All it takes to get a $10,000 Raise...
In 2000, the voters of School District 11 passed a mill levy override question for the district. Within this question was a mandate for a detailed performance review of the district to be conducted once every 2 years by an outside agency. In the case of D11, the Quantum Performance Group (QPM) has performed the reviews. QPM noted during its reviews that D11 staff would always provide lists of tasks that were being accomplished, but never lists of results from these tasks. QPM correctly noted that these tasks were meaningless unless they resulted in improved performance by the district. After all, the mission of a school district is to educate kids.
The Sunday Gazette carried two articles on the performance of D11 superintendent Terry Bishop. The article noted that Bishop had a list of 25 tasks that he wanted to tackle as superintendent. The article also noted that after his first year on the job, Bishop has managed to tackle exactly one of these tasks. For this one accomplishment, Bishop receives a salary of $130,000 plus benefits and bonus. Nowhere in the article was the academic performance of D11 mentioned after Bishop’s first year at the helm. The reason might be that the overall performance of D11 declined slightly last year.
While no one would expect that Bishop and his massive staff of bureaucrats would accomplish all 25 of his tasks, one might expect that they would accomplish more than one. The tax payers might also be interested in understanding the academic goals attached to each of those tasks. By contract, Bishop was required to present the school board with specific performance goals by mid September of last year. One year later, this list of goals has still never been created.
One of the most disturbing accomplishments of Bishop to date is his dismantling of the site based management system. When he was hired, Bishop publicly announced his full support of reducing the bureaucracy to push more funds to the classrooms where they were needed most. Bishop quickly reneged on this promise in favor of hiring more administrators to continue the growth of an ever expanding central administration.
Bishop claims that he needs a strong central administration, but he confuses “big” with “strong.” The reality is that a large bureaucracy is actually a weak governing instrument. Large bureaucracies place layers of interference between the principals and the superintendent, diluting any possibility of strong accountability. Bureaucracies suck money from the classrooms and impose meaningless mandates on teachers. Above all else, bureaucracies are extremely inefficient.
D11 has always had a large central administration. By choosing to stick with this governing model, Bishop has chosen to tell the public that although the district is in decline academically and in numbers of students, he will remain wed to a system that has proven beyond doubt not to work.
If anyone wishes to see the results of the power of a decentralized school system, they need look no further than New Orleans. Due to a catastrophe in the form of Hurricane Katrina, the school district opted to do allow neighborhood schools to function without the bureaucratic oversight of a central administration. In one year’s time, these schools have performed miracles because the teachers and staff have been given the power and authority to do what it takes to educate their students. They have been given funding based on their student populations with no skimming off the top by overpaid administrators.
Bishop claims that it is inequitable to fund D11 schools based on their student populations. Is it really equitable to give a school with 150 students the same funding as a school with 600 students? Schools with low populations should not be subsidized by schools with large populations. The whole point of a site based funding system is to make the schools responsive to their public. If schools need more students, then they should work harder to provide the academic excellence that will draw students to their buildings.
The D11 school board now has to determine whether Bishop receives a performance bonus for his first year as superintendent. Based on the lethargic performance of this board to date, it is likely that they will grant Bishop 100% of his bonus for completing one of 25 tasks. Sure, this board has not been fighting, but that is because they are not fighting for the public for whom they are supposed to serve. While the student population in D11 shrinks, the D11 administration continues to grow.
The Sunday Gazette carried two articles on the performance of D11 superintendent Terry Bishop. The article noted that Bishop had a list of 25 tasks that he wanted to tackle as superintendent. The article also noted that after his first year on the job, Bishop has managed to tackle exactly one of these tasks. For this one accomplishment, Bishop receives a salary of $130,000 plus benefits and bonus. Nowhere in the article was the academic performance of D11 mentioned after Bishop’s first year at the helm. The reason might be that the overall performance of D11 declined slightly last year.
While no one would expect that Bishop and his massive staff of bureaucrats would accomplish all 25 of his tasks, one might expect that they would accomplish more than one. The tax payers might also be interested in understanding the academic goals attached to each of those tasks. By contract, Bishop was required to present the school board with specific performance goals by mid September of last year. One year later, this list of goals has still never been created.
