Terry Bishop defends builders of Titanic
D11 superintendent Terry Bishop spent $12,000 on an ad in the Gazette on September 15th to justify his $33,000 bonus and his $10,000 pay raise. He also wrote an oped wherein he defended the status quo performance of himself and his staff. While some critics would suggest that Bishop put more time and effort into pretending that he was accomplishing something than he has into actually doing anything, supporters feel that his oped showed that he is the right man to defend poor performing entities. To test this theory (in a mock interview), Bishop was asked to take on another tough topic: the sinking of the Titanic.
Q: Terry, what exactly went wrong with the Titanic?
TB: First of all, you may call me "Doctor." By referring to me thusly, it helps to justify my pay. Pay is important to us doctors in education. Second, you seem to be attacking the builders and crew of the Titanic by claiming that something "went wrong." We could have a deeper understanding of the issues if you stopped using such harsh language and stop attacking the passenger ship industry.
Q: The Titanic was billed as unsinkable. Is it not justified to question the legitimacy of that claim when, in fact, the Titanic did sink?
TB: The Titanic was the largest passenger ship afloat at the time. It could carry over 2,000 passengers and crew. It was a very important ship. What value is there in attacking the crew and builders of that ship? There were other types of transportation in existence at the time, and I don't see the press being critical of their performance.
Q: Um, this was the largest single loss of any type of transportation in existence. This loss was devastating.
TB: Now we're comparing apples to oranges. The Titanic took on a larger and more diverse population than anything of its day. It carried people from all types of income levels and backgrounds. When it pulled out of port, it carried everybody. You can't compare it to ships or plains or trains that served only the privileged.
Q: OK, we are probably getting a little off topic, which is the sinking of the Titanic. But since you brought up the topic of serving the underprivileged, only 25% of the 3rd class passengers survived the sinking of the ship, while 62% of the first class passengers survived. Of course, even those who survived had to pay extra money to get to the U.S. via other means since the Titanic did not get them to their destination. Do you really consider this service?
TB: Look, each of those 3rd class passengers who got onto that ship counted as income to the ship. Of course they mattered to the cruise line. As John Gudvangen wisely stated just a couple of years ago, if the parents of these 3rd class passengers would have made wiser choices when they were younger, these people would not have been in the position to have to settle for the worst and most dangerous rooms on the ship.
Q: You claim that they "mattered," but they were not even allowed onto the life boats.
TB: I am not clear on the confusion. Of course they mattered. Without the money that their kind paid to the Titanic, the survival of the cruise line would have been in question. It was very important that those big ships from those large cruise lines survived.
Q: Out of 2,224 passengers and crew on the Titanic, only 711 survived. Do you consider that success?
TB: Anybody can make numbers say anything that they want. Of course that is success. The press needs to understand that the largest passenger ship of its time needed to have positive coverage for the passenger cruise industry to thrive. 711 people survived. There were some very important and accomplished people on that boat who lived and continued to be productive citizens.
Q: That may be true, and we agree that it was very fortunate that those 711 survived, but wouldn't you consider it a disaster when you consider that 68% of all souls on that ship were lost?
TB: I just told you that 711 people lived and you turn around and use the term "disaster." That type of terminology won't get us anywhere. That is what I mean by lack of support.
Q: Why don't you go ahead and tell us what went right with the Titanic.
TB: I just told you that 711 passengers survived. That is extremely positive. Also, the Titanic had some of the finest woodwork of any ship of its kind. The ballroom was absolutely marvelous, and the first class state rooms were top notch. The Titanic had some of the best chefs around at the time, and the orchestra was phenomenal.
Q: That all sounds great, but it seems to be a historical reality that the ship hit an iceberg and sank. What did any of those items you mentioned have to do with the overall success of the Titanic's mission, which was to transport passengers safely across the ocean?
TB: Now you are getting into semantics and number games. You can't simply blame the crew for the performance of the ship. There were only about 900 crew members on that ship, which means that there were over 1,300 passengers. The passengers have responsibilities as well. Why didn't any of them notice the approaching iceberg? If we are going to play the blame game, then answer that question.
Q:Yes, but these people paid money to be on that ship. The crew was supposedly trained (and paid) to navigate that ship. How can we blame the passengers for the performance of the ship?
TB: It is all about personal responsibility. And choices.
Q: The crew of the Titanic prohibited hundreds of people from boarding lifeboats. Even if they had allowed each of the boats to be filled, there was only enough capacity to handle 1084 people. There were 2,224 souls on board. Does that suggest a lack of planning?
