In their own words

Many School District 11 teachers join the local labor union for purposes of obtaining the liability protection offered by the labor union. These teachers do not necessarily agree with the extreme leftist views of the labor union leadership, and many are not happy that their local dues pay for left-wing causes across the country. Up to this point, these teachers have not had other options available to them for this liability insurance. The labor union charges teachers over $700 per year for labor union dues.

Eric Christen sent an email to D11 teachers that contained information on a relatively new organization that provides liability protection for teachers at a much lower cost than the labor union. This new organization does not send money to either left-wing or right-wing causes. It costs only $180 per year to join the Professional Association of Colorado Educators (PACE). As its name suggests, PACE is a professional organization, not a labor union like the NEA and its local affiliate, the CSEA. PACE exists to help teachers with issues of education, while the CSEA exists to help left wing causes around the country.

This is the email that was sent to D11 teachers. It was a public service announcement for those who want to belong to a professional organization for a change:

With modern teacher unions concerning themselves with everything but educating children and protecting their member interests (see attached) you need to know there are some professional organizations that actually focus on the teacher.

If you have had enough of the corruption:
http://www.gazette.com/articles/president_22493 article.html/valerio_board.html

and politics:
http://www.independentmindedteacher.org/neadisclosure.html

then you need to check out these options:
www.coloradoteachers.org
www.ceai.org

While "choice" is a noun that is verboten in the educational realm by the NEA, CEA, or CSEA, it is indeed healthy for its members.

Good luck.

If you have received this e-mail in error or would like to be removed from receiving future emails, please immediately contact the sender by reply e-mail.

Below are some of the replies that were sent to Eric from D11 teachers - you know, those same teachers who abhor mean-spiritedness and nastiness.

From: BERNDSEN, CYNTHIA K. [mailto:BERNDCK@d11.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 4:08 PM
To: Eric Christen
Subject: RE: A Healthy Alternative to the Local Teacher Union

Don't EVER send me another e-mail!!!!!!!!

From: RACHWITZ, KATHRYN [mailto:RACHWK@d11.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 10:47 AM
To: Eric Christen
Subject: RE: A Healthy Alternative to the Local Teacher Union

Under no circumstances are you to email me again-please take me off your email list, having my professional email is inappropriate and you know it—Kathryn Rachwitz

(Craig: Hey Kathy, you are a public school teacher. You work for the public. Your email is public. By the way, your private labor union uses the public D11 email system all the time to spread propaganda).

From: YOBLONSKI, PAULINE J. [mailto:YOBLOPJ@d11.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:34 PM
To: Eric Christen
Subject: RE: A Healthy Alternative to the Local Teacher Union

This is an unwanted form of solicitation. As a former school board member you protested against political use of the e-mail system. Why do you use the system when it serves your purposes? Please don’t waste our time with your nonsense.
REMOVE MY NAME FROM YOUR LIST OF E-MAIL RECIPIENTS.
Polly Yoblonski
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children".
"Let us put our minds together and see what kind of life we can make for our children".

From: HAAS, CLAIRE E.S. [mailto:HAASCE@d11.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:54 PM
To: Eric Christen
Subject: RE: A Healthy Alternative to the Local Teacher Union

Sir,
It is highly unprofessional to use my school email address without my permission. I associate you and everything you stand for with the continued problems we are having in our public schools. If you are suggesting an alternative organization I can only guess that the purpose of that organization is to hurt teachers and students. Take me off of your email list for I only associate with those who want what is best for students and the people who work so hard to support them.

Sincerely,
Claire Haas

(Craig: Her labor union has had a death grip on D11 for over 30 years and she blames Eric for the problems that face the district. She never mentions exactly who in the labor union leadership has ever worked hard for kids and had the results to prove it. Oh well, at least she wrote "sincerely").

From: BRAGG, RICHARD C [mailto:BRAGGRC@D11.ORG]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:34 PM
To: Eric Christen
Subject: RE: A Healthy Alternative to the Local Teacher Union

I am insulted that you and your followers believe that we do not care about educating children. I supported your recall and am pleased that since your removal the District 11 Board meetings have not had the pathetic soap opera quality that they did while you were continuing petty arguments with other board members. I do not respect your opinions or value them as they are badly misguided. Please remove me from this mailing list, you have wasted enough of the district’s time already.

Richard Bragg
Science Department
Wasson High School
520-2178

(Craig: You betcha, Rich, those school board meetings are really something to see these days. I'll bet you can't name one thing that your board has done to improve education while they are busy playing nice with each other).

From: YATES II, JOHNNY O. [mailto:YATESJO@d11.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 12:25 PM
To: Eric Christen
Cc: kmarshall@nea.org; WATSON, LORI A.; tcross@nea.org
Subject: RE: A Healthy Alternative to the Local Teacher Union

Eric,
I am greatly disturbed that you would send this unsolicited information to myself and other District 11 employees. I am highly offended by this email and deeply concerned by your obsession with District 11, it’s teachers (who you continue to treat as though they are idiots), and CSEA. I hope that one day you can let go of the past and move on so that you and your family can be at peace without turmoil. Please take me off of your mailing list permanently.

