More on Poore
As mentioned in my last post, ex-D11 employee Michael Poore has been hired by his old buddy Terry Bishop to be the newest Deputy Superintendent of something. Poore will receive a salary of over $120,000 in the cash-strapped district. What experience does Poore have with IT, the area over which he will be responsible? Absolutely none.
While in his previous stint as a D11 employee, Poore served as the Mitchell High School principal. During the time of Poore's service at Mitchell, the performance of the school declined. Apologists for medicority in D11 will blame that decline on the fact that the minority student population grew at Mitchell while Poore was in charge. These apologists claim that "those" types of students just don't have the same ability to learn as white students. Even if that were true, Poore never developed any plan to improve Mitchell, regardless of the student body composition.
Poore spent the last few years up in the Sheridan School District, serving as the Superintendent up there in the 1700 student school district. A Sheridan resident added this comment to my last post on this issue: "Poore was the super of Sheridan school dist and a dismal, weak leader that depended on everyone else to do his job including the former super Judy Kary. This is well known up here and a major source of disgust and a continuance of their revolving door problems with their teachers."
"Revolving door" is exactly what exists in D11 as far as ex-employees are concerned. Although it will sound like a smart-alec question, can anyone honestly name one of the 6-figure earners in D11 who is anything other than a "dismal, weak leader?" Poore was not hired for his competence; he was hired due to his friendship with Terry Bishop. Bishop, like his predecessors, is far more interested in building the incomes of his old pals than in building a good school district.
As to the new Executive Director that Bishop hired in D11, at a salary of $95,000+, Christian Cutter is related to current Mitchell principal Larry Cutter. Qualifications for his job? Again, who knows. That big wheel keeps on turning.
If you read comments from labor union mouthpieces throughout this blog, they pretend to care about the future of D11. Notice how deadly silent they remain on the issue of the hiring of old D11 cronies who bring no competences with them at all. This money is being spent to continue to grow an already bloated administration, and the labor union remains silent. What about those watchdogs of D11, the McNally's and Annie Oakley's and Lyman Kaiser's? Where is their outrage at the expenditure of big dollars to hire old cronies of the current D11 boss, despite track records of low performance?
Maybe Bishop has a good reason for wanting to use East Middle School as a new central administrative building. East was built to hold 800 students. As central admin continues to grow, that space might be put to good use.
While in his previous stint as a D11 employee, Poore served as the Mitchell High School principal. During the time of Poore's service at Mitchell, the performance of the school declined. Apologists for medicority in D11 will blame that decline on the fact that the minority student population grew at Mitchell while Poore was in charge. These apologists claim that "those" types of students just don't have the same ability to learn as white students. Even if that were true, Poore never developed any plan to improve Mitchell, regardless of the student body composition.
Poore spent the last few years up in the Sheridan School District, serving as the Superintendent up there in the 1700 student school district. A Sheridan resident added this comment to my last post on this issue: "Poore was the super of Sheridan school dist and a dismal, weak leader that depended on everyone else to do his job including the former super Judy Kary. This is well known up here and a major source of disgust and a continuance of their revolving door problems with their teachers."
"Revolving door" is exactly what exists in D11 as far as ex-employees are concerned. Although it will sound like a smart-alec question, can anyone honestly name one of the 6-figure earners in D11 who is anything other than a "dismal, weak leader?" Poore was not hired for his competence; he was hired due to his friendship with Terry Bishop. Bishop, like his predecessors, is far more interested in building the incomes of his old pals than in building a good school district.
As to the new Executive Director that Bishop hired in D11, at a salary of $95,000+, Christian Cutter is related to current Mitchell principal Larry Cutter. Qualifications for his job? Again, who knows. That big wheel keeps on turning.
If you read comments from labor union mouthpieces throughout this blog, they pretend to care about the future of D11. Notice how deadly silent they remain on the issue of the hiring of old D11 cronies who bring no competences with them at all. This money is being spent to continue to grow an already bloated administration, and the labor union remains silent. What about those watchdogs of D11, the McNally's and Annie Oakley's and Lyman Kaiser's? Where is their outrage at the expenditure of big dollars to hire old cronies of the current D11 boss, despite track records of low performance?
Maybe Bishop has a good reason for wanting to use East Middle School as a new central administrative building. East was built to hold 800 students. As central admin continues to grow, that space might be put to good use.
posted by Craig Cox | 8:43 AM
12 Comments:
Maybe all those other people are waiting to see for themselves the competencies of new hires. Not everybody has your nasty habit of criticizing for criticism's sake, and some people (obviously not you) like to know a little bit about a topic before they spout off to the rest of the world.
A typical non-sensical response from this particular "Anonymous." Poore has a history in D11, and a history in other districts. What are you "waiting" to see? Kids have been waiting for decades in D11 for your side to produce results. Great job so far. The reality is that Poore is one of you. He won't do anything other than collect a paycheck. As long as it doesn't infringe on the status quo or create accountability, you will be satisfied to "wait" forever and not say a word.