One of the most disturbing accomplishments of Bishop to date is his dismantling of the site based management system. When he was hired, Bishop publicly announced his full support of reducing the bureaucracy to push more funds to the classrooms where they were needed most. Bishop quickly reneged on this promise in favor of hiring more administrators to continue the growth of an ever expanding central administration.
Bishop claims that he needs a strong central administration, but he confuses “big” with “strong.” The reality is that a large bureaucracy is actually a weak governing instrument. Large bureaucracies place layers of interference between the principals and the superintendent, diluting any possibility of strong accountability. Bureaucracies suck money from the classrooms and impose meaningless mandates on teachers. Above all else, bureaucracies are extremely inefficient.
D11 has always had a large central administration. By choosing to stick with this governing model, Bishop has chosen to tell the public that although the district is in decline academically and in numbers of students, he will remain wed to a system that has proven beyond doubt not to work.
If anyone wishes to see the results of the power of a decentralized school system, they need look no further than New Orleans. Due to a catastrophe in the form of Hurricane Katrina, the school district opted to do allow neighborhood schools to function without the bureaucratic oversight of a central administration. In one year’s time, these schools have performed miracles because the teachers and staff have been given the power and authority to do what it takes to educate their students. They have been given funding based on their student populations with no skimming off the top by overpaid administrators.
Bishop claims that it is inequitable to fund D11 schools based on their student populations. Is it really equitable to give a school with 150 students the same funding as a school with 600 students? Schools with low populations should not be subsidized by schools with large populations. The whole point of a site based funding system is to make the schools responsive to their public. If schools need more students, then they should work harder to provide the academic excellence that will draw students to their buildings.
The D11 school board now has to determine whether Bishop receives a performance bonus for his first year as superintendent. Based on the lethargic performance of this board to date, it is likely that they will grant Bishop 100% of his bonus for completing one of 25 tasks. Sure, this board has not been fighting, but that is because they are not fighting for the public for whom they are supposed to serve. While the student population in D11 shrinks, the D11 administration continues to grow.
posted by Craig Cox | 7:43 AM
29 Comments:
How sad to see the system and this corrupt board warp another weak willed "leader" to is liking. So much, Terry, fotr that promise that site based management was going to happen so long as you were there in charge.
Teachers should read this and weep - and know that by allowing their union to buy weak-willed school boards, nothing in this district will change for the better. How many caring teachers out there see first hand the counter-productive and time-wasting policies and actions of the D-11 administration, and see a school board that is unwilling or incapable of doing anything about it? Until such time as teachers, the front line, stand up and say "Enough!", their union leadership, which cares only about power, along with its lap dog school board, will continue to allow this district to march into ruin.
That's flat out stupid. The union is composed of teachers, only teachers. If Bishop's policies were so harmful to teachers, why would the teachers union support those policies? Even if you believe in corruption, what sort of enticement could Bishop offer that would cause the union leadership to sell out their members? It's nonsense, nonsense on the order of Fox TV insisting that the moon landing took place on a Hollywood sound stage
Focus, Anony, the topic is education, not the moon landing. Maybe your parents can activate their parent control option, and then you won't have to be subject to silly TV shows that upset you.
Other than your temporary diversion to space, you ask a very good question. Why on earth is the labor union selling out teachers to support one incompetent administration after another? To pretend that your labor union is not selling you out IS as silly as that Fox TV show that you watched. Your union masters can order you onto the streets at a moment's notice, and just like your good Teamster breathren, you will heed the call whether you understand the issue or not.
When is the last time your bosses have ordered you to protest against the administration? When is the last time your labor union protested the multi-thousands of dollars handed to these administrators each year in the form of raises and bonuses while the school boards that your labor union dollars purchase try to make you think that your 1% raise is a good thing?
