Procedures and related policies and procedures under the direction of the Superintendent.
Assists/supports the superintendent and acts as superintendent's designee along with other Deputy Superintendents, as needed. Responds to requests from Board of Education, parents, community members, schools and district staff.
OTHER DUTIES:
Performs related duties as assigned.
KNOWLEDGES, ABILITIES AND SKILLS:
Knowledge of educational administration as applied to the development and implementation of instructional programs for the District.
Knowledge of Colorado laws, rules and regulations governing instructional program development and implementation.
Ability to plan, organize and direct the curriculum and instructional functions of the District.
Ability to supervise professional, technical and support staff.
Ability to perform sound instructional analysis and take or recommend appropriate actions regarding such matters.
Ability to communicate effectively.
Ability to collaboratively lead the work of teams, committees and work groups.
Ability to work cooperatively with others.
Ability to keep abreast of developments in the field.
QUALIFICATIONS:
Master's Degree (Doctorate preferred) in instructional technology, educational research or educational administration
Ph.D. in educational administration/curriculum preferred.
Ten years experience in central administration, building administration, development of curriculum and instructional programs and teaching.
Eligible for appropriate Colorado certification.
ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS:
Reports to Superintendent. Supervises executive management and other staff.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
The work is performed in a typical office environment.
PHYSICAL DEMANDS:
The work is mostly sedentary with periods of light physical activity. Typical positions require workers to walk or stand for long periods; lift and carry up to 20 pounds; climb stairs, bend, reach, hold, grasp and turn objects; and use fingers to operate computer or typewriter keyboards. The work requires the ability to speak normally and to use normal or aided vision and hearing.
FLSA STATUS:
Exempt.
WORK YEAR:
260 Days
SALARY:
Negotiable
Application Procedure
Applications and job descriptions can be obtained on the Web Site
www.cssd11.k12.co.us,. E-mail correspondence to THOMPLM@d11.org, Fax 520-2156, or mail correspondence to: School District #11, Mr. David F. Schenkel, Division Head-Human Resources; 1115 North El Paso Street; Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903.
Closing Date: Friday April 6, 2007 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Superintendent Division Head - Human Resources
Director of Equal Opportunity Programs & Ombudservice
Application Notes Use Executive/Professional Application from website
Salary Info Negotiable
Web Site
www.cssd11.k12.co.us
Start Date As soon as possible
Deadline04/06/2007
Contact Linda Thompson
School District #11 - Human Resources
1115 N. El Paso St.
Colorado Springs, CO 80903 USA
Contact Phone(719) 520-2176
Contact Fax(719) 520-2156
Contact Email
Thomplm@d11.org


Notice that the job description claims that the salary is "negotiable." Bishop made between $112,000 and $120,000 while holding down that job, not including bonus pay, which he always received whether district performance was up or not. You can expect that the person who fills this job will receive at least this amount, and probably more.

While this appears to be a job that is open to all comers who think that they are qualified, district administrators say that the person to whom Bishop wants to give this job has already been selected. To ensure that the cronyism continues, district insiders say that Bishop has created this job for his old pal Michael Poore. Poore has been a long time D11 employee, and long time friend of Bishop. It is more important for Bishop to hand an old friend a healthy 6-figure salary than it is for him to keep his commitment to the tax payers of D11. Is Poore qualified to make a 6-figure salary in an IT leadership role? Who knows, but that doesn't matter when you are talking about D11. IT was one of the areas most criticized by teachers when Bishop was heading that department. He had no specific qualifications to hold that job, so why should Poore? It is all about friendships and favoritism. Whether the public gets anything for this money is irrelevant, as the public typically doesn't pay attention enough to care. Don't expect the Gazette to pick up on this Bishop flip-flop, either. If it doesn't deal with reform, then it isn't a scandal.

D11 CFO Glenn Gustafson asked Bishop to keep the salary down at a Director's level. Gustafson said that another Deputy Superintendent's salary would put a squeeze on the D11 budget. Bishop's response to his CFO? Tough - let the budget be damned. Thanks, Terry, for caring.

Bishop knows that the lethargic school board, under the direction of anti-parent board president John Gudvangen, will allow him to hire whoever he chooses, no questions asked. Bishop also knows that the D11 community will never hear a discussion about this new hire, as the compliant press and board will never mention it.

Bishop came on board with an aggressive 25 point plan to improve the district. Has he acted on even one of those 25 points? CSAPs have come and gone, April is right around the corner, and academically, Bishop and his high paid staff have been missing in action. As far as being a typical D11 good-old-boy crony, Bishop gets an A+.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Follow your heart - Please!

Lori Watson is a member of the Colorado Springs Education Association executive board, and along with husband Tom, is a primary spokesperson for the local labor union. Lori is also a teacher at East Middle School, a school that is about to be closed by the D11 board of education. For the record, out of a board of seven people, Willie Breazell is the only reform board member of the bunch. Although he will likely receive blame for the closure of a public school, John Gudvangen is actually leading the charge on this closing.