Johnny Yates

(Craig: Note that Johnny couldn't reply without CCing his labor union bosses. Why is the NEA so obsessed with D11?)

On the flip side, there are plenty of teachers who are not happy with their highly political labor union. Keeping in mind that the labor union has literally combined with the AFL-CIO and uses the same thug-type tactics, I will not print the names of those teachers who spoke positively of PACE or negatively of the CSEA. These teachers would be targeted for harassment by labor union leaders and the administration.

To: Eric Christen
Subject: RE: A Healthy Alternative to the Local Teacher Union

Eric
Thank you for sending this. I already belong to PACE and find its conservative viewpoints and monthly newsletter very informative. I highly recommend it to anyone. It also carries a $2 million insurance package. I also want to thank you for allowing me to dis-enroll from CSEA without having to fill out a dues revocation form every year. That was a Godsend.

I, and many more of my colleagues than you might think, are staunchly Republican. I do not always agree with the Republicans on education, but I do agree that public schools could be doing better. Thanks for your work.

To: Eric Christen
Subject: RE: A Healthy Alternative to the Local Teacher Union/Thanks You

Thanks Eric:
I appreciate this. I am not a member of CSEA any longer because of the immoral stands that CEA and NEA have taken. I need to be accountable someday for this decision. I’d rather God’s approval than man’s.
Thanks:

To: Eric Christen
Subject: RE: A Healthy Alternative to the Local Teacher Union

Dear Mr. Christen,
Yes, you are correct these other teacher supporting organizations have a very different agenda. Unfortunately, because of ethics and integrity issues, atypical ( strong, reforming teacher leaders) teachers need stronger support at times, especially if they feel jeopardized for NOT being mediocre and go with the flow. We need an ethical teacher's union here in D11- no doubt. I guess I would like to believe with the recent changes, we are moving in better directions.

To: Eric Christen
Subject: RE: A Healthy Alternative to the Local Teacher Union

I took time to look at and read the articles. Thank you and keep up the good work! We need it.

To: Eric Christen
Subject: RE: A Healthy Alternative to the Local Teacher Union

Thank you for all you did and tried to do for our kids. While I did not always agree with you, you gave us a needed kick in the butt which is still having an impact.

To: Eric Christen
Subject: RE: A Healthy Alternative to the Local Teacher Union

Please remove me from any future mailing list. Thank you for what you did while on the board and best of luck to you.

To: Eric Christen
Subject: RE: A Healthy Alternative to the Local Teacher Union

I appreciate you sending me this email. The CSEA is an unhealthy organization and I do not wish to be a part of it any longer.

(Craig: This last one is a classic. Humor works best when it is based on truth. This is hilarious).

To: Eric Christen
Subject: RE: A Healthy Alternative to the Local Teacher Union

Miss you on the board. We need someone willing to buck the "Amen corner" that is up their now. God in heaven, if there was a brain among the 7 of the little dwarfs we’d be in real trouble.

Tom Strand, Charlie Bobbitt, and Steve Schuck!

Colorado Springs liberals love to hate local businessman Steve Schuck because of his strong belief that schools exist to educate students and that parents should have a say in the education of their children. Liberals believe that parents have no right to have a say in how their education tax dollars are spent and they believe that educating students is only secondary in importance to employing adults who happen to have "PhD" attached to their names.

Liberals attack Steve as a "right-wing privatizer" who they accuse of trying to destroy public schools. Never mind that Steve was once a public school teacher himself, and never mind that his son and daughter-in-law are currently public school teachers, and never mind that Steve provides more money to D11 students for education, tutoring, and textbooks than any other entity in the city, these liberal defenders of incompetence still declare Steve to be a threat to public education.

The Colorado Springs Independent despises Steve Schuck. This year, the Independent endorsed Tom Strand for election to the board. In December, the Indy endorsed Charlie Bobbitt to replace Eric Christen for the recall election. The local Democrat Party endorses Tom Strand, and liberal darling and personal voucher queen Karen Teja manages Strand's campaign this time around. The anti-parent District 11 Watch blog, whose bashful and nameless"owners" organized the 2006 recall election, have a strong hatred for Steve. They have endorsed both Tom Strand and Charlie Bobbitt for the November 6th election. On July 13th of this year, they called for the defeat of parent advocate Willie Breazell because he is (in their words), "the last member of Schuck's team."

Not so fast, silly little liberals.

It appears that both Tom Strand and Charlie Bobbitt have secretly attempted to gain the favor and funding of none other than: Steve Schuck.

