The D11 Fact Sheet

There is much disinformation and misinformation circulating around the School District 11 community. Much of this misinformation is being spread by those who are intent on maintaining the status quo. This blog will set the record straight and it will educate the public on the identities of these defenders of the status quo.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Terry Bishop & Dave Schenkel Shortchange Military Employees

Mitchell High School and Wasson High School both offer Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) programs at the schools. These programs are led by retired military officers and non-commissioned officers. Both programs have outstanding reputations. The programs bring esprit and discipline to the students who choose to join the programs. The discipline carries over to the classrooms.

District 11 has contracts with the instructors at both schools that require for the district to pay the instructors 1/2 of their military retirement pay. The respective military services pay the other half of the pay. The Mitchell Air Force JROTC program is led by LtCol (Ret) Woodfork, and the Wasson Navy JROTC program is headed by CAPT (Ret) Gintzer.

Beginning in January of 2004, Human Resource director Dave Schenkel began to ignore the contract with the ROTC instructors by refusing to pay them their full salaries. Just 5 months earlier, on July 17th, 2003, the school board had voted to increase the ROTC pay to meet the contractual obligation. The board was made up of only anti-reform board members at the time, so this pay increase was not directed by reform board members, who Schenkel did not like. On March 15th of this year, CAPT Gintzer sent the following letter to D11 school board members:

15 Mar 2007

From: Captain Harry Clay Gintzer III
Naval JROTC Instructor
Wasson High School

To: Colorado Springs School District 11
Board of Education Members

Subj: Pay Issue

Enclosures: 1. Board of Education meeting minutes 17 July 2003
2. Spread sheet example ICO Capt. Gintzer

On behalf of the Naval and Air Force JROTC instructors in District 11, I request that you review the subject of “Personnel Recommendations” in the July 17, 2003 Board of Education meeting minutes. It appears that District 11 has forgotten the benefits versus cost of the JROTC programs. District 11 does not pay for the Computers, Televisions, VCRs, bar code capable DVD players, text books, training aids, course materials, HUNDREDS of Uniform shirts, trousers, hats, shoes, coats, rain coats, gloves, rifles, flags, poles, stands, ETC, ETC. Many of these items are replaced every single year through 5 Government budgets that we are tasked to manage. District 11 doesn’t even fully fund the government computed “MINIMUM Instructor Pay” which is adjusted each January based on the standard Military Pay scale. The District is only responsible for ONE HALF of each instructors MINIMUM pay, and that expense is a pittance compared to the Military supplies, material, and benefits received.

It’s very clear that Mr. Schenkel’s own research in 2003 indicated that District 11 was far behind on compensation compared to other districts. I can provide records and logs that show the level of extracurricular activity by instructors runs about 140-160, 8 hour days, beyond the regular days in a school year. The agreement to adjust the daily rate from 182 to 210 was minor compensation for the work ethic we operate under, and no where was it implied that it would apply only to the last 4 months of 2003.

When the Government issued the new pay scale in January 2004, District 11 did not adjust, and our pay began to fall behind the agreed computation. WE have been bringing this to the attention of appropriate District personnel for nearly 2 years and have been totally “pushed off” until a meeting with Mr. Schenkel was arranged by Superintendent Bishop. At that meeting it was stated “there is no way that the District is ever going to keep up with Government dictated pay raises”. The CONTRACT reads differently. Throwing a $2000.00 ($166.67/mo) pay raise to each instructor was an attempt to appease rather than fulfill the previous agreement, and is neither fair nor equitable by military pay standards. Our pay is based on individual Retired Rank achieved through 20-30 years of service to the country.

If the District can pay $460,000 for one year of disappointment, WE feel it is not unreasonable to be compensated for 7 years of performance, above and beyond requirements, in accordance with the July 2003 agreement.

Thank you for your time and consideration, we sincerely hope your review will finally resolve this matter.


Harry Clay Gintzer III
Captain, US Navy, Retired

The July 17th, 2003 board meeting minutes to which CAPT Gintzer referred are below:

Director Kaiser asked Mr. Schenkel about the adjustment on the ROTC work year from 182 to 210, about 30 days more each year. What was the rationale behind this change? Is the district paying $39,200 or the government? Mr. Schenkel responded that there seemed to be a discrepancy between what our district was paying to ROTC personnel and what other districts were paying to ROTC personnel. In looking at the "MIP," a combination of government funding and district funding, our district was in the high $30s and other districts were in the low $50s. After meeting with the commissioned officers in our ROTC program, it was discovered that these employees were not working just 182 days, but were closer to year round. District 11 cannot pay them normal stipends. Human Resources then looked at converting the ROTC personnel to 210-day employees, which is closer to the actual days that they are putting in a year. In doing so, the salaries become comparable to what other districts are paying ROTC personnel.