In the Friday, March 16th Gazette article on the pending East closure, Lori Watson is quoted from a statement that she made during the public hearing portion of Wednesday's board meeting. She said this with regards to what would happen if East closed and she was moved to a different school to teach: "It will be hard for me to open my heart again."

Lori is an 8th grade math teacher at East. 8th grade math test scores at East hover around 13% proficient and advanced. For minority students at East, the numbers are even lower. The assumption on Lori's part is that she will certainly be transferred to another D11 school after the closure of East. Because she is a labor union big-wig, she will definitely be placed in another school. Even though D11 has been losing students to surrounding districts for over a decade now, and even though the district will soon have one less school building, the administration will not reduce the total number of teachers. The labor union will not give the administration permission to reduce teachers because that would hurt the political funding of the labor union.

In the same article on East, Lori's co-worker said this about the low performance at East: "You can’t measure what students know and what they can do based solely on a test." OK, fine, don't use the CSAP test to determine what these students know after three years of attending that school. I would challenge the apologists for mediocrity to use any tools or methods of their own choosing to determine how much these students have learned. Can they perform basic math skills that would be expected of an 8th grader? Can they read simple letters and statements (according to attendees at the public hearing from two weeks ago, 8th grade students struggled to read simple statements that their teachers had prepared for them)? What is their knowledge of science, history, and social studies? On one hand, excuse makers like Watson and Griffin claim that these East students are unable to academically achieve, so people should stop accusing the teachers of not doing their jobs. On the other hand, they say that these kids can achieve, but only in ways that are not measurable. In other words, due to the color of these students' skin or their level of income, they are very different from other kids - so different, in fact, that we can't have any level of expectations of them because there just isn't any way to measure how well they are doing.

Finally, I would advise Lori to follow her heart. If she couldn't educate those kids at East when her heart was allegedly open, the last thing we need is to put someone like that in front of somebody else's children when her heart is closed. I can't imagine any principal saying, "Hey, I want that teacher in my school building. Give me a teacher whose heart is closed to kids because they are not sitting in a specific school building."

The sad reality is that Lori has been one of the most loyal and vocal labor union laborers, so the labor union leaders will force some principal to place her in a classroom whether her heart is open or closed to kids.

You were honest enough to say that your heart will be closed to kids when East closes its doors, Lori. Please, follow your heart.

Friday, March 16, 2007

Forget Waldo, where the heck is Norvelle?

Norvelle Simpson is an ex-D11 board member who served on the board more than a decade ago. He had moved away from Colorado Springs for several years, and when he returned just last year, he was asked by Mary Ellen McNally to join her in the recall effort. Although Norvelle did nothing notable as a board member, somehow his presence during the recall effort was supposed to give the effort credibility in the black community, as Norvelle is black. Ironically, during Norvelle's term on the board, minority performance in D11 lagged well behind the performance of white students. Norvelle was just happy to call himself an elected official, and he dutifully ignored the plight of minorities, because he was told to ignore it.

Although Norvelle has no idea what the issues are in D11, during the recall campaign he was told to repeat over and over that the reform board members were intent on closing school buildings and selling them to private developers. In a particularly bizarre incident, as Eric Christen and I were appearing on the Joseph Michelli radio show, Norvelle called in and once again repeated his claim that we were going to close school buildings and sell the properties to private developers. How that would have benefit us, Norvelle never said. He never thought things through quite that far, but that wasn't the point. Honesty is not a consideration for the anti-reform, anti-parent crowd. The bizarre part about Norvelle's call is that when we asked him, on air, where he came up with the theory that we were going to close schools and sell them to private developers, Norvelle blurted out that the reason he knew that we were going to sell off schools was because that is what he did when he was on the board. Norvelle pointed out that he closed South Junior High School and sold the property to a development company that was associated with Steve Schuck. He concluded that since he did that, then it was obvious that we were going to do that. OK, Norvelle, that sounded brilliant. It was reported that Norvelle's handlers instructed him to never confront us again so as not to sound quite so out of touch.

Now that the D11 board is firmly in the hands of the union purchased status quo crowd once again, there is talk on the board of closing East Middle School. In fact, the leading option that the board is being told to choose is to close East and sell the property to a private entity. What does Norvelle say about this? What does he think about the fact that the students who will be most displaced by the closure of East will be minority kids? Well, we don't know. Norvelle has not shown his face or said a word about the issue. Norvelle claimed that he was never driven by politics, but by an altruistic concern for the children of D11. Why, then, has Norvelle not weighed in on the East closure? If anyone can find him, maybe they can ask him.

The obvious reason that Norvelle has been silent is because he was nothing more than a political pawn who was used by the old liberal white women who ran the recall campaign. They used him and then discarded him until they need to use a minority face for one of their causes again. Sadly, Norvelle probably has no idea that a discussion is even occurring about East. He was never all that interested in D11 in the first place, even when he sat on the board.