One goal of us reformers has always been to allow the business community and the public to take part in D11's negotiations with the local labor union. Since the labor union controls the majority of the D11 board, they adamantly oppose any type of openness in contract negotiations. They much prefer darkness over light. Willie Breazell has been attempting to get the board to discuss the possibility of making labor union negotiations more open to the public, but board president and labor union mouthpiece John (it's all about me) Gudvangen has refused to discuss the topic on the orders of his labor union handlers.

Despite the efforts of the local press to show otherwise, there is discord on the current D11 board. Labor union activist Jan Tanner despises Bobbitt and accuses him of being too open to new ideas. She prefers to work with others on the board who blindly follow their orders from their handlers. Bobbitt went to Steve Schuck and complained that the administration wouldn't listen to his ideas. He complained that other board members just weren't taking him seriously. Bobbitt wanted Steve's support and agreed to help get the discussion about business community involvement in labor union negotiations onto the agenda. Tom Strand also met with Steve on more than one occasion and also stated that he did not believe that the current administration was doing enough to improve the district. Strand also agreed to get the discussion about the contract negotiations onto the table. He mentioned to Steve that his handler, Karen Teja, warned him to never have a discussion with Steve.

As can be seen in the following email exchange, Strand and Bobbitt balked when it came to the labor union issue. They wanted Steve Schuck's support to win the election, but they did not want to have to do anything to earn his support. They both later said that they needed to first win the election before they could advocate for the community or for the kids of D11. Think about it. Somehow they actually feel that their election is more important than doing the right thing for the students. Neither of these two has had the guts to do anything yet on behalf of kids, but somehow they feel that they need to be on the board to do something on behalf of kids. They feel that their chances of being elected decrease if they actually do something that would cause improvement. Pretty sad, but pretty typical of your average school board member in this district.

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Schuck
To: Willie Breazell
Sent: Thu Oct 18 10:14:15 2007
Subject: RE:

What happened?

(Steve asked Willie if the board agreed to talk about business involvement with labor union negotiations).

-----Original Message-----
From: Willie Breazell [mailto:breazell1@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:07 PM
To: Steve Schuck
Subject: Re:

Steve, Frankly, I don,t know what happened. I know that neither the admin nor certain members of the board want to discuss. Topic in a public forum.

(Gudvangen and Terry Bishop blocked attempts to get this item on the agenda).

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Schuck
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 9:39 PM
To: 'Willie Breazell'
Cc: Charlie Bobbitt (charlie_bobbitt@yahoo.com); Tom Strand (tomstrand19@yahoo.com);
Subject: RE:

What are you saying? Didn't you agree on the value and importance of your forcing public exposure of this opportunity despite the predictable objection of "the admin and certain members of the board"? Of course they don't want to debate this in public, but you agreed on the importance of battling it on to the agenda, regardless of opposition. Where in hell are your so called allies who say that that they want what is best for the kids in the district? If they and you do not have the stomach for the fight, then please have the courtesy to tell me. It should come as no surprise to any of you that my friends who are seeking reform and meaningful improvement have no appetite to fund and support campaigns of those of you whose actions, or lack thereof, suggest that improvement on the margin (1%) is acceptable, and even rewarded. This initiative is but one of a long list that define, at least for us, whether you all are truly committed to improvement. Are you setting policy for the district or are you going to allow the union to continue to call the shots that you should not allow anyone other than you to control? You guys continue to disappoint all of us who committed to support you because you told us you would do what was right, like subordinating your personal electoral interests to "what is best for the kids". Obviously we were wrong to assume that your actions would match your rhetoric and to assume that there might be a few of you with the courage to stand up to "the admin and certain members of the board". Whenever you guys are ready to walk the walk, please call.

Steve correctly upbraided these cowards for begging for support, then running away from a simple effort to make a public employee contract open to the public. Interesting, isn't it, how these public haters of Steve Schuck will secretly run to him and his friends for support to remain on the school board to apparently do absolutely nothing of value. Steve is absolutely correct when he points out that these school board members have abdicated their responsibilities as elected officials by allowing the private labor union and the administration to run them instead of them running the district.

Below is another email exchange between the Voucher Queen candidate and Steve Schuck. Don Griffin works for Steve and initiated the exchange with regards to the Cesar Chavez charter school.

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Griffin [mailto:DJG@theschuckcorporation.com]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 8:45 AM
To: tomstrand19@yahoo.com; Willie Breazell
Subject: The Denver Post: Charter school merits imitation, not resentment

I thought you might find this article of interest. ---------------- Charter school merits imitation, not resentment - By David Harsanyi Denver Post Staff Columnist
When Cesar Chavez Academy opened its doors seven years ago, enrollment was 240. Today the number stands at 1,100. View Full Story

From: Willie Breazell [mailto:breazell1@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 10:25 AM
To: Don Griffin; tomstrand19@yahoo.com; Willie Breazell
Subject: RE: The Denver Post: Charter school merits imitation, not resentment

