More Money for Central Admin
Maybe D11 board member Sandra Mann is on to something. When one reads the quotes from current board members or staff members, maybe it would help to be inebriated before actually trying to figure out what they are saying.
The Thursday, April 5th Gazette carried an article about how D11 is canceling the site based management project that was initiated in May 2006 and voted favorably on by 6 of 7 board members. Although John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Martini Mann all campaigned for a site based approach to running the district, and although Gudvangen and Mann voted to adopt the site based plan, Gudvangen now says that times have changed. His quote in the Gazette actually said this, "This was born out of a highly politicized, highly politically charged, highly egocentric environment. That’s what got us to this point and we just inherited that." (Take your first drink here).
Egocentric: regarding oneself and one's own opinions or interests as most important. The term is derived from the Greek ego, meaning "I"; a self-centered person with little regard for others.
What Gudvangen means when he declares that he voted FOR site based during a highly politicized environment is that there were people on the board with him who kept pointing out that he campaigned FOR site based management when he was running for office. What he is saying is that he was somehow forced to vote for site based management back then because people kept pointing out that he campaigned FOR site based management. Now there is no one on the board and (literally) no one in attendance at board meetings, so now the fearless leader (take your second drink here) can safely back away from his campaign promises and his vote. What he inherited was 2 consecutive elections where the electorate said loud and clear that they want to push more money to the classrooms and spend less money on administration.
The most interesting word in that statement is "egocentric." This person (Gudvangen) cannot allow a board meeting to pass without spending five to ten minutes talking about himself. The "egocentric environment" to which he refers must certainly exist with Gudvangen at the center of "ego." A site based approach to governing a school district is the least egocentric approach to governing that one could imagine. Each school building staff, and the parents of each school, have a say in their own governance. There could be nothing further from egocentric that anyone could imagine. If Gudvangen is referring to those of us who voted for site based when he used the word egocentric, how could that even make sense? (take third drink here). What possible self-serving purpose could there be to spreading the power and decision making authority down to the lowest level? That benefits the schools and parents, not the board members, which is exactly the problem that Ego-Gudvangen has with the whole concept. Like most liberals, Gudvangen feels powerful because he is a board member. His life revolves around being on boards, and if power is distributed to the schools, his self-worth will diminish. As always, Gudvangen has it all backwards. The current D11 board is very egocentric, and that is why site based has to go.
Terry Bishop's old friend and part-time $50,000 project manager Barbara Day really cleared up the site based issue (take fourth drink here). After spending eight months on the job, the best she could tell us is that "D11 already does that."
Need an analysis of your schools strengths and weaknesses? Already doing that.
Need a specific focus? Already doing that.
Need improvement plans and goals? Already doing that.
Performing at a high level of achievement? Um, well, just skip that one.
Giving the schools a say in their curriculum choices? Let's come back to that one.
Allowing the schools to have a say in their employees and leaders? Well, Dave Schenkel assigns those people based on a time-tested cronyistic and nepotistic formula.
Allowing the funding to follow the students so low attendance schools will make efforts to improve performance and attract students? CFO Glenn Gustafson once said that this is a brilliant idea, but since the board changed hands, he has to now say what is politically correct rather than what is factually correct.
One fact that Day highlighted is that D11 administrators are always "already doing that," but they never complete what they are supposedly doing. If they are really analyzing data of each school, and if a central administrative approach to managing the district is the best approach, then why has the administration not yet come up with solutions for constantly under performing schools? If the current admin heavy approach is the best approach, then why has the administration not told us how to stop the student flight from D11? If "more administrators" is always the solution to every problem, then why hasn't the administration solved the horrific math issue in the district, or the ever increasing drop-out problem, or the teacher-absentee problem? This administration controls its $500 million budget with an iron fist, and it always has. Why is it always in the "studying-the-problem" mode and never in the "problem solved" mode?
The article points out that only one principal volunteered to pilot the site based program. That is probably because Bishop canceled all site based committees in December and the principals have no idea what their requirements will be in a site based model. D11 principals have no idea what project manager Barbara Day has been doing all year. Another likely reason that D11 principals don't want site based is because then the onus of improvement will rest squarely on their shoulders. It is much easier to receive one's marching orders from central administration than it is to develop a plan for one's own building. If principals fail now, they can blame central admin. In a site based model, they would have to accept blame for poor performance. Weak leaders want no part of that.