TB: It suggests nothing of the sort. That crew had spent countless hours aligning resources with passengers. These were professionals. Besides, the fact that 711 people survived speaks volumes about how much these people cared. 711 survivors means that only 373 people did not make it onto life boats. That is not bad when you consider that 711 is almost twice 373.
Q: Wait a minute. There were 2,224 people on board and only 1,084 lifeboat seats. 1,513 people did not make it onto lifeboats. You are using the 1,084 figure.
TB: Well, you've got your numbers and I've got mine. We won't get anywhere if all you want to do is focus on the negative. Let's be honest here. A lot of those 3rd class passengers weren't destined for the lifeboats anyway. I imagine that a bunch of them went right over into the water, so how can you blame the crew for that?
Q: What could have been done differently to ensure that the Titanic had not sunk?
TB: Absolutely nothing. That ship was a beauty. It even had metal doors and walls and a partitioned design to prevent water from flooding more than one compartment at a time in case of a leak. The grand staircase was absolutely the best of its kind and the marble floors were unbelievable.
Q: Yes, but the design was flawed. Those metal barriers did not extend upward high enough to prevent water from flowing from one compartment to the next. Wouldn't you have changed anything now that you know that the design and performance was a total failure?
TB: I can't believe that you are so determined to deem the Titanic a disaster that you can't appreciate the successes. The designers obviously did something properly or 711 people would not have survived. Why on earth would you want to change anything that could jeopardize that type of success?
Q: So you fully support the performance of the Titanic?
TB: I fully support the performance of the Titanic and I would not have changed a thing. In fact, I was told that the Titanic was TOO advanced. I'm not saying that was a bad thing, of course, but that is what I was told.
Q: Based on your advocacy of the Titanic, you most certainly would have allowed your family to have traveled on this vessel, correct?
TB: Are you out of your mind? With the money I make, why on earth would I ever let my family anywhere near something like that?
Q: Terry, what exactly went wrong with the Titanic?
TB: First of all, you may call me "Doctor." By referring to me thusly, it helps to justify my pay. Pay is important to us doctors in education. Second, you seem to be attacking the builders and crew of the Titanic by claiming that something "went wrong." We could have a deeper understanding of the issues if you stopped using such harsh language and stop attacking the passenger ship industry.
Q: The Titanic was billed as unsinkable. Is it not justified to question the legitimacy of that claim when, in fact, the Titanic did sink?
TB: The Titanic was the largest passenger ship afloat at the time. It could carry over 2,000 passengers and crew. It was a very important ship. What value is there in attacking the crew and builders of that ship? There were other types of transportation in existence at the time, and I don't see the press being critical of their performance.
Q: Um, this was the largest single loss of any type of transportation in existence. This loss was devastating.
TB: Now we're comparing apples to oranges. The Titanic took on a larger and more diverse population than anything of its day. It carried people from all types of income levels and backgrounds. When it pulled out of port, it carried everybody. You can't compare it to ships or plains or trains that served only the privileged.
Q: OK, we are probably getting a little off topic, which is the sinking of the Titanic. But since you brought up the topic of serving the underprivileged, only 25% of the 3rd class passengers survived the sinking of the ship, while 62% of the first class passengers survived. Of course, even those who survived had to pay extra money to get to the U.S. via other means since the Titanic did not get them to their destination. Do you really consider this service?
TB: Look, each of those 3rd class passengers who got onto that ship counted as income to the ship. Of course they mattered to the cruise line. As John Gudvangen wisely stated just a couple of years ago, if the parents of these 3rd class passengers would have made wiser choices when they were younger, these people would not have been in the position to have to settle for the worst and most dangerous rooms on the ship.
Q: You claim that they "mattered," but they were not even allowed onto the life boats.
TB: I am not clear on the confusion. Of course they mattered. Without the money that their kind paid to the Titanic, the survival of the cruise line would have been in question. It was very important that those big ships from those large cruise lines survived.
Q: Out of 2,224 passengers and crew on the Titanic, only 711 survived. Do you consider that success?
TB: Anybody can make numbers say anything that they want. Of course that is success. The press needs to understand that the largest passenger ship of its time needed to have positive coverage for the passenger cruise industry to thrive. 711 people survived. There were some very important and accomplished people on that boat who lived and continued to be productive citizens.
Q: That may be true, and we agree that it was very fortunate that those 711 survived, but wouldn't you consider it a disaster when you consider that 68% of all souls on that ship were lost?
TB: I just told you that 711 people lived and you turn around and use the term "disaster." That type of terminology won't get us anywhere. That is what I mean by lack of support.
Q: Why don't you go ahead and tell us what went right with the Titanic.
