The D11 Fact Sheet

Point Proven

2011-02-20T22:06:00.000-07:00

Just yesterday I posted on the greed of the teachers' labor unions and I pointed out that, while they demand that the public they serve fork over more and more money to them, they are not willing to take responsibility for the poor performance of the nations' public schools. Today comes a post from "Hot Air" (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/20/the-bottom-of-the-teachers-union-barrel/) that makes my case.

Last year, the school board in Central Falls, Rhode Island, fired the district's 88 teachers, and with good reason. A mere 93% of the district's students were failing, or not performing at grade level. The Rhode Island Federation of Teachers, the local arm of the American Federation of Teachers, stormed in and forced the re-hiring of all teachers and they forced the district to award each of the non-performing professionals a $3000 bonus.

CNN interviewed the leader of the disgraced labor union in Central Falls, whose name is James Parisi. The interview went as follows:

CNN: So in this town where the average income is $22,000 the average teacher is now making $76,000. What are the community members paying for?

James Parisi: The highest paid teachers are making about $76,000, which frankly I don’t think is enough for the committed professionals that are in that school district.

CNN: You had a 93% fail rate. That’s undeniable.

JP: And you think that’s caused by teacher’s actions?

CNN: Absolutely.

JP: I don’t think the teachers are responsible.

The teachers are not responsible, Parisi says, and there is absolutely nothing they can do to improve the educational situation of these students who are trapped in these disasterous schools, yet he believes that the public must fork over even more money to pay these "professionals" to do, literally, nothing. But hey, it's all about the kids.

Yes, It can Happen Here

2011-02-19T17:44:00.000-07:00

The massive protests in Madison, Wisconsin, are not an isolated case of teacher union thugs gone wild. Despite the existence of local union organizations, such as the Colorado Springs Education Association (CSEA), the labor unions are centrally controlled by either the National Education Association (NEA) or the smaller but equally dangerous American Federation of Teachers (AFT). If or when the NEA gives the order, the CSEA members will certainly abandon their classrooms and take to the streets.

Some people disagree with me when I argue that one of the largest impediments to improved education in D11 is the teachers' labor union. It is the administration, some say, that is to blame for the ever declining educational performance and the dwindling student population. While I have never defended the over-paid yet underwhelming administrators in this school district, the labor union is every bit as responsible for the damage that is being done to D11 students as are the administrators.

In my November 17, 2006 post (located here: http://d11-factsheet.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html), I discussed the formal relationship between the AFL-CIO and the NEA. This relationship obviously had nothing to do with making the NEA more caring about students or more professional. As I have always argued, the teachers' labor unions are not "professional associations" as you would find with doctors' associations or associations of mechanical engineers. Those associations. The teachers' unions are militant public employee organizations which are appendages of the Democrat Party and whose sole purpose is to squeeze the public for more and more money. 40% of the labor union members in Madison refused to work because (gasp) the elected representatives of that state are asking them to pay a small amount towards their own benefit packages, which is about half as much as the average private citizens in Wisconsin are required to pay for their own benefits.

Let's look at what the labor unions do for our kids. While we see our students performing worse against international standards the longer they remain in public schools, what reason do the labor unions and their members provide for this declining performance? They blame the parents. It is lack of parental involvement that results in declining student learning in our schools. OK, let's look at the growing trend of homeschooling. The labor unions must support this trend since it is the ultimate in parental involvement. Well, not so fast. Homeschooling is bad for students, the union leaders say, because parents are not "professional educators" like our local labor union teachers, so the students won't receive the same quality education as they will find in their neighborhood school. See the logic? We are told that these professional educators can't be held accountable for the poor performance of the students, yet somehow only they are qualified to provide a decent education for the students in the first place. Therefore, we must continually fork over more and more money to retain a high quality teaching force which certainly can't be held responsible for the lack of learning of the students whose parents are to blame for their lack of learning but who are the same parents who have no right to teach their own kids because they are not high quality professional educators.

Like those teachers in Madison, the D11 labor union members will quit on their students the moment their labor agitator leadership directs them to do so. They will protest for their labor union without hesitation, but have no doubt, they will not quit on their labor union for the benefit of their students. When the dismal statistics come out on D11 performance year after year, do we see the teachers taking to the streets to demand that the administration adopt curriculum that will support student learning? Do we see them causing work stoppages to demand accountability for their fellow teachers who have no business in a classroom? Of course we don't, but year after year, we see these labor union teachers allowing their leadership to fund campaigns of board members who will continue to hire and retain ineffective and inept administrators who will continue to draw salaries that are 4 times the average salary of the average Colorado Springs resident, but whose productivity is nonexistent. Look at those labor union signs in Madison; it is all about the "Union" and never about your kids.

Like Wisconsin, Colorado is in a budget squeeze largely because its citizens are paying public employees to be nonproductive. The NEA (and CSEA) are militant organizations who serve no public good. They are harmful to our financial viability as states and school districts, and they are harmful to the future of students who are receiving a very sub-par education.

Unintended Consequences

2010-04-19T21:33:00.000-07:00

It is well known that the Colorado Springs Education Association (CSEA) teacher's labor union leaders are nothing more than paid advocates for the Democrat Party. They routinely use school time and public resources to push their radical leftist ideology on other staff members and students.

The head labor union organizer at one of D11's middle schools, specifically Jenkins, was openly cheerleading during school hours for the recent healthcare takeover by the current group of radicals in Washington, DC. She was giddy with excitement over the fact that she would soon be able to add her 26 year-old son on her publicly funded healthcare policy. This labor union thug never considered advising her son to actually go out and get a job so that he could potentially purchase his own health insurance. Why work when it is easier to allow productive Americans to pay your bills.

The day this healthcare bill was signed into law was supposed to be a big day for the labor union leader, but her joy would be short lived. A fellow teacher called the D11 Human Resource office to inquire about adding a 26 year-old "child" to the teacher's D11 healthcare policy. Sadly, the teacher was informed that the 26 year-old "child" was not eligible to be added to the policy. Since no one had ever read any of the versions of the healthcare bills, the labor union lackeys were blindly campaigning for a bill that would EXCLUDE labor union negotiated healthcare policies from the requirement to add "children" up to 26 years of age to the policy. Rather than becoming the school hero for advocating for this healthcare takeover, the Jenkins union leader became the skunk of the school for negotiating a contract that kept the labor union members from enjoying the welfare handouts that non-union members are now eligible to receive.

I have asked this question before: with such incompetent and corrupt "leadership" in the CSEA, what are teachers really getting for their $650 plus annual dues?

You matter not

2010-03-08T21:32:00.000-07:00

The decision to close or reutilize several School District 11 schools was an emotional, yet necessary, decision. Unfortunately, the decision to have to close school buildings in a city that has been steadily growing is due, in large part, to an incompetent administration that has been rivaled only by its incompetent school boards. Nevertheless, as state money has dried up in response to ever declining enrollment numbers, something had to give. That something turned out to be neighborhood schools.

During the period from about January through March 2009, D11 held several community hearings to discuss the closure/reutilization process. The district maintained a continuously updated Utilization Study workbook that changed as the community provided input. On page 120 of the February 4, 2009 work book, it is apparent that the community was interested in receiving assurances that the money that was to be saved from these school closures and consolidations would follow the displaced students. Note that on lines FF, HH, and JJ of this document, this sentiment is clearly expressed. The community wants the savings to follow students and it wants the money to fund programs that help students.

Within this same Utilization Study document, D11 Deputy Superintendent of Something (depending on where the Superintendent decides to stick her in any given year) Mary Thurman showed that her interests were not necessarily aligned with those of the district tax payers. On page 4 and page 5 of this document, you can see the input from Thurman. In the second paragraph from the bottom of page 5, Thurman informs us that her priority is, (in these difficult financial times), increasing teacher and staff pay. While private industry freezes or cuts pay and staff, school districts like D11 believe that they should be immune from such actions. While tax payers all across D11 and the state are struggling right now, public employees believe that they should continue to receive pay boosts each year.