As CAPT Gintzer pointed out, Schenkel did not flinch when Karen Teja and her allies voted to give ex-superintendent Sharon Thomas a $420,000 gift for getting herself fired from D11. Now Schenkel is going to refuse to follow his contractual obligation with these military leaders who actually do perform their jobs. As of October, the pay shortfall for CAPT Gintzer was over $17,000. He met with Schenkel, who told him that he had no intention of paying the ROTC instructors what they were owed.

Notice that Terry Bishop apparently shares Schenkel's disinterest in this issue. Even though Bishop was fully aware that Schenkel was responsible for this contract violation in the first place, he still refused to meet with CAPT Gintzer, but instead referred him back to the very person who is the source of the problem in the first place.

So what did the board members say to CAPT Gintzer when they received his letter? The majority of them said absolutely nothing. Tom Strand did acknowledge the letter, but he was busy worrying about his re-election and never got around to actually doing anything useful with the issue.

As usual, Dave Schenkel marches to his own drummer, and there has not yet been a superintendent with the courage to actually force him to do his job. It is not a surprise that Bishop would be ineffective as well.

D11 administrators throw money around to friends and old buddies as if the budget is a bottomless pit. When it comes to honoring their obligations to service members who continue to serve honorably, however, suddenly there is just no money left to fulfill the obligation. Bishop just received a $16,000 bonus, which is 50% of what was possible. The board handed him this bonus for showing no improvement in the district's performance and for completing 1 of 25 self assigned goals. While Bishop is playing with his bonus cash, he refuses to step in to help D11's military employees get the money that they are owed by law.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

The "Experts"

D11 math supervisor Dora Gonzales is a strong believer in constructivist mathematics. She and her closest advisers believe that children have very little need to learn math facts anymore, but are better off developing their own solutions to problems and working in groups with other students to obtain different perspectives, as if the answer to 5X5 has different perspectives. Gonzales pushes a textbook called Everyday Math on elementary schools in the district. This textbook calls for teachers to encourage calculator use in the classroom for students as low as second grade. We are told that due to the technology in existence today, it is more important for students to learn how to use a calculator than it is to learn math tables. Drill and Kill, they call it disparagingly.

The U.S. used to be a world leader in producing graduates who were fluent in math and science. No more. Gonzales claims that we have learned that the brain functions differently than we once thought, so math instruction has had to keep up with the times. Gonzales won't explain how the brain seemed to pick up math skills very well way back when we didn't seem to understand how it worked, and under her new way of teaching, our kids just aren't getting it. The problem goes well beyond Gonzales and D11. She and other D11 administrators have simply fallen for a fad that that has proven to be harmful to math fluency. Fad often takes priority over facts in D11.
Gonzales and her supporters on the school board (which is now everyone) believe that any call for a return to traditional math methods is nothing more than right wing reform madness. Despite the fact that parents are desperate for competent math instruction in the district, Gonzales is determined to hang onto curriculum that is proven to fail kids when they reach high school and beyond.

A Johns Hopkins University math professor named Steve Wilson surveyed fellow math professors around the world on the topic of math. He asked one question in his survey, which was: Do you agree with the following statement? "In order to succeed at freshmen mathematics at my college/university, it is important to have knowledge of and facility with basic arithmetic algorithms, e.g. multiplication, division, fractions, decimals, and algebra, (without having to rely on a calculator)."

Here is what Wilson said about his survey: "I got 93 positive responses and no one disagreed. This is particularly remarkable because if you ask this same bunch what mathematics is, then no two of them will agree. There are at least a couple of dozen who would normally disagree just to be disagreeable...I did not ask for comment but a number of people made powerful compelling statements. I have put them at the end of the list."

Below is the list of professors who replied. Notice the universities at which these professors teach. Knowing what we do about the political makeup of university professors, I imagine that it would be hard to characterize these professors as right-wingers. This is a long read but important to understanding the current math battles. Maybe these people should contact the "experts" in D11 to learn how children's' brains work. Remember, each of the people listed without comment agreed with Wilson's statement.