Why does your labor union, which you represent, oppose any board member who attempts to bring accountability to the administration? Name a single idea - just one - that any one of your current (or past) labor union purchased board members have brought forth or implemented that has helped teachers. Your labor union sells you out continuously as it only allows you to receive pay increases based on your time in service and not your competence. I fully understand that the more incompetent of you love the system the way it is, but your competent colleagues do not. Your labor union sells you out as it fights reforms and allows hundreds of students each year to flee to surrounding districts or private schools. That means less money for your paycheck and your school building.
Your labor union leaders will keep selling you out because the very leaders who keep you down know that they will slide over into cushy central administration jobs themselves as soon as they have mootched all that they can from you teachers.
As long as your labor union continues to be an obstacle to an improved education system, it is not only selling you out, it is selling out every child who steps into a D11 school building.
Mr. Cox, chances are that you will never receive a reply to that last post. None of my fellow teachers are happy with the administration, and they have not been happy with any administration since I have been in this town for over a decade. Truth be told, no one has been happy with any of the school boards, either. During the 3 years that you served on the board, there was a constant effort by the union leadership to drum up opposition against the board and to get techers to board meetings. The goal was to be disruptive, intimidating, etc. Although there is much complaining in the lounges about the current board and administration, there has never been any such call for protest or dissent. Everyone knows that the union leadership is nothing but a political arm for higher authorities (full disclosure: although I was once a union member, I now take the time to decline membership). What you say about the union is correct, even when you use the term "labor" to describe it.
Anony 2 - thanks for making my point. The teachers union IS made up of teachers. The union leadership DOES NOT represent the teachers. They pursue a self-centered, power-grabbing agenda that has nothing to do with teachers, and everything to do with protecting the power of those who wield it. Tell me when the last time is that the union stood up FOR THE TEACHERS! Most teachers hated CQI - where was the union? Most teachers want good curriculum and support for the same. Where's the union? Most teachers want what is good for the kids. Where's the union? The answer is, no where to be found. The union has NOTHING to do with making sure things are improving for the kids. If the union really represented teachers, it would be doing everything possible to help the teachers help the kids. Instead, they'll play politics, make it impossible for principals to fire incompetant teachers, and pretend a deminimus raise for the teachers justifies their existence.
In regards to Anony 1's last statement: Is it impossible for bad principals to be fired as well (or at least prevented from receiving new schools)?
Funny how your buddy Willie thinks that the board is making progress (in your absence). Guess even your "friends" think you're wrong on this point.
Anony, based on your reading and comprehension skills, I would suspect that you are a middle school English teacher in this district. Thank God that the labor union is there to protect your job.
Let me post some quotes from Willie's letter upon which you can reflect on your day off (even though you are supposed to be performing "teacher training").
"I must admit that much of what was stated by Craig Cox and The Gazette is factual. Frankly, I am saddened by that realization."
Craig: Kind of cuts against your claim that he thinks that I am wrong.
"As board members, we do not have sufficient metrics in place to judge the performance of our superintendent, deputy superintendents, principals or teachers. As elected officials, we have to be honest and forthright with regard to our public duties."
Craig: You should try honesty once, Anony, with regards to your public duties. It might actually feel liberating to you to not have to be a mouthpiece for your labor union.
"In the past four years the D-11 school board began to discuss and implement measurable performance data for the superintendent."
Craig: A check of my calendar shows that I was on that board in "the past four years." In fact, my name, and Eric's, and Sandy's, all appear in Willie's article as deserving credit for this implementation of accountability measures. Your labor union has owned the school board for over 30 years, and it took us non-labor union purchased board members to implement accountability measures. You are welcome. I guess that makes your parenthetical comment above "(in your absence)," seem a little incorrect.
Willie's next statement about Gudvangen, that he is moving towards measurable goals, may be accurate on its face, and it may be a nice diplomatic move on Willie's part, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Glaciers move, and Gudvangen's movement is probably similar in its speed. Bishop was to have turned over his performance goals in September 2006. I reminded Gudvangen of this over and over last fall. He ignored his duties to hold Bishop accountable for these objectives. It is now September 2007. You probably believe that Gudvangen deserves credit for beginning movement one year too late. I don't.
How did D-11 perform academically last year under your progressive board? Oh yeah, it declined again. In your world, that takes us back to the good old days of past labor union boards. I see how that smells like progress to you.