Don,
Cesar Chavez is the main reason two of our schools are working harder this year to recruit and retain students. You have recalled the D-11 principal of one of elementary schools was out knocking on doors a few weeks ago seeking students. Well, the only reason he was doing that is the proximity of Cesar Chavez. Competition in public school is what is long over due. We need to expand our teacher performance pay options as well put more pressure on the superintendent with measurable goals.
I hate to admit it, but Craig Cox was on target with some of criticism in his recent editorial. We typically pay administrators huge salaries and in return we (the public) receive mediocre results and we are happy. Willie

Steve Schuck wrote:
Willie Please excuse my reaction to your comments but my sense is that they are empty. you guys had an opportunity to actually have chavez run east and you turned it down, unanimously. What about those 200 plus kids? If you are so dissatisfied with your overpaid administrators, why did you give terry a raise and promotion? It is increasingly difficult to reconcile rhetoric with action, or more accurately lack of it. And before you guys accuse me of abandoning dist 11, pls tell me who provides more private funds to dist 11 students than do we. There is a difference between supporting d11 kids and supporting a board and staff who appear to be proud of a 1% improvement over a 50% proficiency performance. Sorry to be so blunt and direct
Regards
steve

From: Thomas Strand [mailto:tomstrand19@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 10:11 PM
To: Steve Schuck
Subject: Re: FW: The Denver Post: Charter school merits imitation, not resentment

Dear Mr. Schuck:
Wow!! You certainly are blunt and and direct. I do not recall a unanimous vote about Chavez operating out of East Middle school. My recollection is that they withdrew their request before we acted upon it. I'll go back and check. As to the comment about the "overpaid and promoted administrators, including Dr Bishop", my personal motivation was to stimulate a sense of support and inject a feeling of urgency to make our District better. When I looked at comparable salaries for our top 4 "officers" I found District 11 at the lower end of the pay scale. Again ,I'll double check this. Please don't lose interest in or give up in D-11. We need you as a partner.
Your idealist and naive public servant,
Tom

(Craig: For the record, Tom, D11 is also in the lower end of the academic performance scale. Maybe these over-paid administrators should make what they are worth, which is much less than you gave them).

From: "Steve Schuck"
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 17:45:27
To:"Thomas Strand"
Cc:,"Don Griffin"
Subject: RE: FW: The Denver Post: Charter school merits imitation, not resentment

tom thanks for your note and congratulations on your recent endorsements.
just to set the record straight, let me quickly respond to your comments. yes with my typical bluntness. my reference to the unanimous decision related to the closure of east which had the effect of foreclosing any further discussions with chavez. their request was withdrawn, as you suggested, but only after there was NO interest in even exploring options with them coming from either the administration or the board. and that is what infuriates me. ( btw, they are now open only a few blocks from east and, in just a few weeks, have enrollment approaching capacity. my guess is that many of those kids are former east attendees who will now enjoy the opportunity to attend the highest performing middle school in the State. are you guys truly interested in what is best for the kids? ) as to administrative promotions and salaries, the real world does not reward anemic performance, nor does it expect that rewards should precede results ( if you are so proud of 1% improvement in csaps, then why didn't you just give 1% raises? ). and it certainly does not use rewards as a means to stimulate support and urgency. if your administrators do not already share those feelings, you have the wrong people on the bus. my continued committment is to the kids and families of our community, regardless of where they live, certainly to include those in d 11. while you and i do agree on the need to do more and better, we do not share the same sense of crisis and need for strong leadership that will demand bold and result generating action ( not just rhetoric ). so, let's focus on working together when and where we can and accept the fact that we are on different trajectories.
thanks and regards
steve

-----Original Message-----
From: tomstrand19@yahoo.com [mailto:tomstrand19@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 8:43 PM
To: Steve Schuck
Subject: Re: FW: The Denver Post: Charter school merits imitation, not resentment

Mr Schuck: I always appreciate any communication from you. To me, it means that you have not totally given up on District 11 or me. With 8 months under my belt, I have just begun to find out what I don't know. But I'm a quick learner and I have a fair amount of energy. As soon as I can get this darn election behind me ( hopefully in the "win" column) I will put all my enery into doing all I can to improve things for kids in our district. The sense of urgency that you talk about will become my mantra. Maybe I can even light my hair on fire to get attention. My campaign slogan is " Tom Strand 4 Kids". But that's just a slogan. I will prove it. - - maybe even to you. Thanks for staying engaged,
Tom
Board of Education

Notice Strand's warped priorities. He will use his energy to get elected before he will spend an ounce of energy to "improve things for kids in our district." Wow. On top of that, he has "8 months under my belt" but has "just begun to find out what I don't know." Yet he calls himself a "quick learner." Here are two people (Bobbitt & Strand) who will place their own elections at a higher level of importance than the needs of the kids of D11. It is not the least bit surprising, then, that the Independent and other liberal Democrats would endorse them.