Take your fifth drink before you try to figure out what Day said at the end of the article. She attempted to repeat a D11 administration scare phrase, but she bumbled and stumbled and got it wrong. Her comment was this with regards to principals, "they want help with student achievement, not plumbing." Hey, Barbara, the catch phrase is supposed to go something like this, "Principals want to spend their time on student achievement, not plumbing." The phrase is supposed to scare principals into thinking that under site based, they will spend their days unclogging toilets and fixing their roofs. You see, the way it must work now is that when a school toilet clogs in the current heavy central admin system, a red light blinks in the D11 plumber's office and a plumber or clog-fairy is automatically sent to the overflow scene. When a roof springs a leak, a siren sounds down at D11 headquarters and a team of roofers is deployed. The principals, who are currently spending all of their time teaching in classrooms, never even know that a leak occurred or that a toilet clogged. Thanks to technology, the buildings automatically repair themselves, all because of a heavy central administration. No phone calls to place, no decisions or actions to take on the part of principals. They can continue to spend their duty days teaching in the classrooms along side their teachers.
If a heavy centralized approach is good and a site based approach is bad, somebody better explain when the centralized approach is going to start working, because that is what this district has always had. If anyone actually believes that Mary Thurman or Terry Bishop are going to tell principals and teachers how to educate their students, then the logical question must be, "What are they waiting for?" These two have both been in the district for several years, so why are they keeping their great advice to themselves?
As is always the case in D11, the board and administration will disregard the public on the site based issue. Just as today's Gazette pointed out, administrators and board members will take their marching orders from employees rather than the public. They will choose to do what is easy (and currently completely ineffective) rather than what will be effective but more demanding on principals.
As a final note, what did ego-Gudvangen mean when he said that "times have changed" since he voted for site based management? He voted to spend $250,000 for this project, and now he thinks he can simply say that he changed his mind? Where is Mary Ellen McNally? Where is Annie Oakley-Gardner? Gudvangen already spent $134,000 tax dollars on this project, and now he is going to flush it all away before he even knows if the approach will work? Sandy Shakes was recalled for changing her mind. The Friends of Mediocrity most certainly won't sit by quietly for this flip-flop. We know that they are not driven by politics, but by the interests of the hard working D11 tax payer. Bring me my petition, Annie Oakley. I'll sign this one with you.
The Thursday, April 5th Gazette carried an article about how D11 is canceling the site based management project that was initiated in May 2006 and voted favorably on by 6 of 7 board members. Although John Gudvangen, Tami Hasling, and Martini Mann all campaigned for a site based approach to running the district, and although Gudvangen and Mann voted to adopt the site based plan, Gudvangen now says that times have changed. His quote in the Gazette actually said this, "This was born out of a highly politicized, highly politically charged, highly egocentric environment. That’s what got us to this point and we just inherited that." (Take your first drink here).
Egocentric: regarding oneself and one's own opinions or interests as most important. The term is derived from the Greek ego, meaning "I"; a self-centered person with little regard for others.
What Gudvangen means when he declares that he voted FOR site based during a highly politicized environment is that there were people on the board with him who kept pointing out that he campaigned FOR site based management when he was running for office. What he is saying is that he was somehow forced to vote for site based management back then because people kept pointing out that he campaigned FOR site based management. Now there is no one on the board and (literally) no one in attendance at board meetings, so now the fearless leader (take your second drink here) can safely back away from his campaign promises and his vote. What he inherited was 2 consecutive elections where the electorate said loud and clear that they want to push more money to the classrooms and spend less money on administration.
The most interesting word in that statement is "egocentric." This person (Gudvangen) cannot allow a board meeting to pass without spending five to ten minutes talking about himself. The "egocentric environment" to which he refers must certainly exist with Gudvangen at the center of "ego." A site based approach to governing a school district is the least egocentric approach to governing that one could imagine. Each school building staff, and the parents of each school, have a say in their own governance. There could be nothing further from egocentric that anyone could imagine. If Gudvangen is referring to those of us who voted for site based when he used the word egocentric, how could that even make sense? (take third drink here). What possible self-serving purpose could there be to spreading the power and decision making authority down to the lowest level? That benefits the schools and parents, not the board members, which is exactly the problem that Ego-Gudvangen has with the whole concept. Like most liberals, Gudvangen feels powerful because he is a board member. His life revolves around being on boards, and if power is distributed to the schools, his self-worth will diminish. As always, Gudvangen has it all backwards. The current D11 board is very egocentric, and that is why site based has to go.