The fact of the matter is that, despite having some facts that Willie deemed to be correct, he disagreed with your overall assessment that the district is heading in the wrong direction. On the contrary, he says that they're making progress, but that progress comes slowly when dealing with large institutions that measure success on an annual basis. It's like turning an aircraft carrier; it doesn't turn on a dime.
And the funniest thing is that, despite all the hot air you and your cronies spew on this blog, nobody dared step up and tried to change anything. Not one filed to be a board candidate in November's election. So all you do is whine and moan and take pot shots from the cheap seats.
You're not part of the solution, for sure, and you are definitely a big part of the problem. But snipe away, insignificant ones. The rest of us will do the heavy lifting in educating your kids, while you piss and moan.
This last response is classic liberal D11 labor union rhetoric. An anonymous poster to my blog actually uses the term "insignificant" when referring to me and proponents of schools that actually educate kids. Someone who is so sure of their position that they are afraid to use their own name actually accuses others of taking potshots from the cheap seats.
I have said before that these incompetent labor union employees have no regard whatsoever for parents and tax payers in this district. This response furthers my point. Unless one is sitting on this school board, and was placed there by the labor union, one is "insignificant." As I have pointed out in the past, liberals occupy boards simply to feel significant and important. This brave anonymous poster has never offered a single action or idea that has emanated from any of the current board members that has made them "significant" in the arena of education. Anonymous claims that Willie thinks that progress is being made. Well there you have it then - D11 is on a roll. As long as someone tells the community that progress is being made, then that is all the "heavy lifting" that needs to be done for another year. Hey Anony, are your labor union masters going to allow you to support Willie this time around since he thinks that progress is being made? Are you going to funnel hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars into this campaign to keep him on the board since he made you feel better about your incompetence by telling you that you are making progress?
How does this anonymous labor union employee measure the progress that is being made in D11? This person won't use CSAPs because those indicators aren't fair. They show decline, and by golly that just won't do. How about the ACT or SAT? Well, those indicators are in decline as well, so there must be something unfair about using them. Graduation rates certainly tell the story, right? No, not those. Besides, they are probably scewed, as are drop out rates. OK, lets use student enrollment to indicate parental satisfaction and success of D11. Anony won't go there, either, because D11 losses hundreds of students each year to surrounding school districts.
So what measure of success does Anony offer to prove that D11 is "progressing?" Because Willie said so. Ignore his use of the words "lethargic system" and "corrupt" to describe D11. Willie certainly didn't mean to use those words. As long as someone publicly states that D11 is progressing, that is enough to make it so.
As far as this election, I think that it is great that no one but liberal labor union mouthpieces are running. The quickest way to improve D11 is to allow it to implode. There is no doubt that under your type, this implosion will occur sooner rather than later. Combine the financial strain from the millions of dollars lost to declining enrollment each year with the state takeover of schools and you are creating your own homemade Katrina right here in the Rockies.
Great use of the aircraft carrier analogy. Here is a hint for you since I am certain that you have never served in the military: the aircraft carrier won't turn at all if you don't turn the wheel. There is a massive iceberg straight in front of your face and yes, you are progressing; you are progressing right into it. The sad thing is that you simply aren't smart enough to realize that your administration is so top heavy that you can reasonably compare it to an aircraft carrier.
I wonder why you seem so melancholy about not having reformers on the ballot? Does your labor union need someone to "piss and moan" about since you certainly aren't spending time educating kids? Are you angry because you won't have ideas to oppose to give your labor union meaning? Are your financiers, the gay millionaires from Denver, upset because they won't be needed to buy another D11 school board? Oh well, life goes on. The good news is that you still have John Gudvangen to play his accordion for you at the status quo victory party. That gives him significance. You still have Sandra Mann to bring your celebratory beverages. She still has that Mann martini bar cranked up hard at each board meeting, and I am sure that she will be happy to share with other like-minded thinkers and drinkers. That certainly gives her significance. Tami Hasling used a big word in a sentence once, so she is significant as well. You have a board that is on the move. Why muck it up with people who care about kids?