There you have it. The Steve Schuck haters have two of their own running to the education hero for money and support. And some people thought that I was kidding when I called Strand the stealth voucher candidate.

Where's Waldo, but more importantly, Where's Irma?

Back in May, we discovered that the local D11 labor union leader, Irma Valerio, was caught stealing from her own labor union and from the school district. Irma falsified papers to receive double reimbursements for travel in excess of $1,000, which is a felony theft. The following was an email sent out by a union member about the financial shenanigans of the labor union leader. The author is not related to me:

From: COX, SANDRA
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 7:26 AM
Subject: CSEA Alert

You may be concerned and confused by the events of the last few weeks. This communication is to help clarify the issues surrounding these events.

On May 11th in a vote of 8-0, the CSEA Board of Directors called for the President of CSEA's resignation because of the following:

Financial Improprieties
1. The President's expense account was exceeded by 56%. $6,000 was budgeted and $9,341 was spent.
2. The President's total compensation for this school year was to be $107,837 which is a 27% increase over the previous President's compensation. District 11 teachers received a 1% salary increase.
3. The President spent $17,000 on shirts and water bottles for members without board or Uniserve director approval.
4. For the first time since 1997 money had to be transferred from savings to balance the CSEA operating budget.

District Investigation
1. The CSEA President submitted a ProGrad expense voucher to the District that had a forged signature.
2. The president requested $1000 from ProGrad when CSEA had already paid for the trip.
3. The president received the $1000 from ProGrad in June 2006 and kept the $1000 until April 2007 when the CSEA board directed her to return it to the district.

In order to protect the members of this organization and the association's financial well being, the CSEA Board of Directors voted on May 11th to:
1. Ask the President to resign
2. Revoke the President's credit card privileges
3. Cancel the remaining balance of the President's $39,000 supplemental pay

As a result, in a retaliatory action recall petitions have been circulated against CSEA board members who have spoken up and taken positions to protect the membership of CSEA. After being informed of the above details, members have gone back and crossed their names off of the recall petitions. Should you?

Irma asked for and received a double reimbursement for labor union expenses, then she kept the money until she had to be directed to return the money to the public. There was also a forged signature on her paperwork that she submitted to receive her reimbursement, which is a second felony. In addition, you can read the other unethical financial dealings that Irma was involved with.

Logic would dictate that Irma, a teacher when she is not running the labor union, would not be in a position of trust anymore. That logic would be incorrect. According to D11 records, Irma Valerio is back in a D11 classroom teaching 8th graders at Jenkins Middle School.

Labor union members trumpeted their own horns when they removed Irma from her leadership post of the labor union. They bragged that they "did the right thing" by removing her. I agree, although I will also suggest Irma would have never been removed had there not been political infighting within the labor union during 2 school years when teachers should have been focused on teaching. Any good that the labor union leaders performed by ousting Irma has been undone by the fact that these same leaders have allowed her to remain in the classroom. She was so bad that the labor union could not trust her to run their political machine, but labor union leaders have no problem allowing her to lead a classroom of middle school students.

As I have always accurately said, the labor union places its own importance well above the importance of your and my kids.

She’s Actually shocked that Nobody Cares

D11 school board member Jan Tanner claims to be upset over the fact that there just isn’t any interest in this year’s school board race. The obvious question is: why would anyone be the least bit interested in this group of vacuous and idealess candidates?

Let’s look at the top priorities of these over-achievers and see if we can figure out why there is an overwhelming disinterest in the community. Jan, we will start with you.

Top priority for Jan Tanner? “To continue the stability and civility of the school board.” Wow, slow down. Why take such a giant leap towards educational excellence with that goal? Maybe people just don’t believe that anyone could have such an impressive goal for a leadership-starved school district. This goal ought to bring the district to heights yet unseen. Go for it, Jan. I never realized that you had such vision. How about another great goal? “…direct maximum resources to the classroom.” This is a good one, Jan. I wonder how you will reconcile this goal with your support for disbanding site based management, which would have directed maximum resources to the classroom. I wonder how you will reconcile this goal with your collusion with Karen Teja when she handed ex-superintendent Sharon Thomas a $750,000 golden parachute in her contract. As treasurer at the time, you sure helped the classroom teachers by helping to insert that 6-figure giveaway into the supe’s contract. I wonder if this is why people just aren’t excited about your candidacy. So many accomplishments to date, so many ideas. Wait, here’s another good one: “facilitate meaningful parent and community engagement.” Remember back when you sued the state because parents were to be empowered with allowing their tax dollars to follow their children to the schools of their choice? Is this what you mean by meaningful parent engagement? Do you really mean that you would empower parents to do what the education bureaucracy tells them to do with their own money and schools? I can just feel the excitement building around your campaign.