As D11’s enrollment has declined over the past decade, D11 staffing numbers have remained fairly steady. Staff has not declined in proportion to enrollment, which has placed even greater stress on the operating budget, 85% of which is staff pay and benefits. Thurman points to two recent resignations of D11 principals and she cites “better pay elsewhere” as the reason these administrators left the district (page 5). As all modern day school district employees are taught to do, Thurman resorts to the “just give our employees more pay and this district will finally start performing because we will attract good teachers” argument. I take it that Thurman is making the claim that, due to "low" salaries in D11, the current crop of employees is not of a very high quality.

Take a look at the D11 Executive Professional salary chart for this school year and ask yourself if D11 administrators are really underpaid. Keep in mind that the average income in Colorado Springs is $38,000 per year. This D11 document shows that high school principals in the district make $95,000 to $109,000 per year. Is this really not sufficient to entice these principals to do their jobs? Did the two D11 principals really leave D11 due to poor pay, or due to the fact that principals in D11 have no power or authority to be anything other than the yes-man or yes-woman for the “one size fits all” administrators downtown?

During the March 3rd, 2010 board meeting, this document was inserted into the BoE meeting packet by district CFO Glenn Gustafson. Note that Gustafson complains that, “For years the District has been unable to keep up with neighboring school districts for employee compensation…” Is this really true? Take a look at the next document, which comes from the Colorado Department of Education web site. It shows teacher pay data for several Colorado counties, including El Paso County. Look at the “Average Teacher salary” column on page 3 and note the district in El Paso County with the highest average teacher pay. Of course it is D11. Maybe Thurman is actually only complaining that recent pay increases have not kept up with surrounding districts. OK, that probably makes sense considering those districts are actually growing while D11 has been dying. No matter the complaint on salary, one obvious solution to putting more money in teacher pockets is to immediately stop the forcible taking of teacher pay (over $600 per year) to give to the politically driven labor union. If teacher salaries are not satisfactory in D11, and if administrators want to claim that surrounding districts are doing so much better (despite the contrary evidence and despite the fact that surrounding districts do not have labor unions), then what purpose is served by forking over portions of teacher paychecks to this toothless union?

Despite the wishes of the D11 community, D11 administrators and labor union leaders wish to take the approximately $3 million recurring savings from the school closures and spend it on increasing staff salaries rather than on your students. Take another look at the memo to the school board above. Towards the bottom of the document, Gustafson lists the “Key Players” in this discussion of what to do with the $3 million in savings. Notice who is missing from that list: parents and students. You really don’t matter to these people. Gustafson needs to boost his salary or he may have to go elsewhere where he can mismanage another budget. After all, he can hardly afford life on his $120,000+ (plus benefits) salary.

The final document is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was signed on July 14th, 2009, by the leader of the labor union and Mary Thurman. This memo is mentioned by Gustafson in the Board document. Gustafson is wrong when he states that this MOU was “entered into” during labor union negotiations. Although the date of “May 11, 2010” appears on the document, it carries no meaning since the document was not signed until July, well after the BoE voted to approve the labor union contract. Additionally, the “teacher negotiations” are negotiations between the school board and the labor union. Thurman is not a member of either group. An employee of the district cannot bind the BoE to arbitrary agreements. The MOU was merely an attempt by Thurman and Gustafson to back the board into a corner. Unfortunately, most of the members of this compliant board will welcome this MOU, using it as an excuse to turn their backs on the community once again.

Gustafson leaves the BoE with two false choices in his board document. The BoE needs to ignore these choices and direct those funds where they belong, which is with the students who continue to be victimized by this poorly managed school district.

Still unwilling to teach Math

2009-12-01T14:58:00.005-07:00

“…there was a consensus among the State Board appointed evaluators textbooks that EM 4-6 was so bad that statewide adoption for those grades was out of the question. However, some people argued that the K-3 program might be barely good enough for California schools. The California Curriculum Commission and the California State Board of Education eventually decided against adoption of Everyday Math at any grade level in this latest adoption. Everyday Math K-6 has now been twice rejected by the State of California, once in 1999, and again in 2001.”

"Professor Hung-His-Wu, Professor Mathematics at UC-Berkeley stated that while he was not an expert on Everyday Math, he happened to have dealt with it as a consequence of California's book adoption. While he feels there is merit to the "mathematical reasoning" aspect of the EM program, "Starting with Grade 3, and increasingly more towards grade 6, the outright contempt of EM for standard algorithms of addition, multiplication, etc. will handicap the learning of mathematics in later grades.”

"The elementary school teachers of San Antonio voted overwhelmingly to drop EM because it didn't work for them nearly as well as what it had replaced." "San Antonio ISD dropped EM after several years and in spite of rising test scores. Why were the scores rising? Because most schools and individual teachers were learning to leave EM on the shelf and do their own thing with whatever materials they could scrounge while EM took the credit."

"EM has been implemented district-wide since the 1993-1994 school year. Results from the 5th and 8th-grade level PSSAs show that only 37% of district 5th-grade students and a meager 28% of its 8th-grade students could demonstrate math proficiency at these grade levels last year. It's clear that the math programs in the Pittsburgh Public Schools have woefully failed to prepare many of its children in mathematics for years. Although the board majority has raised this issue, the district's administrators refuse to address it.”

From the left coast, through the nation’s mid-section, and on to the East, Everyday Math curriculum (EDM) is widely recognized as damaging to the development of math skills in school children. As anyone familiar with D11 administrators and board members knows, however, if there is a really bad idea floating around, you can be sure that your D11 students will be the victims of that bad idea.

Julie Shaw is D11’s Elementary School math coordinator, and she is a big fan of this garbage called EDM. She is such a fan, in fact, that she is forcing elementary schools across the district to adopt the EDM text books despite its damaging history. The school board assisted Shaw in this expansion of EDM by using mill levy override dollars to purchase EDM text books for the schools. Like other apologists for mediocrity in D11, Shaw claims that the curriculum and text books do not matter since they are all similar. It's all about teacher development, she says. If this is the case, why does Shaw insist on EDM as the only math text that can be used in the schools? Why not allow Saxon or Singapore Math? Shaw is so adamant about EDM that she has instructed teachers NOT to supplement this curriculum with other resources. Her explanation for this order is that she wants to adhere to “program fidelity.”

Why is EDM so bad? Although I have already written about the dangers of this text, we can review some of its low-lights once again, with the help of Carla Albers, who has worked relentlessly to educate D11 administrators on the basics of math education.

The Everyday Math text chooses not to teach traditional long division. According to the Teacher's Edition: "It is simply counter-productive to invest many hours of precious class time on such algorithms. The mathematical payoff is not worth the cost, particularly because quotients can be found quickly and accurately with a calculator." (I suppose that it is safe to assume that he who invented the calculator was not raised on Everyday Math).

States like Connecticut are heavily invested in reform programs like Everyday Math. The Hartford Courant newspaper recently reported that 40 percent of incoming college freshmen require non-credit "remedial" mathematics. (That's right: non-credit remedial math. You, as a parent, will get to fork over more money for a non-credit class because D11 failed to teach your child basic math).

Everyday Math uses "spiraling": Topics are repeated yearly and parents are often told not to worry if a concept isn't mastered because it will repeat. The National Mathematics Advisory Panel warns, "Repetition of topics year after year without the expectation of closure should be avoided."

According to the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, "Students should be expected to develop automatic and accurate execution of the standard algorithms." Everyday Math spends much class time introducing16-plus unique algorithms (i.e. lattice method), many of which are not recognized by traditional programs. Covering so many methods leaves little time for mastery of any one. Very few tests to assess mastery are administered. The National Mathematics Advisory Panel strongly recommends more "ongoing assessments" be given in the classroom at the elementary level. Traditional long division is not taught. Math professors point out that excluding long division leads to students who are unable to do polynomial factoring and polynomial long division.