Terry Bishop's old friend and part-time $50,000 project manager Barbara Day really cleared up the site based issue (take fourth drink here). After spending eight months on the job, the best she could tell us is that "D11 already does that."
Need an analysis of your schools strengths and weaknesses? Already doing that.
Need a specific focus? Already doing that.
Need improvement plans and goals? Already doing that.
Performing at a high level of achievement? Um, well, just skip that one.
Giving the schools a say in their curriculum choices? Let's come back to that one.
Allowing the schools to have a say in their employees and leaders? Well, Dave Schenkel assigns those people based on a time-tested cronyistic and nepotistic formula.
Allowing the funding to follow the students so low attendance schools will make efforts to improve performance and attract students? CFO Glenn Gustafson once said that this is a brilliant idea, but since the board changed hands, he has to now say what is politically correct rather than what is factually correct.
One fact that Day highlighted is that D11 administrators are always "already doing that," but they never complete what they are supposedly doing. If they are really analyzing data of each school, and if a central administrative approach to managing the district is the best approach, then why has the administration not yet come up with solutions for constantly under performing schools? If the current admin heavy approach is the best approach, then why has the administration not told us how to stop the student flight from D11? If "more administrators" is always the solution to every problem, then why hasn't the administration solved the horrific math issue in the district, or the ever increasing drop-out problem, or the teacher-absentee problem? This administration controls its $500 million budget with an iron fist, and it always has. Why is it always in the "studying-the-problem" mode and never in the "problem solved" mode?
The article points out that only one principal volunteered to pilot the site based program. That is probably because Bishop canceled all site based committees in December and the principals have no idea what their requirements will be in a site based model. D11 principals have no idea what project manager Barbara Day has been doing all year. Another likely reason that D11 principals don't want site based is because then the onus of improvement will rest squarely on their shoulders. It is much easier to receive one's marching orders from central administration than it is to develop a plan for one's own building. If principals fail now, they can blame central admin. In a site based model, they would have to accept blame for poor performance. Weak leaders want no part of that.
Take your fifth drink before you try to figure out what Day said at the end of the article. She attempted to repeat a D11 administration scare phrase, but she bumbled and stumbled and got it wrong. Her comment was this with regards to principals, "they want help with student achievement, not plumbing." Hey, Barbara, the catch phrase is supposed to go something like this, "Principals want to spend their time on student achievement, not plumbing." The phrase is supposed to scare principals into thinking that under site based, they will spend their days unclogging toilets and fixing their roofs. You see, the way it must work now is that when a school toilet clogs in the current heavy central admin system, a red light blinks in the D11 plumber's office and a plumber or clog-fairy is automatically sent to the overflow scene. When a roof springs a leak, a siren sounds down at D11 headquarters and a team of roofers is deployed. The principals, who are currently spending all of their time teaching in classrooms, never even know that a leak occurred or that a toilet clogged. Thanks to technology, the buildings automatically repair themselves, all because of a heavy central administration. No phone calls to place, no decisions or actions to take on the part of principals. They can continue to spend their duty days teaching in the classrooms along side their teachers.
If a heavy centralized approach is good and a site based approach is bad, somebody better explain when the centralized approach is going to start working, because that is what this district has always had. If anyone actually believes that Mary Thurman or Terry Bishop are going to tell principals and teachers how to educate their students, then the logical question must be, "What are they waiting for?" These two have both been in the district for several years, so why are they keeping their great advice to themselves?
As is always the case in D11, the board and administration will disregard the public on the site based issue. Just as today's Gazette pointed out, administrators and board members will take their marching orders from employees rather than the public. They will choose to do what is easy (and currently completely ineffective) rather than what will be effective but more demanding on principals.
As a final note, what did ego-Gudvangen mean when he said that "times have changed" since he voted for site based management? He voted to spend $250,000 for this project, and now he thinks he can simply say that he changed his mind? Where is Mary Ellen McNally? Where is Annie Oakley-Gardner? Gudvangen already spent $134,000 tax dollars on this project, and now he is going to flush it all away before he even knows if the approach will work? Sandy Shakes was recalled for changing her mind. The Friends of Mediocrity most certainly won't sit by quietly for this flip-flop. We know that they are not driven by politics, but by the interests of the hard working D11 tax payer. Bring me my petition, Annie Oakley. I'll sign this one with you.
posted by Craig Cox | 12:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home