When we were on the board, we called for East to be reutilized. We called for placing one of the best charter schools in the state (Cesar Chavez) into East to give those kids a chance at a real education. On top of that, these kids would have received a quality education without having to be bused across town to get to a school. This board will not consider a charter option because they do not like the parental choice that charters offer. The labor union opposes charters because the teachers are not unionized, so the union leaders have not given the board members permission to vote for a charter option. The administration, led by the anti-choice CFO Glenn Gustafson, does not want a charter in East because Gustafson claims that charters drain money from the general fund. Note to Glenn: when the district loses 500-1000 students per year to surrounding districts, THAT drains money from the general fund, too.

A bigger fear for D11 educrats is that a charter such as Cesar Chavez would thrive in a school like East. That would be bad for the administration, because it would show that these kids can actually learn, and it would highlight the incompetence of an administration whose 6-figure earners cannot figure out how to educate kids themselves. If a school came into D11 and actually educated kids who are poor or minority, that would remove a primary excuse from the administration, which is that teachers can have no impact on students from certain socio-economic backgrounds.

When you find Waldo, look around. Norvelle might be lurking in the shadows, afraid and confused. How is a poor man like this supposed to explain his silence when the board that he chose to support is doing the very thing that he once said was unthinkable?

How does it feel to be used, Norvelle?

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Just a celebrity

The problem with picking someone who simply has name recognition to run for public office is that they often bring to the table nothing but - you guessed it - name recognition.

In 2005, the CSEA labor union chose Sandra Mann to anchor their slate of anti-parent candidates for the D11 board race. With funding from Tim Gill and his Denver homosexual allies, and with hundreds of thousands of dollars from The Progressive Majority and the NEA, Mann and her two liberal counterparts won the race.

What has Mann brought to the table since the election? For one, she has a checkered past. Some wonder if her past would withstand the type of scrutiny that her side gave to Eric Christen's past. Equally as important and disturbing is that Mann appears to have very little interest in the happenings of the board or in D11 in general. While I was on the board, she would never bring her read-ahead packet to meetings. Tami Hasling would have to guide her through the agenda as the meeting progressed (talk about the blind leading the blind -if Hasling has to be the guide dog, you know you're in trouble). Mann never had a grasp over any topic that the board addressed. She knows nothing about the academic situation in the district, and as I have pointed out in the past, she relies totally on outside "guidance" to direct her on her votes.

The following email exchange between Mann and Toby Norton dealt with the East Middle School issue. In a previous blog, I highlighted how these current board members do nothing without taking marching orders from someone else. This email exchange proves that point. Although the liberals on the board dislike Toby because of her pro-parent activism, there was nothing tricky about the questions in the email. The answers given by Mann, however, will leave you scratching your head.

--- Toby N wrote:
Director Mann:
Is there any chance that you would consider listening to a discussion about the possibility of the Cesar Chavez Academy being installed at the East Middle School Facility? I live six blocks from East Middle School, but because of the long neglect of that school, and the tendency to assign less than quality teachers, I have exercised my option to permit my middle schoolers out of our neighborhood for many years. I believe the students who attend East Middle School are not being given a fair shake. While the stuff might look good on paper or sound good during board updates, the expectations just aren't there. I ask that you look into the possibility of Cesar Chavez Charter Academy being given a chance to educate the very children that our administration says, basically, can't learn. They are doing wonderful things in Pueblo, outperforming many of their traditional counterparts. I am sure you have heard many rumors about why they are doing so well and I implore you to go to the source and see for yourself, as I have, and debunk those rumors. I believe the fear of any sort of competition or success with those our district hasn't had success with is a poor reason not to at least have a serious discussion about possibilities. I believe if the marquis outside the building announced Cesar Chaves Coming August 2007, you would see many of my neighbors and my children enrolled in their neighborhood middle school instead of the 371 of us permitting out. Please at least consider this option. It is so disheartening to see "turn over to charter" only in Mr. Gustafson's PowerPoint with no serious discussion related to that option. I appreciate your consideration regarding this matter.
Toby Norton

sandra mann wrote:
Hello Toby,
Thank you for the invitation to discuss the possiblity of the Cesar Chavez Academy being located in East Middle School. As I'm sure you know we are in the midst of the decision making process on the future of East. Therefore, I would prefer to wait until a final decision on what will be done with East in the immediate future be determined before I meet and discuss the future of Cesar Chavez in District 11. Once that decision is made by the board I would be open to discussing all options for East. Please feel free to stay in touch on this subject.
Thanks,
Sandra Mann (719) 548-0503

--- Toby N wrote:
Sandra,
I think the time is now to discuss this option, as the charter is currently seeking a location in the southcentral part of our district. The student demographic that attends East is exactly the student Cesar Chavez Academy is geared to teach. We (District 11) have tried, but not succeeded where I truly believe the Chavez Academy can. If the decision is made to sell the building, the conversation never happens. If the decision is made to defer for a year, the charter school will more than likely find another location and the conversation won't happen. I truly want to see this school (Chavez) in my neighborhood - I live six blocks from East. I know my neighborhood, I know these kids, they're my neighbors. They need what Chavez has to offer them. Please give them more than a cursory glance. I am having a little difficulty understanding where you are coming from, waiting until after what? Until after the public hearing and the board votes to adopt one of the three options currently on the table? I am asking that this be considered as Option 4. Thanks for responding, please don't dismiss this option, what I consider a perfect solution to our dilemma. If we wait a year, this choice could be out of our hands. I say let's beat them to the punch and charter it and watch those kids soar!