So why do “educators,” (and I use that term very loosely), like Shaw insist on using failed curriculum? The answer is simple: the use of EDM provides Shaw and her ilk with a ready excuse for the yearly educational failures that are common in this vanishing school district. EDM uses the spiraling technique mentioned above, whereby teachers can tell parents not to worry when their children do not master their math skills because they will get to see those skills again the next year. By the time middle school arrives, your child will be totally frustrated with math and will likely never catch up to the skills needed to perform well in Algebra. EDM has a second benefit for teachers: it allows them to “facilitate learning” instead of teaching to mastery. Since most elementary level teachers are not proficient in math skills themselves, the role of “facilitator” is easier than the role of teacher.

The push for ineffective math instruction does not end at the elementary school level in D11. David Sawtelle is Shaw’s counterpart at the high school level. He has been threatening Coronado math teachers in an attempt to force them to adopt some vague “reproducible” math worksheets that are supposedly rife with errors. Teachers who use this material have no text books and receive no instruction on the material. They are forced to run hundreds of copies of these worksheets, which led to Doherty running out of money during the 3rd quarter of last school year. Additionally, at the middle school level, D11 Central Administrators are forcing all middle schools to work at the exact same pace throughout the school year in their math instruction. In other words, if your child is advancing fairly quickly in math, Central Admin will make no allowances for that. Instead, your child or your child’s school is being asked to hold its students back to follow the pace of the less advanced schools. This highlights, yet again, the importance of site based management.

For those who believe that the push for quality math instruction comes only from crazy right-wingers, visit http://piton.org/Documents/Race%20to%20the%20Top.pdf. This August 2009 publication was created by the National Council on Teacher Quality, a teacher’s advocacy group. As you review this publication, you will notice that the research conducted by this organization shows that curriculum DOES matter. The NCTQ recommends Singapore Math as the preferred curriculum for elementary math instruction. This text is ridiculed by people such as Shaw, even though it is designed to work well for non-English speakers. As D11’s non-English speaking population supposedly increases, you would imagine that Shaw would welcome the introduction of effective curriculum.

If you are confused about the math instruction that your child is receiving in D11, you are not alone. There is a high probability that your child is also confused and that your child will need remedial math if he/she attends college. Keep in mind that you, as a tax payer, are forking over ½ billion dollars annually to this district that refuses to teach your child math skills. Cross your fingers and hope that the new board members are a little more interested in students than the two board members who were recently replaced.

Are they Serious?

2009-11-23T13:50:00.004-07:00

From the current Colorado Springs Independent: “One thing is certain: (Tami) Hasling doesn't approve. "It seems to me that there would be a conflict," she says. "It's disturbing, to be honest with you."

Finally, D11 Board President Tami Hasling, who has been missing in action over the Jan Tanner pizza scandal, speaks her mind. No more sitting back quietly while Tanner takes the tax payers of D11 for a ride as they finance her rich and famous lifestyle. Although Tanner admitted to the Gazette that she had a conflict of interest with her 6-figure money making scheme off of D11, Hasling has been mum on the issue. Progressives are rarely given permission to call out their fellow Progressives.

But wait – Hasling did not make this comment with regards to Tanner’s pizza deal. She made that comment about newly elected D11 board member Al Loma, who, much to Hasling & her handlers’ dismay, is no Progressive. In fact, as the Independent nervously points out, Loma is one of “those’ people who actually value students and their parents. What is his conflict? He sits on the board of a D11 charter school called the STAR Academy, and he has made it clear that he will not give up his seat on the charter board just because he will now be serving on the D11 board. There is neither a legal issue with Loma serving on both boards, nor is there an issue of a D11 policy violation, but Hasling’s handlers want to tar Loma early to let him know that he is not welcome in this D11 playground.

It would be easy to criticize Hasling for jumping on a non-issue (Loma) while ignoring a real issue (Tanner), but those who know Hasling understand that she does not make public pronouncements unless these pronouncements are given to her to be made. For those who attended or watched D11 board meetings during Hasling’s first year on the board, you will remember those meetings when she would read some previously prepared (for her) statement on issues that happened to have had no relevance at all to the issues being discussed. Poor Hasling would plod through her talking points with absolutely no idea that what she was reading was absolutely irrelevant and usually illogical.

So why are Hasling’s handlers upset with Al Loma? Because he is an outsider and not part of the corrupt system that is D11. While Hasling and others will declare that Loma has some conflict of interest because he is obviously a supporter of charters, and therefore of parental choice, nothing but love and adoration are being thrown at the other new BOE member, LuAnn Long. Long has been entrenched in D11 for years, begging the question of her conflicts. BOE members serve to represent the tax payers, not the administration. Long has a history of fighting any proposed changes that would benefit either the tax payers or students of D11. The reason that she is receiving such love and praise is because her fellow board members and administrators understand that she will be yet another champion of the status quo. Don’t expect your child to become her priority by any stretch of the imagination. As far as Sandra Mann’s re-election, let’s just hope that D11 never requires a breathalyzer test to be administered to board members prior to meetings.

Equally as funny, in a sad sort of way, as Hasling’s statement is a letter written to the Indy by John (it’s all about me) Gudvangen. The best I can tell, Gudvangen attempts to praise himself and attempts to take credit for an improved D11. Gudvangen is big on talking about civility, and he performed so well in this category that current members of the BOE let him know that they would campaign against him if he ran for re-election. Gudvangen was literally one of the least trustworthy members of the D11 board, once declaring that he could not be accused of lying because, “Everyone has their own truth.” Spoken like a true Relativist. That would explain why Gudvangen can claim that graduation rates have improved under his watch, when in fact they continue to decline. This would explain why Gudvangen can claim to have achieved success as a BOE member when several thousand more students have fled the district under his watch. This would explain why he could declare at a BOE meeting that, “We will never have a discussion about closing schools under my watch,” and then lead the charge to shut down 9 D11 schools. This would also explain why Gudvangen would exclaim in front of other D11 parents that he had no sympathy for students in low performing schools because it was not his fault that “their parents made some bad life choices.” Spoken like a true leader, Gudvangen.

At least it is refreshing to see Hasling & Gudvangen leaving with the same attitudes that brought them to the board in the first place. Those attitudes include a total disregard for the truth, and a total lack of concern for students.

Clean Sweep

2009-11-08T23:08:00.002-07:00

No one who is familiar with D11 ethics is surprised to learn that the administration has declared that Jan Tanner has neither violated the spirit nor the letter of the law with her decade’s old money making scheme with the school district. After all, look back just two years and remember how CFO Glenn Gustafson quickly declared ex-labor union boss Irma Valerio “not guilty” of felony theft of tax payer money after she stole funds from D11 and from her own union treasury. The district also declared itself clean after investigating its own practice of handing tax payer funded vouchers to at least eight employees and anti-parent board member Karen Teja, all while using tax payer dollars to fight against vouchers for not-so-connected moms and dads across the district. To give the appearance of validity to the district’s investigation of itself, it publicly states that it brings in “independent” legal experts to look into the matter in question. In the case of the Teja vouchers, and in the most recent case of the Tanner pizza dynasty, D11 brought in Denver area attorneys to declare that the district and leftist board members in question were completely clear of any wrong doing. Take that “independent” opinion with a healthy grain of salt. If the law firm hired to find Tanner to be clear of wrong doing was hired by D11 law firm Holmes, Roberts, and Owen (HRO), just as was the law firm hired to find D11 clear of wrong doing in the Teja voucher scandal, where is the independence? If D11 or its attorney is paying another law firm to look into D11 matters, then D11 is essentially the client of the “independent” law firm, and law firms who want future business tend to base their conclusions on the wishes of the client.

So why would D11 have an interest in declaring that Tanner did nothing wrong? The answer is simple – D11 is also in the wrong. Former Procurement head John Elliott, whose wife Linda ran the political campaign for Tanner and who has been friends with the Tanners for years, handed the Tanner businesses a very lucrative pizza contract that lasted more than 10 years without ever placing that contract up for bid until two months ago. That is much more than a small oversight. The fact that Tanner never publicly disclosed her conflict of interest shows clearly that she knew that she was in the wrong for several years. Neither Elliott nor Gustafson have been asked by Superintendent Nick Gledich to address their roles in this matter, and the pliable Gazette reporter who covers (for) D11 can’t quite get the nerve to dig deeper. Having written that, I will give reporter Sue McMillin credit for objecting when the D11 board adjourned into executive session to discuss the matter of elected official Jan Tanner at the November 4th work session (for those who watch video of D11 board meetings, D11 has edited out McMillin’s objection).