1. Donald M. Davis Professor of Mathematics Lehigh University 2. Thomas Hunter Associate Professor Swarthmore College Department of Mathematics and Statistics 3. Jim Turner Associate Professor Calvin College 4. Steve Halperin, Dean College of Computer, Mathematical and Physical Sciences University of Maryland, College Park 5. Felix Weinstein Universitaet Bern, Anatomisches Institut 6. Kristine Bauer Assistant Professor Johns Hopkins University 7. Jim Lin Professor of Math University of California at San Diego 8. Clarence Wilkerson Professor Mathematics Department Purdue University 9. Vince Giambalvo Professor of Mathematics University of Connecticut 10. Maria Basterra Assistant Professor University of New Hampshire 11. Frank H. Bria Adjunct Faculty Weber State University 12. Jack Morava Professor of Mathematics The Johns Hopkins University 13. Albert T. Lundell Professor of Mathematics University of Colorado 14. Mark W. Johnson Assistant Professor of Mathematics Syracuse University 15. Jim McClure Professor of Mathematics Purdue University 16. Walter D Neumann Chair of Mathematics Barnard College 17. Robert R. Bruner Professor Wayne State University 18. Ron Umble Professor of Mathematics Millersville University 19. Hessam Tehrani, Assistant Professor Department of Mathemtaics and Computer Science City University of New York 20. David Hurtubise, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Mathematics Department of Mathematics and Statistics Penn State Altoona 21. Stewart Priddy Professor of Mathematics Northwestern University 22. Tom Goodwillie Professor of Mathematics Brown University 23. Inga Johnson Visiting Assistant Professor University of Rochester 24. Thomas Shimkus Ph.D. Candidate; Lehigh University Mathematics Instructor; DeSales University 25. Ismar Volic Graduate Student Department of Mathematics Brown University 26. John McCleary Department of Mathematics Vassar College 27. Laurence R. Taylor Professor of Mathematics University of Notre Dame 28. Gerd Laures Professor at Bonn University Germany 29. Richard Askey John Bascom Professor of Mathematics University of Wisconsin-Madison 30. Jim Stasheff Professor of Mathematics University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 31. Hung-Hsi Wu Professor of Mathematics University of California at Berkeley 32. Anthony D. Elmendorf Professor of Mathematics Purdue University Calumet 33. Philip Hirschhorn Professor of Mathematics Chairman, Department of Mathematics Wellesley College 34. Pascal Lambrechts Professor Universit de Louvain-la-Neuve Belgium 35. Carl F. Letsche Assistant Professor Department of Mathematics and Statistics Altoona College Penn State University 36. Hal Sadofsky Associate Professor University of Oregon 37. Ran Levi Senior Lecturer Department of Mathematical sciences University of Aberdeen Scotland, UK 38. Yoram Sagher Professor of Mathematics University of Illinois, Chicago 39. Steve Zelditch, Chair Department of Mathematics Johns Hopkins University 40. W. Stephen Wilson (Chair 1993-96) Professor of Mathematics Johns Hopkins University 41. Ken Monks Professor of Mathematics University of Scranton 42. Norio Iwase Associate Professor Faculty of Mathematics Kyushu University Japan 43. Kevin Iga Assistant Professor, mathematics Pepperdine University 44. William Minicozzi Professor of Mathematics Johns Hopkins University 45. Professor Larry Smith Direktor Mathematisches Institut Universitaet Goettingen Goettingen, Germany 46. Juno Mukai Professor Shinshu University Japan 47. Kathryn Hess Professor Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne Switzerland 48. John Rognes Professor Department of Mathematics University of Oslo Norway 49. Professor John Greenlees Sheffield University UK 50. Sarah Whitehouse, Dr Universite d'Artois Lens, France 51. Jose L. Rodriguez Assistant Professor University of Almeria Spain 52. John Hunton Reader in Mathematics Department of Mathematics and Computer Science University of Leicester U.K. 53. William Browder (past President of the American Mathematical Society) Professor of Mathematics Princeton University 54. Scott Wolpert Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education College of Computer, Mathematical and Physical Sciences University of Maryland, College Park 55. J. Michael Boardman Professor (Chair 1982-85) Department of Mathematics Johns Hopkins University 56. Ayelet Lindenstrauss Assistant Professor Indiana University 57. Hillel H. Gershenson School of Mathematics University of Minnesota 58. Ralph Cohen Professor of Mathematics Stanford University 59. Dev Sinha Assistant Professor of Mathematics University of Oregon 60. Matthew Ando Assistant Professor Department of Mathematics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 61. Daniel Davis Graduate Student and Teaching Assistant Northwestern University 62. Slava Shokurov Professor of Mathematics Johns Hopkins University 63. Dr. Yuli B. Rudyak Department of Mathematics University of Florida

64. Lowell Abrams Assistant Professor The George Washington University: I am shocked that there is any issue here. I absolutely agree with your statement.

65. Anthony Bahri Professor of Mathematics Rider University Lawrenceville, NJ 08468 - At Rider University we require all students when admitted to have a mastery of basic arithmetic calculation and basic algebra. To ensure this, We administer a placement test for which we do not allow the use of a calculator.

66. Jeanne Duflot Professor Department of Mathematics Colorado State University - However, I should point out that Colorado State University does allow some use of calculators in its introductory calculus courses. I am the course coordinator for third semester calculus (mostly sophomores) and no calculators are permitted to be used on any of my exams, nor on the common final exam for that course. By the way, it's not just your kid's school. Although my children attended a private elementary school at which calculators were not used, as soon as they began attending public school in junior high and high school, calculators appeared.... I must say that sometimes I think they are becoming crippled by too much reliance on calculators. Hopefully they will not entirely forget that they once knew how to do those simple calculations without calculators in elementary school...

67. Randy McCarthy Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Illinois Yes--in fact calculators are often not allowed on exams.