Toby

--- sandra mann wrote:
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 10:48:29 -0800 (PST)
From: sandra mann
Subject: Re: Would you consider?
To: Toby N

Hello.
I will be open to speaking with you about this after the decision is made on East.
Thank you,
Sandra

So there you have it. Sandra Mann will be happy to discuss the options of what to do about East with a citizen AFTER the decision has already been made on what to do with East. In other words, Mann is waiting for someone to tell her what decision to make (and people thought that my "spoof" article was a spoof!). The point is, Mann has no idea about what to do with East (clubhouse?) and she really doesn't care. She won't want to have to put thought into this, because it is easier to have someone tell her how to vote. Why confuse the issue by discussing other options that weren't presented by the administration? Why do your duty and try to represent the public for a change?

This is the quality of school board member that a community gets when the community simply votes on name recognition. Mann doesn't have any idea what is going on in this district, and neither do most of the other school board members. This is the exact type of board that the labor union and administration want, though. A board that knows what is going on would ask questions and demand answers. A board that knew what was going on would try to hold people accountable. The labor union and administration want none of that. A board like this will continue to represent the administration against the public instead of representing the public's interest to the administration. That makes the jobs of the big money earners in D11 much easier.

Look at Mann's confused and backwards emails, and then realize what over $1 million in outside money bought D11 for its school board. Remind me, again, who is destroying public education?

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Misplaced passion

On Saturday, March 10th, the Gazette printed several comments made by readers with regards to the three-part series on drop outs. Although the articles were not about D11 specifically, most of the reader comments were critical of D11. One of the comments was by a parent who said that his/her son dropped out of D11. The parent concluded with this:

My son is brilliant, and he was bored — forced to sit in class after class with teachers expounding on their politics and what they did last summer.

At the elementary level, you probably won't hear of this type of thing very often. Elementary teachers don't tend to push their political views on students. As the student moves up through the middle and high schools, it is possible that he or she will face political posturing. In my opinion, political discussions for older students in classes that deal with social studies is probably a good thing, as long as the teacher allows for fair and even debate. While most teachers even at this level do not push their political views on their students, those teachers who are the labor union activists are the most likely to expect their students to share their left-wing political views.

One of the most vocal labor union activists in D11 is Tom Watson. He is one of the labor union representatives at Doherty High School. He spends countless hours on blogs trashing anyone who disagrees with his narrow views (rarely does he have the courage to use his real name). The purpose of this post is to illustrate that there are people like Watson who are extremely passionate about their politics, to the point that it interferes with what matters most, which is educating kids. While never offering any ideas of his own to improve D11, Watson will attack (with passion) anyone who offers any ideas on education. It seems that as far as he is concerned, there is no room for improvement in our schools.

The following is an excerpt from an email sent to the D11 board by a parent. This is just part of the email, and the parent's name is removed. The rest of the email dealt with math.

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: sshakesd11boe@aol.com
Cc: ; ; ; ; ; dlinebaugh@adelphia.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:49 PM
Subject: Math and Political Issues

...In addition, my husband has had letters to the editor published over the last several months stating his political views regarding educational choice/anti-union. Approximately three weeks ago after his letter was published, Mr Tom Watson, who as you know is the union representative in Doherty HS, asked our son who his father was. Our son knowing that the letter was published, stated he didn't know what he was talking about. Mr Watson went back through previous letters to the editor and apparently checked records and told my son that it was his father. I feel that for this to have occurred in the classroom borders on intimidation and bullying...

A concerned parent hoping for change!

Here you have a teacher who will not tolerate anyone having an opinion on education unless it is his own opinion, even if that anyone is a parent. Watson will excuse any behavior by any labor union member, he will make excuse after excuse for low performing schools and teachers, but he will not stand by quietly and allow anyone to criticize his cherished labor union. It would be Watson's style to deny even talking to the student, but he couldn't deny it this time because other kids in the classroom saw and heard what he did. The email exchange on this topic continued:

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Cox [mailto:craigcox@adelphia.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 1:37 PM
To: martijl@d11.org; THOMAS, SHARON A.
Subject: Fw: Math and Political Issues

The part of this email that particularly bothers me is the part about a teacher harassing a student because of his parents' political views. I look forward to hearing how this will be handled. Thanks.

Craig Cox
219-0032


From: MARTIN, JILL L
To:
'Craig Cox'
Cc:
THOMAS, SHARON A.
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 3:19 PM
Subject: RE: Math and Political Issues


Craig,
I appreciate your forwarding this to me. I am very disturbed to read the allegations regarding Mr. Watson and will look into this first thing tomorrow morning. I will get back to Dr. Thomas and you before the end of the day regarding this concern.
I will also address the questions regarding the Math changes last year, and why Mrs. Williams and Mrs. Keller (the other Math teacher not teaching a full load) are assigned other responsibilities.
Again, thanks for bringing this parent's concern to my attention. Jill

From: "MARTIN, JILL L" MARTIJL@d11.org

To:
CC: "THOMAS, SHARON A." , "'craigcox@adelphia.net'" Subject: Math and Political Issues
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:30:49 -0600

(Mr. & Mrs.....),
Thank you so much for meeting with me yesterday evening regarding your concerns with Math in our District, questions about Math at Doherty, and the incident with Mr. Watson and (student) in the Social Studies class. I really appreciated your sincere interest in improving education and your support for teachers. I am writing this to summarize our discussion and to ensure that I understood the issues as well as your needs for resolution.