TB: I just told you that 711 passengers survived. That is extremely positive. Also, the Titanic had some of the finest woodwork of any ship of its kind. The ballroom was absolutely marvelous, and the first class state rooms were top notch. The Titanic had some of the best chefs around at the time, and the orchestra was phenomenal.
Q: That all sounds great, but it seems to be a historical reality that the ship hit an iceberg and sank. What did any of those items you mentioned have to do with the overall success of the Titanic's mission, which was to transport passengers safely across the ocean?
TB: Now you are getting into semantics and number games. You can't simply blame the crew for the performance of the ship. There were only about 900 crew members on that ship, which means that there were over 1,300 passengers. The passengers have responsibilities as well. Why didn't any of them notice the approaching iceberg? If we are going to play the blame game, then answer that question.
Q:Yes, but these people paid money to be on that ship. The crew was supposedly trained (and paid) to navigate that ship. How can we blame the passengers for the performance of the ship?
TB: It is all about personal responsibility. And choices.
Q: The crew of the Titanic prohibited hundreds of people from boarding lifeboats. Even if they had allowed each of the boats to be filled, there was only enough capacity to handle 1084 people. There were 2,224 souls on board. Does that suggest a lack of planning?
TB: It suggests nothing of the sort. That crew had spent countless hours aligning resources with passengers. These were professionals. Besides, the fact that 711 people survived speaks volumes about how much these people cared. 711 survivors means that only 373 people did not make it onto life boats. That is not bad when you consider that 711 is almost twice 373.
Q: Wait a minute. There were 2,224 people on board and only 1,084 lifeboat seats. 1,513 people did not make it onto lifeboats. You are using the 1,084 figure.
TB: Well, you've got your numbers and I've got mine. We won't get anywhere if all you want to do is focus on the negative. Let's be honest here. A lot of those 3rd class passengers weren't destined for the lifeboats anyway. I imagine that a bunch of them went right over into the water, so how can you blame the crew for that?
Q: What could have been done differently to ensure that the Titanic had not sunk?
TB: Absolutely nothing. That ship was a beauty. It even had metal doors and walls and a partitioned design to prevent water from flooding more than one compartment at a time in case of a leak. The grand staircase was absolutely the best of its kind and the marble floors were unbelievable.
Q: Yes, but the design was flawed. Those metal barriers did not extend upward high enough to prevent water from flowing from one compartment to the next. Wouldn't you have changed anything now that you know that the design and performance was a total failure?
TB: I can't believe that you are so determined to deem the Titanic a disaster that you can't appreciate the successes. The designers obviously did something properly or 711 people would not have survived. Why on earth would you want to change anything that could jeopardize that type of success?
Q: So you fully support the performance of the Titanic?
TB: I fully support the performance of the Titanic and I would not have changed a thing. In fact, I was told that the Titanic was TOO advanced. I'm not saying that was a bad thing, of course, but that is what I was told.
Q: Based on your advocacy of the Titanic, you most certainly would have allowed your family to have traveled on this vessel, correct?
TB: Are you out of your mind? With the money I make, why on earth would I ever let my family anywhere near something like that?
posted by Craig Cox | 1:01 PM
8 Comments:
Let's understand this: You lie and say Terry Bishop accomplished one of 25 goals. He clearly refutes you, point by point, and your response is.... a parody?
Yes, let’s understand this. Bishop and his staff go to the Gazette and tell Shari that he accomplished 1 of 25 self-imposed tasks, stating that he never thought that he could work through all 25. The Gazette prints the administration’s story exactly as it is told to Shari Griffin. Do we think that Shari made up the “complete status” on her own? Of course not – she is not all that interested in working too hard to get a story. She prints what she is told. So, did I lie? Of course not. I got my information from the Gazette. The Gazette got its information from Bishop and his staff.
You want to talk parody? Are you suggesting that the expensive ad that the district bought was anything other than a parody? Are you suggesting that Bishop’s oped was something other than parody? Neither of those rebutted anything that I wrote. In fact, isn’t it rather silly to feed a story to the Gazette and then spend thousands of tax payer dollars to argue against your own facts?
Bishop received a lot of criticism for demanding 80% of his at-risk pay and a $10,000 raise for completing what HE said was 1 task. John Gudvangen went to him and informed him that although this board wanted to hand him whatever money he wanted, he (Bishop) had to help the board out by changing his story on the status of his goals. Do we really believe that the administration went from 1 to 21 completed tasks in one week as Bishop claims? Even you don’t believe that; you just enjoy the Koolaid.
How else do you respond when the administration throws out 2 completely different stories on performance in less than a month? How else do you respond when he doesn’t even try to relate these tasks to education? How else do you respond when he claims that the press should show support for D11 simply because it is a big district?