By law, public bodies must meet in open session, with very few exceptions. One exception that a public body may use to meet in private is to ask for legal advice on a specific issue. Board member Tom Strand made the motion for executive session on November 4th, and in his motion, he declared that the purpose of legal advice was to receive advice on conflict of interest. If the board simply wanted advice on the definition of conflict of interest, there was no legal authority for them to have retreated into executive session. The advice must be for a specific question. Since Gledich released a statement following the meeting that Jan Tanner was clear of wrong doing, that specific advice must have pertained to Tanner. If the board was seeking advice regarding Tanner’s actions, then why was Tanner in the executive session? Further, since Tanner was the topic of discussion, the BOE had no legal authority to discuss her actions in private. Tanner is an elected official, which means that she is not covered by the “personnel” exception to open meetings laws. HRO gave that very advice to our board when questions about Eric Christen’s background were raised by Karen Teja. The tape recording of the executive session from November 4th is public record not protected by state law. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Sue McMillin to request a copy of that tape.

Don’t be fooled by the praises heaped on D11 by the Gazette editorial of a few days ago. The editorial pointed to an “unqualified” opinion given for D11 financial accounting - which is a good opinion. This was simply an external audit, which is conducted annually. External audits are focused only on the accounting practices used by the district. The auditors determine if Gustafson is using proper accounting practices to keep the district books. He is. Every column lines up properly and 2+2=4 in each instance where it should equal 4. Unfortunately, Gustafson and his board allies have refused to allow for an internal audit to be conducted on D11’s books. His reason is that this will be costly. Internal audits are not the friend of someone with something to hide. These audits are the friends of the owners of D11, who are the tax payers. Internal audits are those that turn up fraud and waste if they exist. Why is Gustafson so opposed to them, and why does Gustafson consistently refuse to speak out against the Irma Valerios and Jan Tanners and Karen Tejas? Gustafson has an interesting history with D11, and this history might provide clues for the answer to that question.

Spydra has even more on Tanner’s inflated income from her Inflated Dough business with D11. Read it here at http://spydrasweb.blogspot.com/2009/11/ill-apologize-in-advance-for-regularly.html.

What a surprise

2009-11-02T22:00:00.002-07:00

The National Education Association, the parent organization of the Colorado Springs Education Association (which is funded by D11 tax payers), has a recomendation or two for your reading pleasure: Saul Alinsky. To think that this radical leftist organization is really about helping kids....

See the recommendation here: http://www.nea.org/tools/17231.htm.

More on Tanner's pizza shenanigans

2009-10-29T20:52:00.003-07:00

As a follow up to the Jan Tanner pizza dealings, a reader pointed out that Tanner used campaign funds from her 2009 board run to pay a profit to her Cheezer’s Pizza business. She paid off a $488 pizza donation with over $760 in campaign contributions. The link to the Secretary of State web site which contains this campaign contribution information is here: http://www.elpasoelections.com/fcpa/2008/FCPA_PDFs_2008/D11_CommitteeToElectJanTanner_RptContExp_01222008.pdf.

This is obviously a small amount in comparison to the $160,000 that Tanner made off of D11 last year, but it shows that she is making a continuous living off of D11 tax payer dollars. Take note that while in Gazette articles about this issue, Tanner keeps referring to Cheezer’s as “my husband’s business.” On the SOS site, she correctly identifies Cheezer’s as her employer.
As the reader also notes, it is no coincidence that former D11 procurement guru John Elliot’s wife, Linda, was Tanner’s campaign manager during this time when Tanner gave her company a little profit from campaign funds.

More to come in response to the Gazette article on Tanner’s pizza deals.

Gazette runs interference for Tanner (sort of…)

2009-10-13T22:25:00.002-07:00

Remember the days when every personal detail and every utterance of D11 board members was considered front page news when those personal details involved reform board members? Remember how even unfounded allegations of illegal activity against specific board members were considered to be in the interest of the public, and therefore worthy of top-of-the-fold coverage? With progressives running the D11 board, the Gazette philosophy has dramatically changed. Not only are very clear financial shenanigans not worthy of a news article, they are a reason for the Gazette education writer, Sue McMillin, to run interference for the board member in question.

The issue of D11 board member Jan Tanner’s sweetheart pizza contract with the school district did catch the attention of McMillin, but she was not interested in exerting any energy to determine if Tanner or district administrators were violating any state statutes, or even district policies and regulations. The most that McMillin was willing to do was to place an entry into a back page blog on the Gazette website where she produced a rather weak defense for Tanner. In this blog entry, McMillin claims that Tanner’s pizza companies have been conducting business with D11 for over a decade. McMillin, with no professional curiosity at all, then points out that D11 issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in July 2009 for this contract, and that Tanner’s pizza franchises won against several other pizza shops. Since McMillin has obviously chosen to become the advocate for Tanner rather than a reporter, she fails to inform her readers why Tanner has held onto this lucrative pizza contract for over a decade without ever having to bid through an RFP or any other contract. Keep in mind that Tanner became the school district treasurer in 2004 and has held these contracts without any public notice through the current date. As I pointed out in my prior post, Tanner made over $160,000 during the 2008-2009 school year alone.

McMillin sniffs that there is a paper trail for all of Tanner’s district business, yet McMillin never produces any part of this trail. One has to question whether or not McMillin presented D11 with an Open Records Request or if she simply took Tanner’s and D11 CFO Glenn Gustafson’s words that this paper trail actually existed. If McMillin did officially request this paper trail of transactions, D11 had only 72 hours to comply with the request. If there were extenuating circumstances (ie, time was needed for D11 and Tanner to CREATE this so-called paper trail), then D11 had only 7 days to produce these documents, according to state law. McMillin has never indicated that she has ever received any documents from D11.

McMillin tells us, with no proof or explanation, that Tanner signed an “official conflict of interest” document in January 2007, but that this document was never made public. Proving once again that she has very little interest in facts, McMillin does not sufficiently explore or explain why a conflict of interest document, which is used to inform the public of a public official’s conflict of interest, was never made public. Tanner explained to McMillin that she did not believe that she had to tell anyone of her conflict because “everyone knew” that she was making big money off of the school district. Really, Jan? Everyone knew? When you were appointed board Treasurer in 2004, I did not know that you were engaged in contracts with the school district, nor did at least two other board members. In fact, I did not know until quite recently that you were engaged in a six-figure annual contract with D11.

So who did know of Tanner’s hidden business dealings with D11? Glenn Gustafson knew, as did ex-procurement manager John Elliott. What makes this deal smell even more rotten is that, according to D11 Policy DK, written in 1972 and revised in 1979, the person who writes the checks for approved bills in the district is….the Treasurer or Assistant Treasurer. Unbeknown to the D11 tax payers, Jan Tanner was literally writing herself checks from the public trough for several years – unless, of course, she was allowing Gustafson to have the honor of making those payments.

Now let’s take a look at D11 policy DJG, “Vendor Relations.” Under this policy, the CFO (Gustafson) is responsible for, “The establishment of procedures to ensure that purchases shall not be made from a member of the board or their immediate households, or from any enterprise in which a board member holds a substantial interest, except for public utilities, when the purchase is in the best interest of the district, or when there is no conflict of interest.” While Sue McMillin argues in her blog that Tanner was not a “member of the board” until her election in 2006, she is incorrect. Tanner was a member of the board and a public official as soon as she was appointed “Board Treasurer” in November 2004.

McMillin points out that the Board of Education (BOE) does not routinely vote on food service contracts, and that the district purchases milk from Sinton Dairy in a “similar” fashion. That is not quite the case. By BOE policy EF (Food & Nutrition Services) the BOE will approve the prices set for meals and milk. Therefore, the BOE is aware of the contract with Sinton and BOE members are aware of the cost of milk purchases because they are required to set the price for milk.

