Foolishness

Foolishness

If your elementary age child complains that he/she is not getting much physical exercise during gym class, that is because he/she is not getting much exercise.

New Superintendent Nick Gledich has issued a decree that rather than focus on physical fitness during gym class, gym teachers are to spend class time EVERY DAY conducting literacy instruction. Students are now required to write in a journal during their limited physical education time.

The reason for this, of course, is because D11 is failing to properly teach its students how to read, write, or spell. While it is a given that kids today do not get enough physical activity, Gledich is under the mistaken notion that by not giving students the opportunity to enjoy any physical activity in their school day, they will suddenly become expert readers and spellers.

The problem with D11 English instruction, of course, is not that kids are not spending enough time in gym class constructing journals. First of all, who is going to grade these journals? English teachers in the district do not even take the time to correct spelling or grammar, or even logic, errors on student papers. I had en elementary teacher tell me that if teachers were actually expected to correct student mistakes, they would spend all of their time reviewing student papers. Oh, really? And how are students expected to know that their papers were full of spelling and grammar errors if these errors are not pointed out to them? By having students waste gym periods writing in journals that are likely not even going to be corrected, Gledich is simply requiring a futile exercise that might look good on his annual review, but one that will have no positive impact at all on student learning or achievement.

If D11 leaders are really serious about improving student performance in English literacy, there are real options available to them that will actually make an impact. D11 uses what it calls a “Balanced literacy” approach to teaching reading and spelling. This failed approach used to be called “Whole Language” instruction. Rather than move back to a phonics based instruction method, which works wherever it is used, education “specialists” told school districts to begin using the “Balanced literacy” term to fool parents into believing that districts were actually taking steps to address poor English instruction in the nation’s schools.

D11’s will not improve its performance in English by taking physical education away from its students. This short-sited and non-sensical move to address the literacy crisis in the district does not bode well for the direction that Gledich will lead this district. Unless he gets serious about the district’s curriculum choices (and there is no evidence that he is open to adopting the proven phonics instruction), then D11 students will continue to suffer, and D11 families will continue to flee the district, as they should.

Journals and vocabulary words in gym class. Gledich is being paid how much to come up with that foolhardy solution?

High Hurdles

As most who are familiar with D11 already know, a Group called the Quantum Performance Group (QPG) conducts a performance review of the school district every two years. This evaluation is a requirement of the 2000 D11 mil levy question that was passed by the voters.

When the 2006 version of this report was released, the Gazette and other anti-reformers made a big deal of the findings. Comments from QPG that the board was not unified and that board members were interfering with the administration were solidly blamed on the reform board members. After all, how could board members who were hand picked by the teachers’ labor union and the administration ever have negative feedback levied against them?

As new D11 Superintendent Nick Gledich moves through his first year on the job, let’s take a look at the most recent QPG report, which was released this past Spring. You won’t find any aspect of this report in the Gazette, but you can find it (for now) by conducting a search on the D11 website for “2009 QPG,” or just follow this link: http://www.d11.org/milo/PEAR/2009.pdf.

I frequently use the term “status quo board members” when referring to the current anti-reform members of the board. Some say that this is a harsh and inaccurate term. What is QPG’s view of the board? The report finds this (page 3): “The Board has effectively placed the District in a “holding pattern.” Suddenly, the term “status quo” appears to be quite accurate. That paragraph continues with this: “Board members do not agree
on their role in setting policy, governing, promoting the vision and mission, setting strategic direction and goals, and monitoring performance to ensure accountability. This contributes to a lack of focus throughout the District. This may result in disengaged employees, adversely affect the District’s ability to distinguish itself from its competitors in a positive manner, and give rise to more Colorado Springs families leaving the District.”

For those who tried to push the notion that it was the reform board members who were to blame for a lack of unity, you got it backwards. The current crop of board members do not have a vision because they are not on the board to do anything other than to protect the administrators who are whispering in their ears that nothing needs to change.

Here are additional findings form the 2009 QPG report with the relevant page numbers.

“The D-11 Board has not engaged in effective strategy planning. The Board has not examined the District’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) in recent years…The lack of clear, consistent direction can contribute to dissatisfaction, disengagement, and confusion among key external and internal stakeholders including, most importantly, students and families.” (page 3)

Comment: Remember, families and students are leaving D11 in droves. When you have an administration that is not open to improvement, don’t expect realistic plans for improvement.

“Performance reviews are not uniformly conducted for administrative staff and do not align with key strategic goals or District priorities…Performance reviews are not translated into actions to meet D-11 performance goals and improve educational services to the community.” (page 3)

Comment: Back in 2006, we implemented a performance system for the first time in D11’s history. Not surprising to learn that the administration chose not to use this system. The labor union has opposed the evaluations, as well, because labor leaders believe that it is unfair to expect teachers to perform their jobs well.

“No effective methods are in place to determine the needs, expectations, and preferences of the thousands of potential students and their families that live within the District but do not attend D-11.” (page 4)

Comment: While on the board, we asked administrators why they do not make efforts to learn why people are leaving the district. The only answer that they apparently felt was plausible was that the reformers were scaring people. Uh-huh.