68. Claude Schochet Professor Wayne State University In 1987-91 I served as associate dean of the College of Liberal Arts at Wayne (at the time it consisted of 400 faculty in 23 departments in the humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences.) That it is even slightly in doubt is strong evidence of very distorted curriculum decisions. I do not know even one university-level teacher of mathematics who would disagree with it. I would be truly astonished to meet a person who disagrees.

69. Peter D. Zvengrowski Professor University of Calgary Canada I couldn't agree more. Teaching arithmetic with calculators is like saying we will do physical training by going for 20 km each day, then driving the 20 km in a car daily. I also recall a clever cartoon in a US newspaper about 10 years ago, when George Bush Sr was President. Bush had announced a big initiative in mathematics teaching, to "make the US number 1 in the world by 2000." The cartoon showed two college students reading about Bush's initiative and one remarking to the other "aw what's the difference, it's 7 of one and a half dozen of the other." Clearly whatever Bush had in mind failed, and I'm sure increased use of calculators has been a big part of the problem. Last winter at this time I was visiting Chennai (Madras), and one of my talks was at a Jr H S (called a Secondary School there). I was amazed to see the facility these young students had with arithmetic - of course they never use calculators at all in school.

70. R. James Milgram Professor of Mathematics Stanford University More exactly, what I know is this. Students cannot succeed in any mathematics related course at the university level unless they have completely internalized a real understanding of the number system and the way the basic operations work. It might be argued that we do not really require students to fiercely add, subtract, multiply and divide in our university courses - which is true. But we do require an automatic understanding of these operations and why they work because WE BUILD FROM THERE. It could be that there will be discovered, in time, other ways to give students these prerequisites, but to now, no better or more reliable way has been found than giving them high level arithmetic skills. Unfortunately, programs that in K - 8, substitute calculators for developing these skills have produced students that do not succeed in our university courses. Moreover, in every instance where people responsible for one of these programs have pointed to specific students who have "succeeded" in university courses one of three things has been found when we actually checked. (1) In the majority of cases, what was really said was that the student in question was admitted to the university. When there he or she typically took no mathematics at all (2) The student actually did succeed. However, when we checked with the student he or she explained that his or her parents made sure that tutoring was available to fill in all the gaps. (3) The student's parents had augmented the program, typically with courses from EPGY at Stanford. Some of them had even withdrawn their students from math at their respective schools. Many of these students are currently still of high school age but are taking advanced courses in their local universities. [This last is what I urge that you consider.]

71. Dr. Kathryn Lesh Department of Mathematics Union College Schenectady, NY 12308 In order to succeed at freshmen mathematics at Union College, it is essential to have knowledge of and facility with basic arithmetic algorithms, e.g. multiplication, division, fractions, decimals, and algebra, (without having to rely on a calculator). Students without this ability typically do not make it successfully through their introductory calculus courses, and are often forced to repeat courses or to drop out of engineering/science programs.

72. Martin Tangora Professor University of Illinois, Chicago Here is a new twist. My daughter got a terrible score on her SAT II or whatever, because her calculator's battery was dead, so she borrowed her brother's, but it was set to give exact answers, and she didn't know how to convert them to decimals, and she was too stressed to figure it out, so she couldn't do multiple-choice answers that required knowing whether \pi or e (say) was closer to 3.

73. Professor David Rusin Director of Undergraduate Studies Department of Mathematical Sciences Northern Illinois University Hi Steve, You probably don't remember me but ages ago I was in a Junior Seminar you ran at Princeton. (We worked out of Wallace's "Differential Topology".) I am sorry to see your talent wasted on what I recognize as a battle over mathematical competence. If I can be of help to you, let me know. We have fought with campus groups over the use of calculators in the classroom and over the definition of minimal mathematical competency. In fact, much of our department's response has made it to our web pages in an attempt to cut off these arguments before they are presented to us. Here are the URLs : http://www.math.niu.edu/programs/ugrad/gened.html http://www.math.niu.edu/programs/ugrad/calculators.html http://www.math.niu.edu/programs/ugrad/calc_rationale.html These are directed at university bodies, and may not be applicable to school districts, but they do give a hint of what the _college-bound_ students must prepare for. I have found that it helps a little in these kinds of battles to yield a little when appropriate. As a rule of thumb, we allow the students to use their security blankets in their terminal math courses. So for example the arts and humanities students, who need only one general-purpose math course, get to use calculators at all times. But in exchange we insist on the right to require students to work things out by hand whenever we are preparing them for an additional later math course: the skills learned at one level must be completely internalized before moving on to the next level. (So, for example, our placement test for incoming freshmen is taken WITHOUT calculators.) By this same reasoning, the school districts should insist that all college-bound students be able to show mastery of their subjects with hand calculations. I can give you plenty of ammo if you like: I've already had to prepare responses to many of the most common complaints about our calculator policies, and I've taken the offensive a number of times by trotting out long lists of errors calculators make. One of my favorite attacks is that we are _helping_ the students by insisting that they do things by hand because otherwise they can waste a lot of time when the calculator would fail them. (I regularly ask questions about y = (100-x)^3/10000 or y=40 + log(x) - x/100 when I am forced to allow graphing calculators on tests. Check out what the machines say some time...) Some responses you'll need to prepare for: the NCTM standards call for significant access to technology, and the devaluing of algorithmic calculation; the SAT assumes access to calculators during the exam; and there are studies which claim to show that calculators, _when used appropriately_, enhance student learning. Watch out! No doubt you are aware that the US educational system is releasing increasing numbers of students who fail to meet even the minimal standards imposed by state boards of review. I have had to become well-versed in the matter for several reasons (e.g. we produce many high-school math teachers here). It's a bad situation and I'm glad you're standing up for a minimal competence. You are welcome to quote any of this or our web pages and can quote my titles:

74. H E A Eddy Campbell Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts and Science, Professor of Mathematics and Statistics, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada In order to succeed in our first-year mathematics courses at Queen's University, it is important for students to have a knowledge of and a facility with basic arithmetic algorithms, e.g. multiplication, division, fractions, decimals, and algebra, without having to rely on a calculator. Calculators are not forbidden in our courses, but our experience is clear: if you are relying on them for basic arithmetic you will not be successful. In my experience in this country, Canada, children are still expected to acquire the basic arithmetic skills, and very often my own children come home with strict instructions regarding which questions may be done with the help of a calculator. Calculators are not provided for the junior grades. My own university is proud to say that our students are by objective measures the best in the country, and of the chief joys of teaching them in first-year mathematics courses is their facility with these basic skills. It makes an enormous difference to have students who can add fractions, for example. This last skill is a key indicator of success - if you cannot add fractions, you do not belong in university - we do not have the time nor the resources to teach you that which you should already know on being accepted. If you have graduated from high school without such skills, your high school has cheated you. In my view, the teaching of basic arithmetic skills is not an option for schools, but rather an important part of their mandate. I'd be very unhappy to send my children to a school that thought otherwise.

75. Prof A J Berrick Department of Mathematics National University of Singapore SINGAPORE At my university a stronger statement is true: without such facility noone gets to enter the university!

76. Professor E Farjoun Mathematics Department Hebrew Univ Jerusalem. Israel. This is a very minimal list of knowledge. In fact on top we demand some facility with geometry, trigonometry, and some other subjects. (Editors comment: I had a number of other comments like this but didn't use them.)

77. Timothy Porter Mathematics Division, School of Informatics, University of Wales Bangor United Kingdom In the UK we have had the same type of problem. Finally we have persuaded the Government to include mental arithmetic type operations in the junior school curriculum and to demand calculation without calculators as a necessary skill. It will be years before the harm done is undone (if ever) but there are some hopeful signs. If you need any cross references there is a largish literature (including various international reports) stressing the point you make.

78. Daniel T. Wilshire, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Mathematics Coordinator / Adjunct Math Faculty Having taught 20 years in public school mathematics and now 16 years at Penn State Altoona in the Mathematics Dept. I heartily agree that public school students must learn the basic arithmetic algorithms to be successful in college mathematics courses. Calculators are a good thing and are being used extensively in my engineering math classes, but successful students know the basics without a calculator.

79. James R. Martino Director of Undergraduate Studies in Mathematics Department of Mathematics Johns Hopkins University We do not use calculators of any kind in any of our courses. As a result, our placement tests for Calculus I and Calculus II require that the students be able to work without a calculator.

80. Jay A. Wood, Chair Department of Mathematics Western Michigan University My department houses mathematics educators as well as mathematicians. While there is much that these two groups disagree about, everyone agrees that all students must have the ability to perform basic "mental mathematics," i.e., perform basic arithmetic operations without the assistance of a calculator.

81. Carl Rupert Penn State Altoona 2001/2 NC Central University 1989 - indefinite After more than a decade of full time college/university level teaching, I agree with the following statement and believe that a failure to understand, and an inability to do simple hand arithmetic, prevents many students from mastering the hand calculation skills necessary for success in college algebra and subsequent higher level classes:

82. Lynn Dover Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences University of Alberta I am a candidate for a Ph.D degree in mathematics and a graduate TA (which means that I run tutorial sessions and grade assignments for first and second year mathematics.) RE: your posting to the algebraic topology mailing list. If you can't divide numbers, how on earth are you going to divide polynomials? I could keep coming up with examples all day.

83. William Singer Professor of Mathematics Fordham University I more than agree with your statement about the need for children to learn arithmetic; and the necessity of being able to do simple arithmetic without a calculator. Yes, these skills are necessary to succeed in freshman mathematics at my university. I see many students who, when confronted with an expression like (64)^(-2/3) will hit their calculators to find out the value; but, because they have been raised with the calculator, have no idea what the expression means; how it has been defined; what are the algebraic properties of exponents.