For even more information on yet another angle in this Tanner money-making scheme, visit Spydrasweb once again at http://www.spydrasweb.blogspot.com/. In the latest Spydra blog entry, read how another pizza salesman named Anthony Mand also had a lucrative pizza contract with D11 and learn how he entered a partnership with – you guessed it – the Tanners, in 2003. As Spydra notes, this legal partnership quickly dissolved after Spydra first wrote of the shady Tanner business dealings.

By the way, Jan Tanner wants to be the D11 board president after this fall’s elections. If the Treasurer slot pays $160,000 per year, one can only imagine how Tanner will profit while seated in the President’s chair.

Her hand – Your wallets - (Updated)

2009-10-04T15:18:00.003-07:00

Back in October, 2004, the D11 board majority made a very unusual board appointment. It is almost always the case that school board officers are school board members. The reason is so that the board officer will be representative of the electorate. There is no policy or law that forbids boards from appointing non-board members to board officer positions, but it has never happened in D11 until 2004.

Eric Christen was the board elected treasurer after the 2003 board elections. The board treasurer is the official treasurer of the school district. The paid Chief Financial Officer (in D11’s case, Glenn Gustafson), reports to the board treasurer. Christen made it clear that he would take time to examine the D11 budget expenditures line by line to weed out waste, fraud, and abuse. Needless to say, Gustafson and other D11 board members and administrators were not excited about the prospect of having a public airing of the expenditure of D11 funds.

In November of 2004, the board majority produced a list of “allegations” against Christen that they used as a reason to remove him from his role as D11 Treasurer. These “allegations” were not required to be proven before the board voted 4-3 to remove Christen from his role as treasurer and appointed Jan Tanner as the new treasurer. Why Tanner? We were never sure. She was (and remains) an anti-parent elitist and an apologist for the status quo in the district, so in that regard, she was a good fit for the board majority’s inner circle. She has never been a proponent of transparency or fiscal accountability in D11, so Gustafson certainly approved of her appointment. Most important, Tanner was no threat to review the D11 budget and have public discussions about the destination of tax payer dollars.

The “official” reason given for the appointment of Tanner was because she was the accountant for her husband’s Domino’s Pizza franchise. In fact, according to Colorado Secretary of State records, Tanner is a registered agent and an officer for the franchise owned by her husband Carl Tanner. The Tanners named this Domino’s franchise “Cheezer’s.” Carl’s brother, H. Mark Tanner, owns a Domino’s franchise called “Inflated Dough.” It turns out that this is a very appropriate name when considering the relationship between D11 and the Tanner family.

Against the protests of Glenn Gustafson, beginning with the 2008-2009 school year, D11 began to place copies of its check register online through the D11 homepage. Much to Gustafson’s regret, some D11 tax payers have actually begun to look at these expenditures.

There is a new blog called “Spydrasweb.” It can be found here: http://www.spydrasweb.blogspot.com/. Spydra is one of those people who has taken the time to look through the details of some of these D11 expenditures, and she blogs about some of her findings with regards to Cheezer’s and Inflated Dough. Her research sheds some light on why Tanner was so interested in becoming the D11 treasurer.

Any board officer is required, by law, to inform the board and public if there is a financial conflict of interest between his or her official duties and his or her business. While Tanner has been asked about the fact that her franchise has supplied D11 with pizza, she has maintained that her husband has only donated pizza to the district. OK, no conflict there. Spydra points out that with this regular donation of pizza, the bookkeeper for the franchise (Jan) certainly must write off this “donation” from the franchise taxes. Unfortunately for Tanner, the D11 check register does not support her claim that she was only donating anything to D11. Look here to see for yourself: http://www.d11.org/transparency/AP%20Payments%20FY08-09.xls.

During the 2008-2009 school year alone, Jan and her family have been paid over $160,000 from D11 for pizza. In most financial circles, that is not considered a “donation.” Spydra raises other questions about this undeclared conflict by Tanner. Is she writing off these pizza sales as donations? Is taking payments from the district and then taking money from the point of sale to students in the schools? How long has Tanner been on the D11 payroll? If she has been taking funds from D11 since she was first appointed as treasurer, she has made over ½ million dollars without ever declaring her conflict.

Who besides Tanner has been aware of this money-making venture by the Tanner clan? D11 CFO certainly knew since he is giving Tanner weekly checks from the district. As Spydra also points out, John Elliott, the ex-D11 procurement guru, also knew of these healthy tax payer payments to a board member. What about the board members who appointed Tanner to the treasurer position? Did they know of her financial dealings with D11? It is hard to imagine that they did not know. Keep in mind that Karen Teja, who tried to sue me for exposing the fact that she was receiving a $5,000 annual voucher for her own child while preventing other parents from receiving academic help for their children, counted Tanner as one of her close allies. Just as the other status quo board members turned a blind eye to Teja’s corruption, they certainly would not be too concerned about learning that Tanner has her hand deep into the tax payers’ pockets as well.

Kudos to Spydra for unearthing Jan Tanner’s special relationship with the district that she serves for “free.” $160,000 per year is not bad for a volunteer position. Don’t think for a minute that this is the only case of a “favored” person making a decent living off of D11 under the cloak of secrecy. No doubt there will be more to come.

Update: The El Paso County District Attorney and the Colorado Attorney General have become involved in this issue.

Foolishness

2009-09-27T19:13:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-16T09:59:00.001-07:00

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.

Discriminating Shoppers

2009-08-26T14:59:00.000-07:00

An article in the August 21st 2009 Gazette tells of $5.8 million in federal grants being awarded to Colorado Springs school districts where the military population is growing. The article says this:

“Four Pikes Peak region school districts have been awarded Defense Department grants aimed at assisting schools where the military population is growing.The area districts — Academy School District 20, Falcon School District 49, Harrison School District 2 and Fountain-Fort Carson School District 8 — received $5.8 million to use on programs over three years. The districts will use the money to improve student achievement, and Falcon and Harrison have targeted math programs in particular.The Department of Defense Education Activity awarded $56 million nationwide, and was able to make awards to all qualified districts, said spokeswoman Connie Gillette. The grants are for schools with at least a 15 percent military dependent population, but the programs can serve all students in the school.”

Over 10,000 new soldiers and airmen will be flowing into the Colorado Springs area over the next couple of years, so these grants were not unexpected.

Take another look at the districts that are receiving these grants and take note of the district that is not receiving the money. D11, the largest district in the region, does not qualify for the federal funding. When military families move to a new location, the parents tend to be discriminating shoppers when it comes to the education of their children. It is apparent that very few military families would place their children in a school district that spends little effort on educating kids.

Not only is D11 losing millions of dollars annually from students choosing to attend school elsewhere, but it is losing military families who take the time to research local school districts and who discover that D11 is a district that is best kept at arms’ length.

.0005 – Or .05%

2009-08-03T21:46:00.000-07:00

According to the 2009 Quantum Performance Group (QPG) report on the state of School District 11, the district loses over $6000 per year in state funding for each student that leaves the struggling district. With a migration out of the district totaling about 400 students per year, D11 obviously loses over $2.4 million each year. With these types of financial losses mounting year after year, one would expect that district leaders would finally see the need to make some hard budget decisions.

In a recent Gazette article on new D11 superintendent Nicholas Gledich, it was pointed out that Gledich already trimmed some fat from the ailing budget. And what amount did Gledich trim? $242,000.

Consider that the annual D11 budget approaches ½ billion dollars and you will find that this trimming of the fat equates to a whopping .05% of the budget. It is hard to imagine how Gledich and his staff reconcile the fact that their budget “cuts” are not going to address the annual budget losses that are 10 times greater.

Gledich found his $242,000 “cut” when he decided to leave an Executive Director (ED) position vacant. D11 never had a need for 5 Executive Directors in the first place, so don’t expect that the quality of educational services will be impacted in any way – either positively or negatively. Gledich decided to allow Deputy Superintendent Mary Thurman to handle the duties of this departed ED, which is not a bad idea in itself because it was never clear that Mary Thurman was all that busy in the first place. She has traveled from a job as Deputy Supe for Curriculum over to Personnel. Now it appears that she has migrated back to her old job yet again. When a person is performing at a high level of proficiency, that person is usually left in their job or even promoted. One has to wonder why a high paid executive would be moved around and around the admin building year after year. Better yet, one has to wonder about the performance of the person who is continuously moved and is never given a duty description that will allow for accountability of that job.