Somebody ask Anonymous what he/she offered that was considered "constructive" while you guys were on the board. Seems to me that if we are talking about "cheap seats," that group of union thugs who attended board meetings and made catcalls throughout each meeting certainly qualifies as the peanut gallery.
I notice, yet again, that this person never tells us how he/she is measuring progress.
Ask Willie
Great idea, labor unionite, I happen to have done just that. Willie says that all the "progress" that he refers to deals with initiatives that were brought forward while we were on the board with him over the past four years. Nothing was initiated by Tami, or Johnny, or Sandra, or Charlie, or Tom, or Jan, just like I said.
Pretty sad that you can gripe, yell, or to borrow a phrase, "piss and moan" about others, and you can "feel good" about all the progress you are making, but you absolutely cannot point to a single concrete example of ANYTHING that you or your little puppet board has accomplished. Nothing. Not a single area of measurable progress that you can point to. And you call others insignificant?
Your point was made, Bryan.
I can point to something that the union and its hand selected board have accomplished recently. They have successfully polluted numerous school staffs around the district with inept teachers who really don't want to be teaching but were moved from East to other locations. Imagine, if you will, not just one of the Watsons sitting around dragging down morale, but now they are both in the same building doing twice the damage. Moving bad teachers around counts as "something," doesn't it? At least partial credit?
Partial credit, yes. I did not say that the labor union and BOE were idle, they're just focused on protecting jobs at the expense of education.
Mr. Cox. While I agree that the union has been vocal and has bought the current board, I think many may forget that the other power broker in the status quo crowd is the administration. In fact, anonymous could be a D11 administrator, trying to protect their turf, and their job. I believe it is the combination of the union and the administration that make change so very difficult in D11. Both want to protect the organization above all.
Just curious if you're still investigating Mr. Marin, principal of the new Freedom Elementary (refer to comments made in article "Sometimes, it is OK to just laugh" for background). We believe he's a puppet for Mr. Bishop and that there's a huge tie-in to your current topic. Regarding the comment by 'y we need choice' - forget the two Watsons, how about a Principal taking down an entire school - a brand spanking new one at that! Parents are not happy.... and we're just curious why he was given this highly esteemed role over many more qualified principals in the district??? Craig, we understand your interest in Bishop, but come on down - closer to the real world where kids, parents, teachers, principals, admin REALLY intersect - at the school - there's a story here....
Gosh, I behave myself and stay away from your blog and I still manage to get talked about. I guess some of us are just lucky like that.
To help with accuracy, all of the teachers from East were required to fill out paperwork and interview for their positions at other schools. I know you want to blame the poor teachers at those underperforming schools for their "ineptitude" but the facts are that the teachers from East were experienced with teaching ELL children and hard to reach students. That made them valuable to other schools that have yet to experience those issues in their own schools, but who admit that the same type of issues are on the rise in their schools. So I doubt that those "horrible" teachers are going to bring down any school in the district. The motives for shutting down the school were clear, why should the teachers and students bear the brunt of the decision through your innuendo and half-truths.
I've been a part of the teacher's association since I became a teacher and never have I seen your accusations in practice. We don't coach our people about what to say or think and we don't buy school boards. We work proactively to support candidates that will support public education, instead of draining it dry with costly initiatives like site-based management and vouchers. Our focus in this association is on teachers and kids, and I'm a little tired of being the target of your gloom and doom finger pointing.
Is it true, Craig, that Angus himself (site-based guru) thought that we were already site-based and that there were more central ideas that we needed to concentrate on? Like coordination of curriculum? What's the truth about the blow-up between he and Eric before he left?
You're reform might have worked if you hadn't decided that your target was the union. You helped improve our membership numbers with your acusations of bad teachers and your brand of accountability. Teachers aren't afraid of being accountable, they just prefer not to be targeted as if they are the sole reason for the ills. We work hard for our students and parents and we'd like to be treated as the professionals that we are. I doubt I'd see you bullying doctors and lawyers the way you dog us. So keep up the rhetoric. It makes our membership drives easy. Have a great year, I intend to. And don't expect that I'll keep visiting, because I have better things to do, so talk away about me.