84. Michael Spertus Chairman and Chief Technology Officer Geodesic Systems I am not at a college or university currently, but I am the Chief Technology Officer of a software company. I suppose this may actually count for more than being a university professor with your son's school.

85. Dagmar M. Meyer Research Assistant (PhD) University of Goettingen Germany What a question: the answer is of course "yes, obviously"!!!

86. Hans-Werner Henn Professor of Mathematics Univesite Louis Pasteur Strasbourg, France I completely agree with your statement which is repeated below. It is sad that such things which ought to be completely obvious are controversial! I'd like to add that in my first year courses calculators are usually not authorized in exams. Of course, calculators are (extremely) useful but manipulting them has very little to do with mathematics.

Below are respondents who wrote in after my artificial cutoff. ***********************************************************************
87. Dan Christensen Assistant Professor University of Western Ontario
88. Paul Yiu Professor of Mathematics Florida Atlantic University

89. Norihiko Minami Professor Department of Mathematics Nagoya Institute of Technology I thought it was a joke for you to have asked our opinion about such a self-evident truth, but I am afraid I was wrong. I am very sorry that you had to do this.

90. Younggi Choi Dapartment of Mathematics Education Seoul National University I am surprized at hearing what happened in that school. How can they do not teach math until the middle school? I can not believe it and can not imagine such a situation in Korea. But in these days even in Korea there is some trend of thoughts lowering the standard of math ability. In fact, the eduactional system of America have been giving a great influence on that of Korea. So I am very afraid of that situation. If I were in your place, I would consider seriously having my son transferred to another school in which my son can do math and can make preparation for the future.

91. Martin Bendersky Professor Hunter College City University of New York
92. Jean-Pierre Meyer (Chair 1985-90) Department of Mathematics Johns Hopkins University
93. David C. Johnson Professor of Mathematics University of Kentucky
94. Kojun Abe Professor Department of Mathematical Sciences, Shinshu University, Matsumoto, 390-8621 Japan.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Civility and Local Control

Four years ago, just prior to the 2003 school board elections, the Gazette ran an article about the campaigns of the four of us reform candidates. The article took an aire of scandal as it reported that we had received contributions from, of all places, Denver! The article also pointed out that we had received an unprecedented endorsement from Governor Bill Owens, a Republican. The alleged outrage was that school board races were supposed to be both local and non-partisan. The lefties in town declared that we were illegitimately elected because we did not play by the rules.

After the election, the anti-reform talking points revolved around the issue of Eric Christen. These people did not oppose new ideas, they said, but they just could not tolerate the uncivil behavior that Christen demonstrated. In fact, the 2005 slate of anti-reform candidates even borrowed our platform for their campaign. Their only other issue was that they would bring reform with civility to the board. Strangely, the local media did not object when these liberals also brought in over $1 million in outside funds into the race to purchase their seats.

After the November 6th election, I received this post to my blog:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Tom Strand, Charlie Bobbitt, and Steve Schuck!":


Bye bye Willie
Bye bye Willie
Bye bye Willie
We're glad to see you go.......

First of all, was this post sent by a child or by a labor union mouthpiece? A rhetorical question, obviously, but keep in mind that this person works in a classroom with kids. Civility wasn't really an issue at all, was it? Why would they be so excited about having Willie gone from the board? Because they cannot tolerate ideas, and "their people" don't offer any. They cannot tolerate anyone who won't declare that all is well in D11, and they cannot tolerate anyone who was not purchased by the labor union. It is about power, pure and simple, and not about improving the district for the kids.The current crop of board members believe that simply being on the board makes them somehow important. While the lawful purpose of an elected board is to represent the interests of the citizens, these people believe that they are to run cover for inept administrators. It's easier that way and they feel popular in the school community. Willie's biggest mistake was believing that he could work with these anti-reformers on the board. It is impossible to legitimately work with people who possess no integrity. John Gudvangen said over and over again that, "You have your truth and I have mine." Go ahead and run a society on that mindset. Willie is an honorable man and he is better off not having to spend his days dealing with people who have no intention of doing anything positive for D11.

As for local control, let's see who is really running the D11 school board. If you visit the Progressive Majority web site at http://www.progressivemajority.org/candidates/all-2007/?all=all. , you will find Jan Tanner, Tom Strand, and Chyrese Exline as the Progressive endorsed candidates. The Progressive Majority is a Washington, D.C. organization. Why is it involved in electing local school board candidates? Here is the write-up about Tanner from that web page:


Jan has been the Executive Officer of the family business in Colorado Springs for 19 years. She served as PTA State Secretary, and she founded the Alliance for Quality Public Schools, a citizen activist organization. In 2005, Progressive Majority partnered with Jared Polis and the Colorado Education Association to create a power shift on a District 11 School Board that had long been dominated by conservatives. (Pause a second for the humor in that last sentence. D11 has never been dominated by conservatives. Karen Teja, Lyman Kaiser, Mary Wierman, Delia Busby - conservatives? That's just plain funny. As for the involvement of the CEA, I thought that they did not purchase school boards).