Here is one definition of parody: “Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty”
My parodies aren’t all that good, but they aren’t nearly as costly and damaging as the parodies that one D11 administration after another produces when they pretend that they are delivering as good an educational product as they can deliver with their ½ billion dollar budgets.
CRAIG!!!! YOU SLAY ME!!!
I think Letterman or Colbert is missing a writer........
What amazes me is that when it comes to educating our kids, the system failures are always the fault of someone else. The educartel never, ever accepts responsibility for the poor test scores, low teacher pay, lack of accoutability, or poor international standing. Instead, they blame parents, the state or federal government, the lack of understanding the "system", or the Gazette. How long will we, the taxpayers, keep our heads in the sand? Four districts in Colorado Springs have combined budgets for this school year of ONE BILLION dollars. What does it take to get the public really intersted? Dr. Bishop and other insiders know. That is why taxpayer resources were spent to defend their postion. Get it yet?
Craig - did you know that Mitchell High School is dropping down to 4A next year in sports because of declining enrollment? Did you see Bill Cadman's piece in the paper today talking about the D-11 teacher and all the problems they're having getting adequate staffing? (By the way, that's happening at more than the elementary level.) So, D-11 has declining enrollment, schools with not enough teachers, and Terry Bishop spends $12,000 to try to lobby for a bigger paycheck? And people wonder why scores are flat if not declining and families are fleeing the district. Good grief.
Great job!! From exposing the pomposity of holders of the worthless ed doctorates to their trying to put a brave face on every damning performance statistic, a fantastic effot. You exposed their self-serving attitude which comes at the expense of the students and the society in general. If he and his brethren superintendents were paid on a merit pay basis they would starve.
In real life outside the closeted confines of the insular, delusional education establishment you see people like Jack Welch the super performing GE CEO for many years who held a real Ph.D. (Chemical Engineering, damned rigorous stuff there) who told everyone not to call him doctor as it was unimportant to his job function. Ah, intellectual honesty is a powerful enhancer of performance. It is at a level of zero in most educators.
The really sad thing is that Bishop is so typical of all district superintendents. The difference in their performance levels is all explained by the luck of the demographic draw.
Craig,
You need to post a warning if you are going to write crap like that!!
WARNING!
"Do not eat or drink while reading this piece. Failure to comply with this warning may require cleaning your monitor, washing your keyboard, or a trip to the emergency room to have your sides stitch back together."
I think that the saddest part about all of this is that they believe there own story. It is sad when the district would benefit from paying these people to stay AWAY from our schools. I hold out hope that at some point the district will reach a tipping point when the citizenry will realize that the Union actually thrives in mediocrity, or better yet academic crisis. Then it becomes easier for them to get more money for salaries, while continuing to accomplish less. I think that the saddest part is that it tarnishes the truly great teachers, because there are those who allow mediocrity to abound.
Great stuff. Keep up the good fight.
Just Stopping, it is true that the educartel does not take responsibility for anything. You may here some of them say something like, "Sure the system isn't perfect, but..." And there is always a but. Never ever will you hear a solution to that which is causing the imperfection. Never will you hear anyone within the system speak critically of their own. Never will you see anyone within the system hold anyone else accountable. If someone else does have success outside of the traditional schools, then those people will be ridiculed and denegrated. This just shows how little the students actually mean to the leaders of the educartel, which are the high level administrators and labor union bosses.
Anony, Mitchell is already 4A. Only Doherty and Palmer are 5A within D11. Mitchell is about to drop to 3A. The population will probably drop below 1,300 in a school built for 2,000 or so. Of course it is somebody else's fault that the student population continues to plummet. I thought that all would be well and that families would rush back to D11 as soon as Tim Gil and the labor union took all of the board seats.
Yes, I did read Bill Cadman's piece. The district demanded that each school "cut back" to save money, yet Bishop is continuing to spend money on an expanding central administration. Gotta sacrifice those kids to keep that gravy train full.
Truth in Ed, I attended Chamber of Commerce education committee meetings and listened to the ex-D12 and ex-20 superintendents make excuses for the D11 and D2 superintendents. As you say, they all rally around the theory that only well-to-do white kids can learn. They don't see that there is no justifying their jobs if the success of a school district is based solely on demographics. If they can have no impact, why on earth do we need them? They all make excuses for the schools that do manage to provide a solid education for every child. Also interesting is that although the labor union pretends to be an asset to education, the superintendents in El Paso County without labor unions (which is all of them other than D11) always felt bad that the D11 supes had to deal with the union, which they agreed hurt the school district.
Post a Comment
<< Home