Let’s look at Charlie Bobbitt. Jan Tanner says that she can’t stand Charlie because he doesn’t even open his board packet before he attends his pre-meeting board buffet. I’ll bet Charlie has some great ideas for D11. In fact, his first idea is similar to Jan’s: “To continue being a positive voice for all of School District 11.” There you go. He will continue to be a positive voice for D11. Every parent can probably feel the academic performance of their district rising quickly by just uttering those strong words. Why does Jan dislike Charlie? Sounds as if these two education experts are working off of the same ambitious worksheet.

Delia Busby is back again. Delia, who makes her living by suing D11 or by charging the tax payers for educational consultant services that she does not perform, must have some very ambitious goals for the district this time around: “I have a record of efforts to maintain strong neighborhood schools. Geography should not determine whether a school is good or not.” Whoa, a record of efforts. How do you top that? The fact that Delia was serving on the board while D11 had the 2d worst performance of any school district in the county is apparently irrelevant. Delia had efforts. The good news is that if Delia is elected again, Sandra Mann will not be the only board member to show up for board meetings after having consumed large amounts of alcohol. They might as well. Nothing of importance ever happens there anymore anyway.

As for Tom Strand, I already pointed out that he is the voucher guy who is being run by Karen Teja. He will certainly ensure that employees once again get the right to vouchers for their kids. This ought to bring about public excitement.

Then there is Bob Null. Old Bob just wants to be elected to something. He runs around the community chasing election after election, hoping to become an important elected official. If anyone can figure out what on earth he wrote for his priorities, I am sure that there might be something to get excited about, but I just haven’t been able to decipher what he wrote just yet: “Restore confidence in the integrity and capabilities for educational excellence for all children; make the budget/expenditure process much more open to the public; budget allocations: salaries, students, facilities, staff, IT, safety/security, environment; graduation and dropout rates; disparities in student grades across the district; slow/stop the enrollment hemorrhaging.” Probably some good stuff in there somewhere.

Chryese Exline wants to close the achievement gap. How she would do this, she doesn’t say. Considering that she is a close friend to John (it’s all about me) Gudvangen, her plan will likely be to bring down the achievement of the top achievers to the lowest common denominator, thereby achieving her goal of closing that gap. Why work hard when mediocrity is so much easier?

That leaves Willie Breazell. Willie wants to actually improve the district, but that makes him a threat to the liberal do-nothing establishment. We simply won’t tolerate a single person on this board who will point out the continuing failures of this ½ billion dollar school district. That just isn’t positive enough.

There you have it. Why on earth isn’t the public energized over these ambitious and thought provoking agendas for excellence?

Liberals finally support D11 voucher candidate

The liberals who run a local D11watch blog (Lois Fornander, Mary Ellen McNally, and other elderly anti-parent women), have actually endorsed a closet voucher proponent for election to the D11 board of education. While calling pro-reform board member Willie Breazell a “privatizer” for his correct belief that parents should have a say over how and where their children are educated, these humorless septuagenarians have unwittingly thrown their support behind Tom Strand, whose campaign manager is none other than voucher queen Karen Teja.

On June 23rd, 2004, Teja introduced the following voucher proposal during that night’s board meeting:

Resolution as proposed by Director Teja:
RESOLUTION EDUCATIONAL SERVICES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF EVERY CHILD
WHEREAS, the Board has resolved to strive to offer or have available a program to meet the needs of every child; and
WHEREAS, the Board has expressed it support of teachers, staff, and the greater community in all their efforts to create dynamic and effective learning environments for all students; and
WHEREAS, the Board has resolved to empower each teacher, administrator, and school site to become entrepreneurial in their approach to meeting the educational needs of their communities; and
WHEREAS, the Board has pledged that District 11 will make efforts to help parents meet the educational needs of their children; and
WHEREAS, parents of students of District 11 have acknowledged these commitments of the Board and expressed to the Superintendent their interest in meeting their children’s’ needs through child-centered educational opportunities available to them in the greater community; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article IX, Section 15 of the Constitution of Colorado, the Directors of the Board of Education have control of the instruction in the District; and
WHEREAS, control of instruction necessarily includes insuring that community members retain, through their elected representatives, the ability to insure that tax money is spent wisely and that educational programs that are funded with taxpayer money are accountable to the community providing the funding; and
WHEREAS, educational programs must be accountable, performance-based, and reflect sound educational research; and
WHEREAS, under the authority conferred by Colorado Revised Statute § 22-32-101, the District is a body corporate with the customary powers to hold property and to contract with other persons and entities for any purpose authorized by law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute §§ 22-32-109(1)(t) and (v), the Board has the duty to determine the educational programs to be carried on in the schools of the District and the duty to cause an educational program to be maintained within the District, or if the Board makes a specific determination that such is necessary for the efficient operation of the District; and
WHEREAS, by enactment of amendments to Colorado Revised Statute § 22-32-122, the Colorado General Assembly has empowered school districts to contract with individuals, corporations, associations, and a variety of other entities for the performance of educational services of comparable quality and meeting the same requirements and standards as would be necessary if performed by the school district; and
WHEREAS, the Board wishes to empower and encourage the Superintendent to use all appropriate educational programs and opportunities to strive to meet the needs of every child;
THE BOARD HEREBY RESOLVES that the Superintendent is authorized and directed, pursuant to the cited statutory authorities and such other legal authorities as may similarly empower the Superintendent, to provide transportation for students who are enrolled in a District school that has been identified for school improvement under the No Child Left Behind Act and seek to transfer to any eligible District 11school selected by the student's parents;
Board of Education 06/23/04
THE BOARD FURTHER RESOLVES that the Superintendent is authorized and directed, pursuant to the cited statutory authorities and such other legal authorities as may similarly empower the Superintendent to expand our services for the provision of educational services whereby the District will consider contracting for the provision of educational services at educational institutions recommended by the parents of children who have a qualifying disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act if the student's IEP team determines that the child cannot receive a free appropriate public education through services provided by the District's staff;
THE BOARD FURTHER RESOLVES that the Superintendent shall expand our services in these areas and prepare guidelines for participating students and qualification of educational institutions consistent with the criteria listed above and shall endeavor to have this program available commencing with the 2004-2005 school year. Any contract or agreement negotiated by the Superintendent shall be presented to the Board for approval of the terms and conditions of the agreement including terms and conditions of any agreement with a qualifying educational institution at which the educational services will be provided.