So the Progressive Majority, the CEA, and Jared Polis, the gay millionaire activist from Denver, have "created a power shift" on the school board. Where is the outrage in the community? Where is the "scandal" article in the Gazette? It is no surprise that Tanner and Strand are void of ideas on how to improve this school district. They aren't concerned about D11. They are concerned about pleasing their "teammates" in Washington and Denver. Tami Hasling and John Gudvangen are also on the Progressive Majority's list of "victories" in a conservative community that finds itself fast asleep to the liberal power play in town.

How about partisanship? Are our liberal friends on the school board remaining non-partisan? Obviously, the Progressive Majority is an arm of the Democrat Party, as is the labor union, so that fails the non-partisanship test. In addition, the financial filings of both Tanner and Strand indicate that they both connected with the Democrat Party headquarters in Denver to use the Democrat voter registration list in El Paso County for their campaign efforts. With Democrat ideals, Democrat donors, and Democrat organizations running D11, you can be sure that the education crisis that exists in the district will get much worse before it ever gets better.

While the outcry over the 2003 elections was said to be about personalities, it was really about ideas. Some think that I am being unfair when I declare that the current board is made up of people totally lacking in leadership or ideas. I challenge anyone to uncover a single specific idea, thought, or proposal to improve D11 that has ever been brought forward by any of the sitting or new board members. The key word is "specific." Phrases such as "caring about kids" or "protecting our public schools" are meaningless rhetoric. While the anti-reformers are celebrating their total control of the board, they face the reality that they own the continuing decline of the county's largest district. Remember how they claimed that reformers would shutter schools and destroy neighborhoods? The anti-reformers have closed their first school and they are preparing to close more. Remember how they claimed that we would run students out of the district? The exodus from D11 began in the mid-90's and has continued by the hundreds under their control. Remember how they claimed that we had a secret agenda? Who can honestly claim to know what the current board is working on? Who can honestly name one action taken by this board that placed the interests of the D11 students ahead of the interests of the D11 administration?

For those who actually care about education, it is a good thing that the labor union and Progressive Majority are in complete control of the school board. These people are good at making excuses and laying blame for their failures on other people. Now it will be perfectly clear that it is their empty ideology that is continuing to drive a once decent school district into the ground.

Sunday, November 04, 2007

Yes, it Happens Here

The Gazette recently ran an Associated Press series on sexual abuse in our nation's public schools. The AP investigation revealed that there is an epidemic in our schools with an average of 3 sexual assaults per day somewhere in a public school in the U.S.

This article highlighted the total unwillingness of school administrations, school boards, and labor union leaders to hold public school employees accountable for their actions. As the article points out, school districts routinely pass their problem employees on to other districts without any negative information in the personnel files to warn the receiving district of impending trouble. This failure to show any concern for accountability obviously carries over to the academic side of the schools as well, as low performing employees remain on the public payrolls and parents are blamed for the failures of the schools.

The AP series wasn't just an article of events that have occurred "someplace else." The very types of events described in the article, including the cover-ups and the failure of school leaders to hold people accountable, have occurred right here in D11.

The AP article, the first of which appeared on October 21st, stated,

"There are 3 million public school teachers nationwide, most devoted to their work. Yet the number of abusive educators, nearly three for every school day, speaks to a much larger problem in a system that is stacked against victims. Most of the abuse isn’t reported. Those cases reported often end with no action. Cases investigated sometimes can’t be proven, and many abusers have several victims. The institutions that govern education have only sporadically addressed a problem that’s been apparent for years...Like Lindsey’s, the cases the AP found were those of everyday educators — teachers, school psychologists, principals and superintendents among them. They’re often popular and recognized for excellence and, in nearly nine out of 10 cases, they’re male. Although some were accused of abusing students in school, others were cited for sexual misconduct after hours.

Kathy Buzad of the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) said that "if there’s one incident of sexual misconduct between a teacher and a student that’s one too many." In practice, there is less vigilance.

The AP discovered efforts to stop offenders but, overall, a deeply entrenched resistance toward fighting abuse. It starts in school hallways, where fellow teachers look away. School administrators make deals to avoid lawsuits and other trouble. And in state capitals and Congress, lawmakers shy from tough state punishments or cohesive national policy for fear of disparaging a vital profession."

That last sentence is very important and carries huge implications. Anyone who criticizes any aspect of our public schools is accused of "attacking teachers." We can't criticize our teachers or administrators, we are told, because they are so important. That viewpoint is fundamentally flawed. Yes, the profession is vital. Educating our kids is critical to our future as a free nation. That is all the more reason that we MUST have accountability for people in a position of trust. Rather than tip-toeing around accountability in our schools, the vital nature of the profession demands that we have to maintain very high standards of behavior. Of course the profession is vital, and that is why it is so important to remove those employees who do harm to the entire profession. The teacher's labor unions, weak administrators, and inept school board members are abdicating their duties to protect our kids.