“The student, parent, and staff climate survey responses are not reported in aggregate school groupings or to the individual schools in a format that leads to effective analysis and understanding of the data…Unless survey data are actually used to drive important improvements, the survey only wastes time and financial resources.” (page 4)

Comment: We asked the administration what was being done with the survey results. They had no answers back then, either.

“The District Web site has several areas where the data and information that are provided are not current.” (page 4

Comment: IT is broken in D11, and everyone knows it.

“The Board of Education and D-11 does not have results data that reflect all key District initiatives. Without results data that detail performance levels in all key areas of operations, the Board cannot make informed adjustments to plans and resource allocations that will lead to success in meeting all stakeholder needs.” (page 4)

Comment: They will not analyze results because that might require actions to address those poor results. These 6-figure income earning administrators are not open to having to produce results for a living.

“The Board does not appear to agree on the appropriate role of a policy making body or provide effective governance, including the importance of working as a cohesive body, avoiding personal intrusions into school administration, setting clear strategic direction, monitoring the critical District-wide measures that demonstrate achievement of the mission, and ensuring that policies and resources are properly aligned to support D-11 success.” (page 15)

Comment: Wow, with no reformers on the board, how can this be?

“District and Board leadership has failed to put systems in place to ensure sustainability of the District.” (page 15)

“Although there is a general District-wide understanding of the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) improvement tool, neither this tool nor any other process improvement technique is used consistently (except in the Division of Business Support Services). (page 15)

Comment: How much money has D11 spent on CQI? What has been the return on this bogus remedy to fix a declining district? Not much.

“D-11 has developed many plans…However, these plans do not provide a unified direction and are not communicated effectively throughout the organization. As a consequence, there is no consistent linking or alignment of goals to actions, measures, and recognition/reward.” (page 16)

Comment: In other words, the district is doing a lot of stuff just to claim that it is doing stuff, but none of this stuff is interconnected to the goal of educating students.

“The District's resource allocation system is not directly tied to either action planning or results…For the most part, budgets are built to sustain the status quo plus incremental increases, based upon what is in place versus what needs to occur to be a successful,” (page 17)

Comment: You remember that ½ billion dollars that D11 takes from the community every year? It is not tied to educating your son or daughter. Read those sentences again and take note of the term “status quo.”

“The fund balance is expected to be drawn down during the 2008–2009 budget cycle. The District is aware of this and is preparing for budget reductions of between $3M and $4M for the 2009–2010 budget. No longer-term plan has been developed, discussed, or approved to address the impact of the lost-opportunity revenue, the extensive program adjustments that may be necessary, and whether a future MLO revenue election is needed.” (page 17)

Comment: The administration & board lack a plan. Let’s see if Gledich can help to fill this vacuum.

“The findings of the student and parent surveys are not provided in a timely manner.” (page 18

Comment: This is because the admin really doesn’t want to be bothered with what those pesky parents really think.

“Comparative numbers for net migration indicate a loss of students to other Districts. The District should pursue reasons why the students left, in order to encourage them to return to D-11 and to retain those who may be thinking of leaving.” (page 20)

Comment: Let me help – there is a major lack of discipline enforcement in the D11 buildings and there is a lack f focus on delivering education.

“The District does not have systems in place that ensure workforce engagement, nor is there an understanding of what workforce engagement means.” (page 21)

Comment: The administration doesn’t care what the staff think, either.

“While a performance bonus pay system is in place and tied to academic achievement, it is unclear whether that system is robust enough to engage the workforce to achieve the high-performance levels that Colorado Springs families expect. Other than this bonus pay system there are no District-wide reward and recognition systems aligned to support high performance and continuous improvement.” (page 21)

Comment: The labor union purchased board members would not agree to any performance system that actually rewarded teachers based on their performance. The labor union claims that this is unfair to the poor performing teachers. Side note: We want the underachieving teachers to believe that it is unfair so that they will look elsewhere for careers.

“Although the District developed a comprehensive Emergency Crisis Operations Team (E-COT) Manual, its existence does not adequately prepare the District in the event of an actual emergency occurrence…Without practice to ensure the E-COT procedures are commonly understood and implemented, the District may not be properly prepared for disasters or emergencies that could have catastrophic outcomes.” (page 23)

Comment: How safe are your kids?

“The District spends above the state average per student while achievement is roughly on a par.” (page 25)

“The District’s overall drop-out rate lags the state average from 2004 to 2007.” (page 26)

“The discipline incidents reported show a negative trend each year from 1397 in 2004 to 1850 in 2007. The number of discipline incidents exceeds the D-11 goals.” (page 26)

“The percentage of students residing in D-11 who attend District schools has declined consistently from 78% in 2001 to 73% in 2008. The number of students who reside in D-11 and attend public schools in other districts has increased over 300% from 1339 to 4124 over the same period.” (page 26)

“The District continued to lose market share in 2007 and 2008 against an increase in state
enrollment. Colorado experienced the largest rate of growth since 2001 of 1.97%. However, enrollment in D-11 has declined by 4500 students in the last 12 years.” (page 26)

Parents will continue the exodus from D11 as long as the board and administration place all of their efforts and most of our resources into protecting a system that is designed to fail. As long as students are an afterthought to the board members and administrators, parents will find other avenues and schools to educate their kids. Let’s hope that Superintendent Gledich understands that reform was not the problem, but is, in fact, the only hope for a slumping school district.