ADOPTED by the Board of Directors the _____ day of June 2004.
________________________
Board President
ATTEST:
________________________
Secretary

The majority of the board voted “yes” for this Teja voucher proposal, but due to an administrative error, the district never implemented the plan for the entire district. Notice Teja’s use of the word “entrepreneurial” in the resolution. Teja spent ½ hour at a board meeting explaining that “entrepreneurial” was a code word for “privatization.” Notice, also, her desire to allow contracts with private entities. Interesting that she would declare herself to be a part of the “privatization movement” that her kind fear so much. We can only assume that Strand knows that she is a part of this growing movement.

According to the Gazette, Teja demonstrated her commitment to vouchers by having the district issue her one of her very own.

Those who live in D11 remember this Gazette article:

$5,000 tutoring bill questioned
By SHARI CHANEY THE GAZETTE

Two Colorado Springs school board members allege one of their colleagues received special treatment when Colorado Springs School District 11 paid nearly $5,000 for private tutoring of her child. Board member Craig Cox distributed a packet of e-mails and a district purchase order to other board members two weeks ago. He said the purchase order shows $4,950 of district spending for “support services” of a special- needs student, including tutoring at home.

District officials said the purchase order represents the only time since at least January 2004 that D-11 has paid for a private tutor to help a student. All other tutoring services in the nearly 30,000-student district are provided by D-11 employees, the officials said. Cox claims the purchase order involves tutoring for board member Karen Teja’s child, a contention that board member Eric Christen repeated at last week’s board meeting. Plans were made at the meeting to form a committee to address other issues surrounding private tutors. “The ultimate agreement that we come to had better look like Director Teja’s, who’s getting her tutoring paid for for free, or there will be hell to pay,” Christen said.

Cox and Christen have frequently clashed with Teja and some of the other board members over issues ranging from school vouchers to the D-11 contract with the teachers union. Teja declined to discuss the purchase order, saying any comments would have the effect of divulging private student records. District officials also declined to identify the student who is receiving private tutoring at public expense, citing state and federal law that prohibits such a disclosure. Cox said some other parents, including some D-11 employees, also receive free private tutoring. He said he has seen purchase orders for those services, but he could not provide them. But Deb Key, the district’s custodian of records, said the district purchase order that Cox already distributed is the only one for payment for private tutoring.

Robert Howell, D-11’s executive director of special education, said he has not authorized any private tutoring since July, when he took the department’s top post. Tutoring provided by someone outside the district is unusual, said Howell, because most services can be provided by the district. After looking at the purchase order in question, Howell said a private tutor in remedial reading was hired by the district to provide services to a special-needs student. He said he doesn’t know why the payment was authorized. The order says services would run from July 1, 2004, through December...

As a parent, Cox said he doesn’t fault Teja for fighting to get what her child needs to be successful. But she should have worked to make the same opportunities available for other parents, Cox said. “My goal isn’t to shut this down,” Cox said. Instead, he said, he would like to expand the program and allow district administrators to authorize private tutoring for all children who have been identified with a reading problem, including dyslexia. He said he doesn’t have a specific plan to pay for such a program, but he would start with cuts in the administration. “We don’t need all those executive directors,” Cox said. Eventually, he said, district teachers should be trained to recognize signs of dyslexia and other reading problems. He said the district should have resources to test students and offer them help quickly.

No other D11 school board member has ever received a voucher. It is obvious that since Strand’s campaign manager supports vouchers for D11 parents, then he most certainly shares that view. Teja, who took legal action against her own school district while a sitting board member, does not tolerate people who do not share her viewpoint. She most certainly would not be running Strand’s campaign without also controlling his agenda.