On June 7, 2000, the Gazette carried an article about Irving Middle School choir instructor Willie Pirraglia. Pirraglia plead guilty to sexual misconduct with a student and received probation rather than prison for his crime. As the AP article mentioned, abusers in our schools are often popular and award winning employees. Parents and students are often attacked for making accusations against such employees. According to the Gazette,

"...the evidence against Pirraglia shows a pattern of sexual misconduct from August 1996 to November 1999 when students began coming forward with the allegations. Each school year, Pirraglia elevated a girl to a leadership position, developed a close emotional relationship with her and used that relationship to gain sexual contact, (Deputy DA) Heim said.

Before the sexual-misconduct allegations surfaced, Pirraglia was an award-winning band director popular with parents and beloved by his students for inspiring passion about music.
Heim said he was disappointed that school officials supported Pirraglia instead of the students who came forward with allegations of abuse. The school dedicated a December band concert to Pirraglia while the victims were branded troublemakers, Heim said."

During this time period when the students and parents were being ridiculed, the school board was made up of strong critics of reform, such as Karen Teja, Mary Wierman, Bruce Doyle, and Lyman Kaiser. Obviously, any accusation of abuse must be taken seriously, and an employee should have the benefit of a thorough investigation. As more accusations continue to come forward, there is a point where there needs to be an elevated sense of urgency to secure the safety of the students. The school board and administration at the time looked the other way for over 3 years as accusations came forward. As the article points out, they even threw a party for the accused while attacking the victims. (Side Note: When former D11 superintendent Sharon Thomas pulled in front of a motorcycle this past year, killing the rider, the D11 administration sent flowers to her instead of sending them to the family of the victim).

The AP article points out that 80% of the abuse victims are students. Fellow employees also end up being the victims. Former Whittier Elementary principal Larry Richardson kept a bizarre sex toy hidden in a 5th grade classroom at his elementary school and he was accused of sexually harassing female members of his staff. The sex toy was hidden in a classroom closet that was accessible to students. When the administration and board discovered this activity by the school leader, they did not fire him. Rather, the board, led again by Lyman Kaiser, Karen Teja, Mary Wierman, and Bruce Doyle, agreed to ask Richardson to leave and they paid him over $200,000. Rather than hold Richardson accountable, the board and administration paid this man six figures to avoid a legal battle. The board and administration also agreed to keep this particular employee and his actions out of the public's eye. This all happened in 2003, just prior to the reformers coming onto the school board. It is not clear what legal battle the board at the time was afraid of fighting considering the clear evidence in that case. As is typical with weak boards, there was a lack of will to enforce accountability.

D11 currently employs a high level administrator who was caught a couple of years ago on district security cameras stealing drugs from a student prescription drug cabinet. Instead of being held to account, the employee was later awarded with a promotion. Another current senior administrator had a habit of having sexual encounters in the administration building with teachers and subordinates during the work day. Ex-superintendent Norm Ridder claimed that this employee was just too valuable to discipline, so the employee continues to serve today. There is always a reason to "look the other way" to avoid acting responsibly.

On December 1st, 2005, the Gazette carried an article about 2 Palmer High School teachers who were suspended from school. The D11 administration allowed a student to claim that the teachers were suspended because they were involved with the school's Gay-Straight Alliance. The reality is that the teachers were pulled from the classroom because a student came across them "making out" on school grounds. The 2 teachers were married, but not to each other. This does not rise to the level of sexual assault on a student, but it does highlight that students are being affected by staff behavior.

A female Wasson High School teacher was arrested in April 2005 after having sexual relations with a 17 year-old student. With reformers on the board at the time, the D11 administration did not attempt to hide this incident and the teacher was arrested and fired.

As I wrote in an earlier blog, a Doherty teacher called a black student the "n-word" and was simply transferred to West Middle School since the administration did not want to stand up to the labor union and fire this teacher. The administration hid this incident from the board and the public to avoid controversy and to avoid a battle with the labor union. The administration also refused to provide information to concerned parents over this issue because of concern for the privacy of the teacher. The teacher's rights trumped those of the student.

The teacher's labor union spends millions of teacher dollars every year to elect labor union minions to school boards and legislatures. These elected officials are then instructed to pass policies and legislation that make it nearly impossible to remove bad or incompetent employees from the payrolls, all in the name of protecting a vital profession. The result is that kids are left vulnerable and the profession has actually been weakened and demeaned as people who are unfit to be around kids are passed from school to school. Administrators blame the labor union and state statute for contracts and laws that make it impossible to fire bad employees. The labor union leaders claim that their job is to look after employees and not kids and that administrators are to blame for not making efforts to remove bad employees. The result, as the AP report indicates, is that there are very few adults in the education system who are willing to stand up and show any type of leadership at all to protect the welfare of the students. Just as they do with academics, education officials all too often do what is easy rather than what is right.

free html counters
Circuit City Discounts