As I shared, Mr. Watson was very surprised that (student) felt uncomfortable when he asked him what his Dad's first name was. He meant to initiate a conversation, not to intimidate him in any way. However, he understands how (student) (and you when you heard about this) could have interpreted his interest in the letter you wrote, especially when he later confirmed to (student) that the writer was his Dad, as a criticism. As you are aware, he did speak to your son about it earlier this week to ensure that (student) feels comfortable in his class. I talked with Mr. Watson briefly after our meeting, and he will email you, per your suggestion, so that he can specifically address your concerns about your son.
I also shared your discomfort with the examples of persuasive essays/letters that he used in class (Letters to the Editor from the Gazette addressing both sides of the Mill Levy question). While his intent was to find something relevant to the students, he understands how you could have found this unsettling following the question about your letter.

So Watson was "surprised" that a student would feel intimidated that he questioned him on his father's letter to the editor. Just because Watson took the time and effort to look through Gazette files and district records to determine that the writer really was the father of the student, why would the student become upset at what Watson was trying to do? Watson was apparently vocal about his political views prior to this incident or the student would not have become nervous when Watson questioned him about the letter to the editor. Just trying to start a conversation? Come on.

As a member of the labor union's executive committee, Watson's was one of the names that I showed who misses a lot of school. Many of those days missed are for labor union activities. I have publicly commented that Watson is a good classroom teacher when he is teaching his U.S. History topic. Even the parents of the child who Watson tried to intimidate agree with that. The problem is that I question the judgment of anyone like that who cannot separate their private labor union activities with classroom activities. Many D11 employees describe the working environment in the district as "Soviet-like," with labor union enforcers running around making sure that nobody gets out of line with the group-think. If you don't belong to the labor union, you will never get a promotion to administration; if you criticize the administration, you are placed on an informal list. In plain English, you are blackballed. That is the internal dynamic between adult employees of D11. It goes too far when some people try to take that dynamic and use it against parents and students, particularly because it is the parents'school district in the first place.

Watson is not the only labor union activist who pushes his politics in the classroom. Diana Beatty, a math teacher at Coronado High School, also appears to push her political views in her math classroom. Math class does not seem to be the appropriate spot to push politics, but Beatty is the secretary to the CSEA executive board, so everything is politics to her.

Beatty writes the following on her Masooma blog:

Evidence suggests that if the will of the people had truly been carried out, Bush would not have been President in 2000 or in 2004. There is an interesting section in my AP Statistics class that I teach about the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County, Florida "throwing" the election to Bush when the intent of voters (although apparently they could not figure out the ballot - what a plethora of sad commentary could be said there) would have actually made Gore president. (If you didn't know, the outcome for president in 2000 arguably came down to the results of the single county of Palm Beach.) There's a whole other disgusting problem when the public doesn't bother to educate themselves on use of the ballots, knowing the issues, etc. (Underline mine)

That entry begs many questions, one of which would be, "What kind of statistics are being taught in that class?" Every newspaper in the country counted those ballots, and none of them could find the votes to "make Gore president." Coronado uses new-new math, so accuracy is not all that important, I suppose. There are countless ways to illustrate and teach statistics. It seems a little odd that, coincidentally, this teacher chooses a method that supports her left-wing political views, in a math class no less.

Teachers have no business pushing their political views on students when the class is not about politics, Luckily, the majority of teachers do not do this in D11. The few that do are mainly the labor union activists who will accept no views other than those espoused by their labor union bosses.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

It's so confusing

The Gazette ran an article on Saturday (March 10th) about the reprimand issued to the D11 administration and board. The reprimand was issued unanimously by the DAAC due to the fact that the district violated state law by changing the school district calendar without having a 30 day period for the community to comment. As I wrote before, I am not commenting one way or another about the fact that the school day is now 30 minutes longer. Whether that is good or bad is debatable. What is not debatable is the clear wording of state statute on what school districts are required to do prior to changing the district calendar.

In the Gazette article, D11 spokesperson Elaine Naleski was quoted as saying that the district did not need to worry about the 30 day notice because the calendar was not changed. This is what the Gazette reported:

"The DAAC’s resolution to the board says a 30-day window is required to make changes to the calendar. The district says it did not change the school calendar so the 30-day comment period does not apply. "
The last day of school is still May 24 as listed on the calendar, said district spokeswoman Elaine Naleski."


So Naleski claims that a change in the school day is not a change in the calendar. Apparently, every member of the DAAC disagrees. What is interesting about this claim by D11 is that even Naleski must not believe that it is true. Later in the article, the Gazette reported this:

"D-11 officials are starting to discuss what to do if there are no more cancellations because of bad weather. The district might subtract minutes from the school day at some point or eliminate a teacher workday at the end of the year, Naleski said, to make sure the district does not violate its contract with teachers."