We also learned from the Gazette article that Gledich has designed a new logo for the district. What the article does not mention is that Gledich has declared that all written correspondence throughout D11 will now be conducted on stationary containing this new logo. All stationary with individual school logos is now forbidden, meaning all schools must spend money to use the new stationary. This seems like a frivolous waste of dwindling resources in a cash strapped district, and it calls into question the true priorities of the new D11 leader.

It's all about the Power

2009-07-29T19:50:00.002-07:00

I have documented the power and corruption of the Colorado Springs Education Association (CSEA) in this blog many times. As I have pointed out, the labor union has a literal death grip over the weak administrators and board of education members who are the public face of the school district.

Despite the fact that the CSEA and its national master, the NEA, have formed an operational alliance with the Teamsters Union, local CSEA labor union operatives still attempt to push the notion that the CSEA is not really a union, but rather a “professional organization.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

Labor unions rule by force, and the CSEA labor union uses representatives in each school building to enforce teacher and administrator compliance with labor union rules and to spread labor union propaganda. Most of the rules, as I have shown in this blog, are designed to prevent teachers from working too hard and raising the “unfair” expectation that other teachers might have to work equally as hard.

A man named Bob Chanin is retiring as General Counsel of the NEA. He is a mafia-like figure who prides himself in the untold damage he has done to the US public education system. His most valiant efforts have revolved around preventing tax paying parents from having any say in the education that is delivered to their children.

Chanin made his final address to this summer’s NEA conventioneers. In this speech, to raucous applause from the assembled labor union foot soldiers, Chanin said this: “When all is said and done, NEA and its affiliates must never lose sight of the fact that they are unions, and what unions do first and foremost is represent their members.” Yes, unions, not professional organizations.

That is not all Chanin had to say that evening. For those parents and teachers who do not subscribe to the Marxist ideology espoused by the labor union, this is what Chanin thinks of you: “We are not paranoid, someone really is after us. Why are these conservative and right-wing bastards picking on NEA and its affiliates? I will tell you why: it is the price we pay for success."

Do Chanin’s views fall outside of the average NEA member? Not hardly. Back in 1996, the labor union issued a handbook that said, with regards to the “radical right-wing:” “They won't go away. No matter how bizarre we believe their beliefs to be, no matter how illogical and inconsistent their goals appear, and no matter how often we reassure ourselves that 'this too, shall pass,' the political, social, and religious forces that make up the radical right in contemporary American society will not go away."

Yes, just go away, you conservative parents and teachers – just go away. But wait, before you shut your mouths, teachers, just do the union a favor and keep your wallets wide open. Continue to give the labor union your dues and pretend that you are not responsible for funding this radical organization that is one of the largest forces that is destroying this country’s schools. What makes Chanin proud? This: “And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year." With these millions in dues, surely the labor union must care about your kids, right? Not according to Chanin. Your kids are not the priority. According to Chanin, this is what makes the union effective: “not because of our creative ideas, it is not because of the merit of our positions; it is not because we care about children, and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power."

Just as I have said all along – it was never about your kids; it was always about power. If you have been frustrated about why your teachers are not responsive to you, it is because they are required to answer to a higher purpose, and that purpose is to provide funding and labor to the NEA. All of D11’s labor union members willingly place the labor union’s priorities well above those of you and your children. If you doubt this, ask yourself when it was that you have ever heard a teacher speak out openly against this radical and harmful labor union.

For those parents who care about your child’s education, and for those who do not believe that the future of this country looks brightest under a socialist cloud, join the thousands of other parents in this city who have chosen to take their kids elsewhere to receive a quality education. Stop funding this radical labor union.

The Beginning of a New School Year

2009-07-28T21:12:00.002-07:00

Another summer coming to an end in less than a month, and another school year about to begin with fewer and fewer families choosing to utilize School District 11 schools for their students’ education.

The time is right to continue to add to this blog. It was interesting trying to follow the happenings in D11 while I was deployed to Iraq. What stood out the most to me was the validation that the frenzy to remove reform board members was never about improving student achievement; as I said all along, it was all about power for the labor union and for the Progressive majority sponsored board members. The best example to illustrate that point was the lack of outrage when the board decided to close numerous schools with no legitimate neighborhood input. Where was End the Chaos during this debate? Where was the labor union?

There is plenty to write about with regards to the still-sluggish school district, but the big issues can be summarized in just a couple of sentences. First and foremost, and regrettably for the students, the status quo, ‘nothing needs to change academically’ attitude is in full force in the district. Second, despite the Create Chaos organization’s stated goal of electing board members who would all work together, the board members do not share common goals for the district, and they do not get along. You won’t find that story in the Gazette, however, because it is only supposed to be a story when conservatives have disagreements. Third, the board and administration continue to ignore the community. While district personnel are quick to blame parents for academic failures, parents’ input is not welcome with regards to academic issues. Finally, while never openly admitting it, the district inadvertently sang the praises of the reformers as it used district data that was achieved during our tenure to show that D11 was making strong academic gains. This data was used on mailers that the district (illegally) produced in its print shop to push for the mil levy last fall.

Over the past year, I have pulled my kids out of D11 schools, as have thousands of parents. The district does not demand excellence in its staff or its students, it is non-responsive to the community, and discipline is not maintained in the schools. Unfortunately, D11 still gets my property taxes, so I have just as much a right to have a say in the business of the district as every other tax payer. There is plenty to be said.

What would Galileo Say?

2008-09-28T04:44:00.002-07:00

For those who are hoping for positive results from the Galileo School for Math & Science in the old East Middle School building in D11, I would suggest that you lower your expectations.

According to the Gazette on 27 September, Daniel Pink, an author who emphasizes feelings over learning, was in attendance at the grand opening of the math and science magnet. He was quoted as saying, "If you can write down the steps and it has a right answer, it's gone." This seems like a very odd comment to make at the opening of a math and science school. Despite opinions to the contrary, math has answers, and coincidently, so does science. Further, both of these fields involve specific processes and steps to analyze data and to determine solutions to problems. If the staff of Galileo believe as Pink believes, this school is doomed to failure.

Pink is the hero of anti-parent politician Mike (hey wife, go steal some signs for me) Merrifield, the Manitou Springs relativist. He believes that the solution to our education woes is to declare that there is no longer any right or wrong and that all that matters is that students feel good about themselves after they spend their days in school being told that feeling good is more important than learning. Or, if one happens to have been a female student at Coronado when Mike was the music teacher, all that mattered was time spent in the music room. Math and science are topics from the past. With calculators, says, Merrifield, there is no reason to put our dear children through the anxiety of having to learn math. Sadly, Merrifield has great sway over D11, so chances are, Galileo staff likely will follow the thinking of Pink, much to the detriment of Galileo students.

In a strange irony, Galileo was well know for pioneering the use of quantitative experiments whose results could be analyzed with mathematical precision. It looks to me as if he thought that math and science were processes that consist of steps and right answers.

There is no doubt that the arts are an important component of a solid education. To declare that math and science are dead, (which, sadly, is a true statement in America's public schools), is to encourage the further dismantling of an education system that continues to threaten the future of this nation.

Let us now turn to the mission statement of the Galileo school to determine how the school staff plans to succeed. The mission, as posted on the D11 Galileo web site, is as follows: “The mission of Galileo School of Math and Science is to establish an integrated, creative, technology-enriched, and individual talents abilities, skills, creativity, and potential of its students while promoting cultural responsiveness. This mission will be accomplished through academically rigorous, standards-based educational programs in the context of discipline, respect, and a high degree of community involvement.”

If you are able to put meaning behind that mission statement, you are probably over-qualified for the school. I suppose D11 never did claim thatGalileo was to be an English literacy or grammar magnet.