One of those Watson's (your identity thing won't let me put my name to it)
Just Stopping, there is no doubt that the administration is just as wed to the status quo as is the labor union leadership. I have said as much. Rather than "protecting the organization," I believe that they are more concerned with protecting their paychecks. If they wanted to protect the organization, they would make efforts to improve rather than cling to the status quo and continue to allow students and tax dolalrs to flee the district. As I pointed out, none of the high paid administrators have kids in D11. They are here to collect their 6-figure paychecks. The fact that D11 continues on a downward trend means nothing to them They will simply pick up and grab another administrative job elsewhere, leaving the community to pick up the pieces. Its a great little system.
Anony, I am not hearing too much about Freedom at this point. If there is a story, I would love to hear it. When I hear something, I will be happy to share it. I will definitely cover the method by which D11 selects principals in a future post.
Despite what the educrats might try to tell you, that is your school. It does not belong to the administration or labor union. If there is a legitimate problem, speak up about it. D11 will try to shut you down, but don't let them. If there is something going on there that isn't right, shine light on it.
Lori, I had to help you out before on a similar issue, so I will help you again. My name is not “Y we need choice,” so I will assume that your lecture was aimed at that person. I can’t comment on his/her position on school choice or site based management.
Lori: I've been a part of the teacher's association since I became a teacher and never have I seen your accusations in practice. We don't coach our people about what to say or think and we don't buy school boards.
Craig: You spent over $250,000 in 2005 to purchase Mann, Hasling, and Gudvangen. Your labor union has purchased every D11 board with the exception of the 2003 board. Your leadership puts out talking points to the labor union membership constantly. Your labor union, a private organization, gets a 2-hour indoctrination period with each new D11 teacher each year. It is at that time that you use scare tactics to try to get them into your labor union.
Lori: We work proactively to support candidates that will support public education, instead of draining it dry with costly initiatives like site-based management and vouchers. Our focus in this association is on teachers and kids
Craig: Vouchers put parents in charge of their tax dollars. Only labor union bosses consider that a bad thing. The only school board member to ever receive a voucher in D11 was your hero, Karen Teja. I don’t remember you objecting to that $5,000 gift. Site based management systems force money to the classrooms before funding central administrations. Interesting that you would call that a waste of money. I guess you consider it more appropriate that administrators continue to get thousands in bonuses while teachers scrape for classroom dollars. Brilliant technique for looking out for teachers and kids. By the way, your labor union leadership proudly boasts of NOT looking out for kids. Not the labor union’s responsibility, they say.
Lori: Is it true, Craig, that Angus himself (site-based guru) thought that we were already site-based and that there were more central ideas that we needed to concentrate on? Like coordination of curriculum? What's the truth about the blow-up between he and Eric before he left?
Craig: No, Angus did not think that D11 was site based enough. He thought that admin was too big and too weak. Coordination of curriculum was something he advocated. D11 has been “aligning” for years and has gotten nowhere despite having spent millions of dollars pretending to be doing something. Angus advocated that central admin actually hold principals accountable for performance, something that the current administration does not want to do, nor does your labor union. I don’t know anything about a blowup. It is probably something that your labor union invented. Ask Eric.
Lori: You're reform might have worked if you hadn't decided that your target was the union. You helped improve our membership numbers with your acusations of bad teachers and your brand of accountability.
Craig: Interesting that ‘my brand of reform” might have worked. I thought you just got done saying that it was a waste of money? You can’t show me one proposal or vote that targeted your labor union. Your big concern is that site based management empowered teachers. Empowered teachers don’t need your labor union, so THAT is where you saw a threat. Oh wait, I advocated the “opt in” vs. “opt out” method of paying union dues. THAT was also a threat. Now I see. Labor union before kids is always your priority. What brand of accountability do you fear? Any type of accountability that has sanctions for poor performance, of course.
Lori: We work hard for our students and parents and we'd like to be treated as the professionals that we are. I doubt I'd see you bullying doctors and lawyers the way you dog us.