Notice what Naleski said. First of all, she confirmed my earlier report that the schedule change was ordered by the labor union leadership without parental input. The labor union argues that even though teachers did not attend school during the snow days, and even though they were paid for these days not worked, any addition to the end of the year schedule would constitute a violation of the master agreement, which only allows teachers to work a total of 183 days (not student contact days, total work days). Here is the tricky part for Naleski - she said that if there are no more snow days, the district will have to subtract either minutes or days from the calendar so as not to violate the master agreement. Naleski just got done saying that there was no calendar change, and therefore no reason to pay attention to the 30 day notice as required by law. So, if there was no calendar change, why would the district need to subtract minutes or days so as not to violate the contract? The master agreement says this:

"The school year will be based upon the calendar with the understanding that the school calendar is subject to emergency changes, but that such changes shall not affect the total number of work days required, that is for school year 2006-2007 one hundred eighty three (183) days..."

If there was no change to the calendar, and if there are no additional snow days, what possible contract violation could exist? The contract is based on the "calendar" and it talks about changes to the "calendar."

What happened, of course, is blatantly obvious. One version of reality was offered to explain why parents and taxpayers were excluded from the discussion on this issue, and another story was offered to explain why the district had to appease the labor union masters. As one labor union activist said, parents have no right to have a say on the calendar because "they don't have a vested interest in the school calendar."

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Follow-up to "Educators protect bad apples"

On February 8th, I illustrated how educators around the country and here in D11 protect other educators, even when they are "bad apples." In that post, I included an email exchange between a parent and D11 administrators in dealing with an incident at Doherty High School. At the time, I did not know the specifics of the incident. It is routine for the administration to keep the board in the dark about incidents involving employees. I have since been contacted by people who told me about the nature of the incident.

According to witnesses. the teacher in question used a racial slur to a black student, specifically calling him a "stupid nig__r" in front of several other students. These student witnesses were interviewed by D11 staff and D11 attorneys from HRO. D11 staff and HRO attorneys confirmed the story. Parents were informed that the case had potential to go to court because the teacher was going to be fired. Parents were later informed that their students would probably not have to testify in court because the teacher was not fighting her termination.

Sharon Thomas was the superintendent at the time of this incident. She chose not to fire this teacher, but failed to tell that to the parents. Instead, this teacher was suspended with pay, and then transferred to West Middle School. The board was never informed of this incident prior to the transfer. Another parent had to bring it to the board in an email, after which others filled in the remaining details.

As a reminder of the cavalier way in which D11 Human Resource Director David Schenkel handled the incident, here was his email:

-----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

Thanks, David. Looks as if this teacher hasn't used that racial slur just yet at West, so she is good to go. Don't want a legal fight over this one. Now, if she makes it through this school year without using a racial slur, she will no longer be on probation anymore. Then, if she uses it again, well, D11 can just transfer her somewhere else. Such great and strong leadership.

Is this really a minor issue to have a teacher use that type of slur against a high school student (in front of other students, no less)? The D11 labor union stepped in on behalf of the teacher, not the student, of course. The attorney for this teacher even requested (and received) student records of the student witnesses. This was apparently some sort of attempt at intimidation.

The labor union was heavily involved in the recall effort against Sandy Shakes and Eric Christen. They said that Christen was "mean" and that board members who fought with each other set a bad example for "our children." Is calling a student a "stupid nig__r" a good example for kids? If unpaid board members have no right to serve on a school board because they are perceived as "mean," should paid employees have a right to serve in the schools when they clearly violate all standards of professional conduct in dealing with students?

This action is actually very consistent and very expected from the liberals who run D11. They and their most vocal apologists have always shown a strong disregard for poor and minority students who they feel are not worthy of much effort in the first place. Why inconvenience a labor union teacher over an offense dealing with a minority student? Transfer the teacher, keep the whole incident hush-hush, and to Hell with the student.

Remember when Willie Breazell stated that he did not think that the white teachers were setting high enough expectations for black students? Remember how the labor union organized a protest against Breazell, calling him a bigot and a racist? Did anyone hear of any protests against this teacher who used this racial slur?

Close your eyes for a minute and use your imagination. Imagine if Craig Cox or Eric Christen or Sandy Shakes or Willie Breazell would have used that slur. What would the response have been from the labor union? What would the response have been from Create Chaos? What would the Gazette headline have been?

A D11 teacher uses a racial slur against a student, she threatens to sue the district if any action is taken against her, the labor union steps in to protect her, she loses no pay, she loses no seniority, she simply transfers to another D11 school. On top of that, parents of students who witnessed the incident are told that they have no right to know anything further about the incident, citing privacy rights of the teacher.

Where are the self-appointed watchdog groups who claim to care so much about the children of D11?