Although Strand has literally done nothing since being appointed to the board last January, he obviously has a secret voucher agenda equal to that of Teja’s.

It is great to see that the liberals are finally coming around and supporting parental choice through vouchers. While Strand’s campaign manager supported vouchers only for herself and select D11 staff members, we can hope that Strand expands the choice option to include regular old district parents. According to the minutes of that June 23rd board meeting, Lois Fornander holds out that same hope:

Lois Fornander, topic: choice. Commented on the proposed Resolution- Educational
Services to Meet the Needs of Every Child. Stated that voucher programs are unaccountable.
Ms. Fornander also commented “If you open the voucher door to some, it will be open to
all.”

Thank you, Lois. We join you in that hope.

Seaking of the Titanic, Time to Shuffle the Deck Chairs

Shown below is the new School District 11 Central Administration Organizational chart. A couple of interesting items should stand out. The names are hard to see, but if you save the picture in Paint or some other picture viewer, you will be able to see them more clearly. First of all, terry Bishop just spent $12,000 tax payer dollars on a Gazette ad in which he explained to us that D11 is a school district on the move. Everything is heading in the direction of greatness, he said, and the Gazette and I were wrong to criticize his or the district's performance. He had completed 24 of 25 tasks (or was that 1 of 25 tasks? It all depends on the day), and the academic performance of the district almost changed from its flat-line performance of the past 10 years. This begs the question - why change anything?

Looking down the left side of the chart you can note that Terry Bishop once again has 5 Executive Directors beneath him. When I was on the board, we were able to force the administration back to 3 EDs. We instituted an administrative hiring freeze to force the administration to justify these types of hires, and they could not justify them. The current board and administration have disregarded that hiring freeze and have gone back to the days of hiring administrators just because they are old friends.

Where do these Eds fall in the chain of command? In other words, who do the principals report to and who evaluates the principals? When we instituted the employee evaluation system, which the current board and administration have ignored, we ensured that the superintendent was to be the evaluator of the principals. What role do these EDs play and how have they helped to improve the performance of the district? You will never find an answer to those questions.

Note that Terry Bishop's friend Michael Poore has been placed in charge of Educational Support Services, which includes Curriculum and Instruction. Poore was the principal of Mitchell High School for several years. During his time at Mitchell, that school was the lowest performing high school in the city. There were no initiatives by Poore to improve that school. yet he is being placed in charge of not Curriculum & Instruction, Special Education, and Grants. Poore has no expertise or experience in any of these areas, yet we are supposed to believe that somehow these changes will improve D11.

Mary Thurman, who has been in charge of instruction for the past 6 years, is now simply a babysitter for Human Resource Director Dave Schenkel. Rather than remove Thurman from the payroll for failing to bring any improvement whatsoever to the district's academic performance, Bishop moved her to a job that really has no description. She continues to be a Deputy Superintendent receiving a six figure income, yet she has no responsibilities. Human Resources (under Dave Schenkel) has officially carried the responsibilities that are now listed under Thurman. Interestingly, administrators say that if this is some attempt to force Schenkel to properly perform his job, it isn't going to work. Thurman does not have a reputation as someone who can hold anyone accountable for anything, so it is not clear how she is supposed to get Schenkel to do the job that annual audits show he has never done.

While Thurman was in charge of academic instruction in the district over the past several years, hundreds of students have dropped out of school, and thousands more have received diplomas even though they have not received an adequate education in reading, writing, or mathematics. Why does Thurman, or any other under performing employee, deserve to remain on the public payroll? She has not obtained her goals during any of the years that she has worked in D11, and now she is being rewarded by being placed in a job with no metrics or measurements on her performance.

As is so common in public education circles, the deck chairs are being rearranged with no specific logic or reason for making the change. What academic goal will be obtained by this reschuffling? This is nothing but another resetting of the clock by Bishop. In other words, Bishop has shuffled a few people around who have not performed their jobs well (whatever those jobs were supposed to be) so he can now publicly state that he has key people in new jobs, so they just need a few years to get their feet on the ground and he promises, he really really promises, that in those few years, you will see some great things happening in D11. In a year or so, when nothing has improved since the corp problems in the district have still not been addressed, the new superintendent will shuffle his high paid staff around and start that clock all over once again.

Don't get me wrong. It is a good thing that Thurman is no longer responsible for academic growth in D11. She simply had no idea how to tackle that beast. However, you don't hold someone accountable for failure by shuffling them across the room and handing them the same salary (plus bonuses) that they were making when they failed to perform. In the real world, that is not accountability. In education circles, they can pretend that it is.

What has your $1 million dollar Tim Gill school board said about this reschuffling? That's right - absolutely nothing. While they are busy getting along, your tax dollars are being wasted on an administration that smells more and more like the not-so-good Burnley years.