Craig: Funny, but I have always advocated treating teachers as professionals. It is your labor union that treats them as blue collar laborers. Your labor union is a union, not a professional organization, and there is a huge difference. If doctors had only a 13% success rate as you did at East, would they still be in practice? Can teachers sign individual contracts with the district to be paid based on their worth? Which group joined forces with the Teamster’s union, the teachers, doctors, or lawyers? Not the doctors and lawyers. When the professional organizations representing doctors and lawyers meet at conventions, they discuss methods of better serving their patients and clients. When they experience failures, they find ways to prevent those failures from occurring again. When your labor union meets at conventions, its leaders discuss ways to maintain the status quo. They fight any type of change and they blame their patients and clients (the students) for any and all failures. They discuss everything except the students and academics. Doctors and even attorneys face lawsuits for failure to perform. Your labor union demands more money when the education system fails to perform.
Your concern for public education is that you want it to continue to exist, as is, to fund your labor union. My concern is that we have a public education system that is responsive to the needs of students. If students ever become the biggest priority in education, then your labor union will lose power. So will the high paid administrators. That is exactly why neither group will ever allow any type of reform without an expensive battle. By expensive I mean in terms of lost and undereducated kids.
Good Lord, people, will you listen to yourselves? Freedom Elementary has been open for three weeks, and you're ready to hammer the guy running the show? You guys not only want to be the judge, but the jury and executioner in addition... which is just one of the many reasons why your type cannot be allowed back into a position of power in our school system. You're quick to render judgment upon individuals that you don't even know, individuals who are doing jobs you don't even begin to comprehend. You want to take your kids out of the school district? Then do it already, but just shut the hell up once you do. You won't be missed in the slightest
Who are the "you guys" to which you refer? I don't know anyone whose kids attend Freedom, so if you are trying to clump people from there with me, it probably won't work.
It apparently bothers you that someone has an opinion that you didn't authorize them to hold. You sound very much like a typical educrat who wants these parents, who own their school, to shut their mouths and take whatever they are forced to take by the district. These parents have every right to be critical of the district if it doesn't meet their needs. It is their system, not yours. Are you saying that people can't hold an opinion on the war in Iraq unless they are a soldier serving in theater? Can people not opine on their police department unless they are police officers? You always fall back on the same tactic to prevent citizens from demanding improvement in their schools - "you can't offer an opinion unless you have been a teacher/administrator." That is pure BS. If the parents in the Freedom area did not have a say in choosing their principal, that is wrong. If they are not satisfied with their current principal, they have every right to speak out. They pay his salary. he has their kids in his building.
By the way, I wouldn't encourage too many more parents to take their kids elsewhere. We already lose over 500 kids each year, equating to over $3 million in state dollars. I know you won't miss the kids, but I know you want those tax dollars.
To Anonymous defending a principal that apparently some parents are less than enthralled with: how dare you condemn them for their opinion! And to declare that someone like Craig can never again be allowed in a position of power (oops, you slipped up there, the board positions ARE about power, not leadership, as I used to believe), how dare you again!
When this community finally becomes enlightened enough to realize that the old way of doing things isn't working for most kids, you will have your way with your "types" on the board.
Once this district implodes, and it will, it has already begun, THEN the Craig Cox types will be the heroes that rebuild it correctly and appropriately.
Let the Norvelle Simpsons, Tanners, Gudvangens continue to serve the haves and the expense of the have nots. The scales are tipping as we speak and soon there WILL be an uprising.
School closures are coming..........maybe it's going to be YOUE neighborhood that has to sacrifice to fund Steele and Holmes and the upper end schools. Bet you understand better then why parents who didn't have a say in the principal selection process are speaking out. And why weren't they included in that process??
In a district that claims to be so inclusive of parents/guardians regarding childrens' education.
Only in word, not in deed.
I never suggested that parents can't have their own opinion. I said that parents shouldn't consider themselves as the second coming of the Inquisition. Posters suggesting that you "investigate" a principal are way out of bounds.
Parents who take the time to find out what they're talking about are fine. No minds like yourself, don't deserve any respect.