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Master Agreement, Part 4

All of my articles on the School District 11 Master Agreement so far have shown that the agreement is a very one-sided instrument. Out of the three parties to the agreement, (labor union, teachers, and school board), only the labor union stands to benefit from many of the provisions. In any true bargaining agreement, of course, all parties should stand to benefit equally.

Chapter X of the master agreement contains those provisions that directly effect the teaching environment. This chapter directly limits teachers and administrators in their ability to plan and execute classroom instruction. This is one chapter that the labor union bosses DO NOT want to allow to change because the chapter not only gives them control over the teachers, but it gives them control over administrators and tax payers, as well.

Article X.A.1. is what labor union bosses used to force the D11 administration to violate state law by adding hours to the school day without a 30 day public comment period. It states: "The school year will be based upon the calendar with the understanding that the school calendar is subject to emergency changes, but that such changes shall not affect the total number of work days required, that is for school year 2006-2007 one hundred eighty-three (183) days, and up to three (3) additional days for teachers new to the District."

The labor union claimed that it would be a violation of the contract if the district used the snow days that are already programmed into the calendar. These days fall at the end of the school year. Of course, all teachers were paid for each snow day that they did not work this year, and since they did not attend school on those days, the work year would not have been extended beyond 183 days. In the minds of the labor bosses, the master agreement trumps state law. Due to the fact that D11 has a labor union purchased school board, the master agreement often DOES trump state law.

Article X.A.2.b.- The normal work week for teachers shall not exceed thirty-five and one-half (35 1/2) hours per week excluding the lunch periods.

If you dare ask why the contract limits teachers to a 35-1/2 hour work week, you will hear that teachers spend countless hours beyond those 35-1/2 hours grading papers, planning, collaborating, etc. In a typical bout of dishonesty, Colorado Springs Education Association labor union leader Irma Valerio actually wrote in a Gazette Op-ed that the 35-1/2 provision actually means that teachers have voluntarily limited themselves to being paid for 35-1/2 hours per week when they really work well beyond that amount. Yes, that is absurd, but to become a labor union boss, one must master the art of absurdity.

If teachers really do work well beyond a 35-1/2 hour week, why on earth would they not want the contract to reflect at least a normal 40 hour work week? As I will show, collaboration and planning are actually included in these 35-1/2 hours. This limitation is extremely damaging to D11 and it is appalling to even think that this could exist in a district that has so many schools that need to improve.

Article X.A.3.- Secondary teachers may be required to instruct students for 1,375 minutes of any normal work week.

For the math impaired, 1,375 minutes per week amounts to 4.5 hours of instruction per day. High school and middle school teachers are only allowed to instruct students for 4.5 hours per day per teacher.

Article X.A.3.a. - A time equivalent to one-fifth (1/5) of the high school instructional assignment shall be reserved for each teacher's planning and conferences. The computation of the 275 minutes per day and the planning time equivalent may be based upon minutes per year.

In plain language, for each 1,375 minute duty week, 275 minutes per week shall be set aside for teachers to perform planning. The 1,375 plus the 275 equals 1,650 minutes. Simple math shows that this amounts to 27-1/2 hours per week. If the work week is limited to 35-1/2 hours, what is happening with the other eight hours? For a 5-day week, this amounts to 1.6 hours per day of unaccounted time, or 96 minutes per day. Maybe this time is being used for other duties, such as supervising lunch or recess or bus loading, or maybe not.

Article X.A.4.a. - The extent to which a teacher is assigned to non-teaching duties (such as, but not limited to, recess supervision, playground supervision, and bus duty) shall not exceed an annualized average of 300 minutes per twenty (20) consecutive school days for each teacher.

I understand that I have been performing some very high level math over these paragraphs, but this article limits these additional duties to an average of 15 minutes per day. If a teacher was performing these additional duties every day, that still leaves 6-3/4 hours per week of unaccounted time on a 35-1/2 hour work week. Maybe they are having conferences with parents?

Article X.A.6. - ...Teachers shall be provided with an equivalent amount of time off during the normal school day for time spent in such evening conference(s).

In other words, conferences do not count against the time spent in the school during a normal 35-1/2 hour work week. How about collaboration and planning and all of these other activities?

Article X.A.3.d.- All schools will collaboratively develop release time in their schedules for professional work, growth and renewal, and involvement (such as collaboration, planning, record keeping, staff development, wellness, community interaction, committee work, partnerships, grant writing, collegial groups, faculty meetings, open houses, professional learning communities, and continuous quality improvement goal teams).

OK, so all of that cannot count against the 35-1/2 work week either. So, teachers have 6 hours and 45 minutes of time each week within their 35-1/2 hour duty day to themselves. Principals are not permitted to use these teachers to instruct students during this time. Many teachers wish that they were able to spend this additional time in front of students, but labor union leaders refuse to allow them to work beyond contract minimums. They say that it would create a situation where additional work would be expected of all teachers, and in their view, this is unfair. More importantly, it would empower individual teachers and principals, and it would certainly benefit kids. Labor union leaders cannot allow that.