If you think the English is bad on the web page, wait until you see the Latin. Under a sub-topic titled “What We Offer” is this paragraph: “Ut lacreet dolore magna aliquam sic semper fi tyrannis erat volutpat. Wisi enim ad minim veniam. Dolore eu sata sfeugiat. Ipsum lorem vei illum sat dolor euis mod tincidunt vei auminiure dolor in esse. Ultaceet dolore magna si napi. Wisi e nim ad minim veniam, quis nos In a tsvulpate velt esse meleste at semper manet sola. UT lacreet dolore magna aliquam sic semp fi tyrannis erat volutpat. Wisi enim ad minim veniam. Dolore eu sata sfeugiat."

Immediately next to this paragraph is another titled: “Where we Deliver.” Under this heading is the exact same paragraph as above. This page can be found at http://www.d11.org/GALILEO/aboutus.htm.

Such high hopes, such an embarrassing start. Typical D11.

Shameless

2008-09-20T06:19:00.000-07:00

On September 17th, the Gazette ran an opinion piece exposing the fact that School District 11 has filed a lawsuit against the State Board of Education for requiring that D11 enter into an operational agreement with an online charter school, the Hope Academy. In setting a new standard for shameless behavior, D11 CFO Glen Gustafson has sent a letter to surrounding school districts begging them for money to help D11 in its lawsuit. In other words, not only is D11 throwing away D11 tax payer dollars towards this ridiculous lawsuit, but it is asking citizens of other districts to help defray the cost of this very stupid decision by the D11 board and administration.

D11 is facing a financial crisis that began in the 1990s as labor union purchased school boards turned a blind eye to poor classroom performance by teachers who were being led by inept administrators. Due to the decrease in the quality of education being offered by D11 schools, parents began to move to districts that tended to show an interest in educating kids. Those parents who remained within D11 boundaries began to home school, permit their kids into surrounding districts, or send their kids to charter schools.

To this day, D11 administrators and board members simply don’t get it. They somehow believe that they have a right to take ½ billion dollars from the tax payers, fail to use this money to adequately educate kids, and then force parents to send their kids to the failing schools. They are outraged when parents and business leaders take the initiative to create alternate choices for their children in efforts to give their kids the type of education that D11 personnel are simply not qualified to offer. Now they have stooped to a new low, begging surrounding tax payers to keep D11 students in rotting schools.

Not only is D11 begging for help to finance an absurd lawsuit, it once again has its hand ready to reach into the D11 tax payers’ pockets for an additional $20 million to add to the already $500 million budget. The last mill levy passed in 2000, and D11 made bold promises to the business community to garner support from the business community for that tax hike. These promises included a guarantee to meet 11 performance goals and to allow a bi-annual review of the district by a group called QPG. In each of the district reviews since the passage of the levy in 2000, QPG has noted that D11 has not kept its promises on these 11 goals. Each year, D11 tells the business community that they just need one more year and then they will meet those goals. The business leaders have been foolishly buying the district’s pleas for more time.

What does the district plan to do with this additional money that it can’t accomplish with its ½ billion dollar budget? They went to the old standby pledge: reduce class size. Yes, that’s right. Here you have a district that is hemorrhaging students, and they are telling us that they need money to reduce class size. D11 already has enough teachers to have class sizes of 16 or fewer per class. The goal based on the 2000 tax increase was an average class size of 22 students. The district is well below that average right now. If we are to believe that the addition of more teachers is the trick that will finally stop the train wreck that is coming in D11, then how can the district explain the poor performance of those schools in the district with the smallest student to teacher ratio? Oh wait a minute – that’s right. The explanation is what it has always been. Those students, well, you know, they are poor and minority, and everyone in the labor union and everyone with a higher level education degree in D11 will tell you that “those” students just can’t learn. So give them $20 million and that money will apparently be used to educate those students who can learn.

Remember the good old days when all of D11’s problems were blamed on those nasty board members who were elected in 2003? Remember how those nasty board members were causing undo stress by demanding that people be held accountable for their performance? Remember how all it would take to stop the sinking D11 ship was for those nasty board members to go away and allow people who care about children to guide the district? Welcome to the fantasyland that is D11. The ship continues to sink, the board continues to sleep, the labor union continues to do nothing, and the six figure earning bureaucrats continue to laugh at the tax payers for allowing them to play pretend with the lives of their students.

In with the Old

2008-05-04T01:13:00.003-07:00

After a very brief attempt at pretending that they were responsible citizens, the D11 labor union members have turned back to their true colors by giving the reigns of their private organization back to those who supported ex-president Irma Valerio's theft of over $1,000 from the district coffers.

Last year, after labor union members ousted Valerio for her theft from the public and from the union itself, they elected labor union board members who claimed that they would put an end to that type of activity. They claimed that they were going to clean up the labor union. Keep in mind, this union is in partnership with the AFL-CIO, so if anyone believed that the union would chart a course away from its Teamster ways, that belief was certainly short lived.

After this year's vote for new labor union bosses, in came the old and out went the new. The labor union is run, once again, by those who remained loyal to Valerio and her ways. After all, there is money to be made off of the public coffers; why turn that spigot off? In addition to apparently being OK with felony levels of theft, this new-old group of leaders is much cozier with the administration than was the last leadership team, meaning once again that the administration will get no heat at all from the union over the lack of leadership being provided by Terry Bishop and his buddies on El Paso Street.

Why, again, is the D11 student population declining?

Hey Tom, What about the Diaper?

2008-04-25T22:56:00.000-07:00

“This dirty diaper won’t change itself.”

So declared D11 board member Tom Strand several weeks ago when discussing the issue of shuttering D11 schools, selling the buildings to wealthy developers, putting teachers on the streets, and destroying the very foundation of our public schools.

Strand was making the point that while past boards did not have the courage to do the right thing, he was going to ensure that this board would move forward and close the schools that needed to be closed. No more delays, declared Strand; it is now or never!

Uh, Tom? How does that diaper smell today?

On Wednesday evening, the D11 board punted the issue of school closure down the road yet again. Strand sat by helplessly and didn’t even offer up a fresh Pamper. In fact, he appeared to be the starting punter.

Everyone understands that the D11 school district is facing growing financial hardships as parents take their kids to districts that tend to focus their budgets on educating students rather than filling the wallets of administrative fat cats who add no value to the education equation. D11 CFO Glenn Gustafson has wanted to close schools for several years as he has watched the budget numbers grow tighter and tighter. Being more of an appeaser than a leader, Gustafson has never had the courage to publicly state his position, nor has he had the courage to speak out against the practice of superintendents hiring more and more administrators, further straining an already stretched financial position. Rather, Gustafson depends on committees and board members to carry his water. That way, if or when the public expresses its dismay over losing their neighborhood school, Gustafson can point his finger elsewhere.

Gustafson is a party to the financial mess in which the district finds itself. He claims to have trimmed over $1 million from the administrative budget last year. He claimed the same thing while I was on the board. To prove his point, he showed charts of administrative positions that were eliminated. Of course, he only showed half of the story. In response, I showed charts that showed where positions were created under different titles, leaving the spending levels exactly the same. Gustafson and other administrators also tend to “hide” administrative hires by using the purple packet process, which I have explained previously.

After spending several months discussing the 2008-2009 D11 budget with the board, the administration only recently announced that it was going to shut several neighborhood schools. Even board members who have always been absolute apologists for the lethargic administration were taken aback by this last minute attempt to close buildings with no notice, no plan, and sadly, no evidence that their actions were designed to improve education in any way. What were the criteria that the administration used to select the schools on the list? No one knows. How will these closings help the academic environment in the district? Again, no one knows, because that question was never analyzed by the administration.

Every member of this current board opposed the idea of site based management, which directs the budget to the schools based on student population and special needs at each building. Only after the schools were funded would the administration receive money for hiring administrators. Obviously, the administration adamantly opposed this type of budgeting because it would mean that the administration would certainly shrink in size. The board members opposed the site based budget concept because they were convinced by labor union handlers that this was the first step in “privatization.” In other words, if it could be shown that a school could perform well while managing its own budget, and money flowed to school buildings based on the student population, then that was an obvious attempt to make the schools function like private entities, where people would be attracted to schools that actually performed. What a horrible concept.