Criticize for criticism's sake? You were critical of the reform slate from before we were elected, and you do nothing but offer ad hominem attacks. You have never debated a single idea of mine, and worse yet, you have never offered any of your own. Running around yelling that we were going to destroy public education or privatize all of the schools doesn't count as rational debate. In fact, it kind of sounds like a "nasty habit," yes?
There are yet newer hires, waiting in the wings...Their titles must match with already approved and established jobs and their pay must match their monetary desires. That takes some "arranging". But they are coming to your district-not to reform, not to work, but to "nest".
John,
Am I missing something, or is this not just like the Burnley years? When you speak of those waiting in the wings, I assume that many of those people are ex-D11 employees who want another go at the gravy train?
Come on, you don't know Poore from Adam. You're basing your "opinion" on one person's comments? Reasonable people would have been willing to address your ideas in a thoughtful debate, if you had presented any. Saying "we need to do a better job" isn't offering an idea, it's begging the question. You complained about the length of the current school year, for instance, but you never truly tried to offer a solution. It was the current administration and board has presented ideas, and you've chosen to ignore them all.
I know plenty about Poore from many people in D11 and from simple research. If you know about him and are still supporting his hiring anyway, that shows that you aren't serious about improving the district. If you know nothing about him, then once again, you are spouting off on a topic about which you know nothing. Education is another topic in that category for you.
Yes, "reasonable people" supported my ideas, and those ideas were numerous and many were implemented. The fact that you and your unreasonable friends opposed reform and improvement in the district simply illustrates, once again, that you were afraid that accountability might cause you to have to work. You can't name a single idea uttered from the lips of any current board member other than Willie Breazell. Tell us what Tami Hasling has offered; tell us what Sandra (hiccup) Mann has proposed; tell us all of the great ideas coming from Jan (what union theft?) Tanner. As usual, dead silence from those of you who endorse mediocrity.
As far as adding days to the school year, an additional day was added each year that I served. Never before was that done. I know that the additional time cuts into your time off. Just take more personal days off during the year to make up for it. I am sure that an acerbic person like yourself won't be missed in the classroom.
It is your side that can only talk about "getting better," and "helping the children", but never doing anything to match your rhetoric. In fact, it was your boy John Gudvangen who claimed publicly that he couldn't come up with a single thing that needed to improve in the district. Talk about out-of-touch. My side was extremely specific in our proposals. Your side hyperventilates each time a new idea is proposed, mainly because you won't accept accountability or effort.
The more you write, the more out of touch you appear to be. Keep it up.
Declining enrollment, burgeoning administration, budget deficit, school closure, lackluster academic performance, embarrassing graduation statistics, etc, etc, etc.
What will it take to overhaul public education and change the way we do things? ONLY in public education can the factories produce inferior widgets and still get bonuses, raises and repeated praise for "jobs well done". Chrysler wouldn't have any of 'em.
Oh, this is priceless. Here you have an anonymous anti-reformer complaining that the reformers did not reform enough, thereby leaving it up to the status quo board and administration to make changes. I can't wait, Mr. Cox, until this person answers your question as to all of the wonderful changes that have been brought forward by his/her current braintrust on the board.
"Anonymous also," as part of your etc, etc, add corruption, nepotism, and cronyism.
You know, there are towns/papers in other cities, where reporters actually go after stories of waste and corruption. The Gazette seems completely uninterested because they sure haven't seen fit to report on half of what you write about on this blog. Can you explain to me why there is this total lack of interest or real reporting on real issues that affect real kids?
Read the Gazette. Check out the minutes for the last few board meetings. Not going to waste time explaining here, because Mr. Cox's time and space are too valuable.
Sad, good questions, but you will have to ask the reporters. Shari Griffin has no kids in school, and her editors (according to her) are very anti-reform. Shari only reports what district PR person Elaine Naleski tells her to report, which is nothing at this stage of the game. There is plenty of waste in D11, but there just aren't good aggressive reporters working for the local paper. Could you imagine if any reform board members had stolen money from D11? The Independent would have made that the headline for the week. They haven't even mentioned the union crime. Nothing that can be done about that. Liberals cover for liberals.
Anony, good recommendations. The D11 minutes for the past 3 years are filled with reform ideas and accomplishments. They are also filled with your anti-reformer arguments against any type of improvement. I welcome people checking the Gazette for your side's ideas. That search will come up empty. You have never listed any of your side's ideas because they don't have any. Your side takes money from the public and enriches the chosen few. Educating kids takes low priority because it smells like work, something you and your union oppose.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone recall the "new and improved" board voting to un-freeze administrative hiring? As far as I can tell from board minutes and reports, the vote taken during the reformers' term is still on the books.
Isn't that something that the "watchdogs" Peterson, Oatman-Gardner, McNally, etc, should be raising ruckus about?
And of course, Karen "Process" Teja?
But they're not. Why not? I'm even disappointed that Strand, Bobbit and Hasling haven't made a single reference to the fact that the board is violating their own standing resolution.
And these are the so called "experts" that this community so desperately wanted. Well, they wanted it and now we're all saddled with their incompetence veiled as nicey, nicey people. Incompetent is incompetent, no matter how nice a person is.
Post a Comment
<< Home