"Freedom Elementary has been open for three weeks, and you're ready to hammer the guy running the show?"
Freedom's principal came from a 6 year stint at Penrose elementary, an "average" rated school from 2001 through 2006, according to the School Accountability Report. Have to agree with other Anonymous- with this in mind, what were his qualifications that won him this new school vs. other principals/assistant principals in the district that represent a "high" or "excellent" school? Maybe none of them applied for the position.
Regarding the comment: "You want to take your kids out of the school district? Then do it already, but just shut the hell up once you do. You won't be missed in the slightest"
I don't believe parents want to take their kids out of their neighborhood schools and drag them miles away into another district. Parents want their neighborhood schools to be successful and they want to send their kids to schools with "Excellent" ratings. What is being done to achieve this? Why don't you look at the schools that have this ranking (whether they lie in D11, D12, D20, Denver or even a different state) and do what they are doing? Simple. But I guess people who want us to "shut the hell up" are just fine with "Average" schools and the system as status quo.
And as far as being missed? Once a neighbor pulls their child out and puts them into a different school because they want something better, it's only a matter of time before their neighborhood friends wonder if they should be doing the same.
So you never suggested that parents can’t have their own opinions, but they can’t have them unless you approve of them? That clarifies the issue a bit. Thanks.
Parents who take the time to find out what they are talking about are fine, but parents who try to find out what they are talking about by taking the time to “investigate” a principal are not fine? Again, thanks for the clarity. (By chance were you sharing a beverage with Sandra Mann prior to posting your comments)?
It is great to see someone whose salary is paid by the public telling parents what they can and can’t think and what they can and can’t say or do. The fact of the matter is that all of you, including the principals, are public servants. You are government employees. The parents of this community, who pump $500 million per year into the school district, are well within their right to have as much information on any of you as they please. They have the right to know your qualifications and they have the right to know your past competence levels. They also have the right to speak out any time you are not meeting their expectations. The parents and tax payers don’t have to wait for permission from you to ask questions. You have that very backwards, little anonymous poster. Who is it that has no mind?
To the last anonymous, you are right on the money. Parents should not have to leave their neighborhoods to get a good education for their kids. It is obviously easier for this employee to ask you to leave than for him/her to step up and meet your expectations.
This exchange highlights a huge problem in education. Poor administrators and teachers are continuously passed from school to school or from district to district where they expect to have a clean slate with no reference made to their previous job performance. This is why the other anonymous feels that you have no right to voice an opinion on Marin. You are supposed to hold your tongue for 2-3 years, sacrifice your child, if necessary, to a poor education environment, and then be thankful when the principal is replaced with someone else of central admin's choosing. As the other anony suggests, you are to suffer in silence because, well, because "you can't comprehend the job they do." I wonder why these apologists for mediocrity can't comprehend that parents want a quality education for their kids.
It is very obvious that ANYONE who doesn't cheerlead for District 11 is going to be trashed by these anonymous folks. I see that we have "Good things in the district" as a standing item on the District 11 board agenda. Doesn't that kind of make one think that there should also be "Not so good things" on the agenda? Or is this board really convinced that there is nothing negative to deal with? 66.1% graduation rate. Will that be highlighted as a "good thing"? I would hope not.
As to the "take you kid and shut the hell up": NEVER. As long as I am using my own gas, my own time, to take children out of my poorly performing neighborhood school while paying my appropriate school taxes, I WILL speak out.
And what a stellar candidate list D-11 has this time! A former board member who was trounced last time (Armstrong-Busby), the three recall walk ons (Hey, Ms. Tanner, is it true that D-11 sent Sharon Thomas flowers after she killed a motorcyclist?) anti-charter Bobbitt and Tom "I'm in a learning curve" Strand, and a couple of others who figure it's now or never. Nothing controversial this time around. Which is good, right? No controversy means that things are all good and the Emperor's wearing clothes.
Vote with your feet, parents. Find the best you can for your children, don't let these union hacks make you feel bad for looking out for your own, cuz they certainly aren't.
Post a Comment
<< Home