Article X of the master agreement is a huge impediment to the performance of D11. When you have a district with so many of its schools in crisis, the attitude ought to be one of "anything goes to educate kids." Instead, labor union activists continue to insist that anything beyond a 35-1/2 hour work week will overburden the teaching staff. While mediocrity apologists insist that poor and minority students cannot learn, they might be better able to learn if they received more instructional time while they are in the school buildings. Student needs should trump master agreement restrictions, but they do not. Weak and meaningless school boards, such as exists currently in D11, will never place the students’ needs ahead of the interests of their masters in the labor union. Nor will weak and overpaid administrators publicly fight for the students and parents who pay their bloated salaries.

A 40 hour work week should be implemented in D11 for all employees. Principals should have broad latitude to schedule teachers to meet the needs of every student in their buildings during this 40 hour week.

Labor union activists say that anyone who questions the 35-1/2 hour work week and 4.5 hour instructional work day is surely attacking teachers. Any criticism of any school is met with this same rejoinder. In reality, I am saying that students will receive more benefit if teachers spent more time teaching them. In other words, teachers are important and should be in the classroom. The labor union is saying that teachers should be severely restricted and should have hard and fast time limits in front of kids. Just as on the issue of teacher absences, the labor union diminishes the importance of having teachers consistently in the classrooms. It is the labor union, therefore, that is devaluing teachers.

The D11 master agreement should not restrict the D11 school managers (principals) from utilizing their staffs in any manner necessary to educate kids. If education is important, then it is time to treat it as if it is important. With the school board firmly under the control of the labor union (and with most of the board having no idea what is in the contract), this will not happen anytime soon.

Monday, March 05, 2007

Recall the U.S. Chamber

Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce CEO Will Temby and Colorado Springs Economic Development Corporation head Mike Kazmierski must be in shock. On page A14 of the March 4th Gazette blared the headline, "Report: Bad schools may hurt economy." Wow, what a shocking revelation. I can only imagine the amount of money spent to arrive at that conclusion. What probably has Temby and Kazmierski shook up is that the U.S. Chamber of commerce joined with a liberal think-tank, the Center for American Progress, in pointing out that our public schools are failing in their primary role: educating kids. Temby and Kazmierski believe that the Chamber and business community are to stay out of education issues. They say that they would never want to involve themselves in something so political and so irrelevant to the future of our nation, especially if there are mean people on school boards. Funny, I have yet to see them involving themselves in surrounding districts with "nice" school boards.

Of course I am being only half-sarcastic. Both Temby and Kazmierski proved me to be correct with my predictions about them and the business community. In my expanded resignation letter from the board, I pointed out how these two continue to avoid pressuring the local school districts to perform (Kazmierski is married to a teacher, so he has been ordered to stay out of school issues), but that they would scream and holler in a heartbeat about any other political issue that might effect the bottom line of the business community. Any reader of the Gazette will remember the quotes from both Temby and Kazmierski when the Democrats began pushing through their "we love the union" bill that Governor Ritter vetoed (but will allow to return in a different form). Neither of these business "leaders" was afraid to fight that political battle, yet they still refuse to pay attention to the sluggish state of education in their own community. Their excuse in the past was that Eric Christen was mean, so they had to stay away. Now that Christen is gone, what is their excuse?

Unlike the local business "leaders," the U.S. Chamber has had enough. The conclusion of the Chamber and the Center for American Progress was that, "...public schools could not produce students ready for the workforce." The president of the national chamber, Thomas Donohue, said that the report indicates a "critical national urgency." Yes, he used the word "urgency." Compare that to quotes from D11 board members John Gudvangen and Jan Tanner, who both claim that things need to move slowly, that there is no hurry to improve anything because, in Gudvangen's words, " I can't think of anything that needs to change" in D11. And people wonder why he is referred to as "The Brain." Donohue continued with his mean-spirited language by saying, "What's at stake is nothing less than the continued success and competitiveness of the American economy, without regard to political party, and the continued vitality of the American dream for every one of our children." Could you imagine if he had said something like that at a D11 board meeting? He would have been accused of attempting to destroy not only the American economy, but also the dreams of teachers and students alike.

It gets even better. John Podesta, that conservative mouthpiece (I'm kidding, of course. He was the chief of staff for Bill Clinton and now heads the Center for American Progress), said that it was "unconscionable" that "no state in the country had a majority of fourth and eighth graders who qualified as proficient in reading and math on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)." The report also pointed out that 40 percent of college students have to take remedial courses because their high school educations were inadequate. Podesta referred to a 2003 UNICEF report that showed that the U.S. ranked 18th out of 24 nations in the overall effectiveness of the education system. For the record, we reformers were not elected to the D11 board until November 2003, so chances are that we did not negatively impact this UNICEF study.

For those mediocrity apologists who keep patting themselves on the heads over the fact that D11 is "average" in an "average" state in a country that now ranks near the bottom in educational effectiveness, you are doing great work. As long as the school boards that you elect keep getting along with themselves, and as long as they don't insult teachers or administrators by demanding improvement, your little fantasy land will survive, uninterrupted by uncomfortable facts and mean people. As the chamber correctly points out, the losers will not only be the kids, but also the future of our nation. Sounds like something those radical reformers would say.

free html counters
Circuit City Discounts