The only rational method by which to determine which schools should survive and which should not is by utilizing a site based budgeting model. If a school building is performing poorly and under enrolled, the budget would be equally small. The only way to increase the budget would be to increase the student count. The only way to increase the student count would be to have a quality education environment. There is nothing difficult about this concept. The communities would then be in the position to take charge of their own neighborhood schools. If they would want their building to remain open, then they would have to participate to improve their school. Teachers and administrators would have to go the extra mile to attract students to their building. If no improvement occurred, and if no students came to a building, it would die a natural death. The school budget would not sustain a failing school.

The reality today is that the district budget is being forced to sustain buildings that are half full. Money is being taken from other places in the district just to maintain the status quo. It is time to move to a site based budget and let events dictate which schools survive and which die a natural death.

It appears that the current board members are finally awakening to the reality that the administration is not going to lead D11 to excellence. It is instead leading the district towards financial troubles. Diaper Strand and other board members act surprised that the administration really doesn’t have a well thought out plan when it comes to school utilization. Oh really? Welcome to the party. Some of us have been telling them that since 2003 and before. It appears that the recall that the current board members all supported was nothing more than a $250,000 cure that targeted the wrong disease.

By the way, my comments in the opening paragraph about Strand’s desire to destroy the district and sell the buildings to developers is not true, just as it wasn’t true when Strand and his ilk made those claims about the reformers during the recall campaign in 2006. Funny that we have yet to hear from recall mouthpieces Norvelle Simpson, Annie Oakley, and Mary Ellen McNally. Who said that the recall wasn’t at all about politics?

Negotiations Update

2008-04-12T01:47:00.002-07:00

Since my last post on the issue of the D11 labor union negotiations, Bob Null has managed to get himself on the district negotiating team. This is a big victory for Bob, who believes that the school board, being a party to the agreement, should probably be allowed to know what is happening in negotiations.

This is just a beginning for Bob and openness in public school contract talks. While Bob will be inside the negotiating room, you can be sure that the labor union leaders will use current contract language to prevent any new ideas from reaching the point of discussion. Fortunately, Bob will likely be the type who will bring this to the public's attention, meaning that he will be a marked man afterwards for daring to challenge the labor union's hold on the D11 tax payers. Unfortunately for Bob, the labor union has a lackey on the administration team. Dave Schenkel does more bidding for the labor union than he does for the residents of D11.

All that said, good job to Bob Null for taking this first step in holding the D11 labor union accountable to the public that pays its members' wages.

Just as I said

2008-04-07T13:46:00.002-07:00

During the three years of contract negotiations between the D11 board and the labor union while I was serving on the school board, I always pointed out that the school board was completely prevented from having any knowledge of what was happening in the negotiating room. I pointed out that the board, and hence the public, were kept from having any say, even though the board is a party to the contract.

Recently, board member Bob Null has asked to sit in on the negotiations with the labor union. Normally, just the D11 administration has representative involved in negotiations. I use the term “negotiations” loosely since the administration team, led by union sycophant David Schenkel, never makes any demands of the labor union.

Holmes, Robert, and Owens (HRO) is the law firm that represents D11. Attorneys for this law firm are also involved in the labor union negotiations, although my opinion has always been that HRO does as much as the labor union to prevent the board from having a say in the contract talks.

This past week, HRO and the administration have proven that my concerns about the negotiation process are well-founded. As Bob Null continued to demand a presence at the negotiating table, the administration asked HRO to weigh in to prevent his participation. The reason given is absolutely astounding for a public entity. HRO informed Null that he could not participate in labor union negotiations because he is a member of the public. Therefore, HRO said, he could not attend negotiation sessions because the current contract clearly states that negotiations are closed to the public until at least 2010 (of course, the labor union will extend that “closed” clause well before that date).

Let me make this clear. The Master Agreement names the parties to the contract. One of those parties is the D11 school board. The other is the labor union. Members of the labor union board participate in the negotiations every year. Now you have a law firm telling an elected official, who is party to a public multi-million dollar contract and who represents the people, that he has no right to know what is occurring in negotiations of a contract to which he is a party. Equally galling is the fact that none of the other labor union purchased board members is making any effort to support Null. They are willingly allowing themselves to be frozen out of a contract process that they will then blindly vote to approve anyway.

The labor union leaders have always claimed that they were opposed to public negotiations of their public contract because the negotiations might turn into grandstanding in front of the public. All Null is asking is for him to be allowed inside the room while negotiations are occurring. The true colors of the labor union masters are shining through.

Despite all of the past denials about whether or not the school board was denied access to the negotiation process, the HRO “opinion,” which was encouraged not only by labor union leaders, but administrators as well, proves that I was correct. The contract process continues, and the D11 public is forbidden from participating. The administration, which is supposed to work for the school board on behalf of the public, does not want board members to be involved. Why would this be the case? Because the labor union and the administration (and union purchased board members) are working in-sync to get as much public funding as possible for their own wallets while denying the public the right to hold the district accountable for its ½ billion dollar budget and failing schools.

National Panel confirms that D11 math approach is flawed

2008-03-31T20:09:00.001-07:00

The final report from the National Mathematics Advisory Panel is in, and once again, defenders of fuzzy mathematics instruction, including the D11 administration, are shown to be supporting a flawed curriculum.

Dora Gonzales, D11 math chair, pushes curriculum that calls for “familiarity” with math concepts instead of mastery. She pushes curriculum that uses a “spiraling” technique of teaching. In other words, students are briefly introduced to math concepts during one school year, with the hope that at some point over several years, they will become familiar with that concept due to the fact that they will briefly touch on the topic again at some future date. Gonzales and other traditional math critics claim that it is not important for students to actually master math facts and processes during their early school years. The National panel concludes that this thinking is outright wrong.

As to the issue of mastering math facts, the national panel report states: “By the end of the elementary grades, children should have a robust sense of number. This sense of number must include understanding place value, and the ability to compose and decompose whole numbers. It must clearly include a grasp of the meaning of the basic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, including use of the commutative, associative, and distributive properties; the ability to perform these operations efficiently; and the knowledge of how to apply the operations to problem solving. Computational facility rests on the automatic recall of addition and related subtraction facts, and of multiplication and related division facts. It requires fluency with the standard algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Fluent use of the algorithms not only depends on the automatic recall of number facts but also reinforces it.”

How about the spiraling approach that is so favored by the fuzzy math crowd? The report says this: “International studies show that high-achieving nations teach for mastery in a few topics, in comparison with the U.S. mile-wide-inch-deep curriculum. A coherent progression, with an emphasis on mastery of key topics, should become the norm in elementary and middle school mathematics curricula. There should be a de-emphasis on a spiral approach in mathematics that continually revisits topics year after year without closure.”

I published a math survey on this blog several months ago which showed that mathematicians around the world have very strong opinions about fuzzy math curriculum, and those opinions demonstrate that they do not like this new-new math. The national report says this: “Publishers must ensure the mathematical accuracy of their materials. Those involved with developing mathematics textbooks and related instructional materials need to engage mathematicians, as well as mathematics educators, in writing, editing, and reviewing these materials.”

The evidence on math is clear: D11 is not using solid curriculum, and it is not properly serving its students. Don’t expect this national report to cause any change for the better in the district, however. The administration and board members don’t pay attention to math facts or statistics. It is easier to explain away the facts than it is to face the reality that nothing short of a curriculum overhaul and good old fashioned hard work will be needed to fix the D11 math crisis.

Still Asleep at the Wheel

2008-03-16T21:57:00.002-07:00

Anyone who has children attending D11 schools understands that math is not high on the list of priorities for the current administration or school board. Despite data showing the D11 performs miserably at teaching math as a district, administrators and board members have absolutely no interest in making any effort to reverse this course, which is damaging the ability of thousands of students to perform simple math calculations.

Carla Albers has been championing solid math curriculum for the district for several years. Her attempts to encourage the district to do right by its students have consistently fallen on deaf ears. I previously posted a letter that Carla sent to the board with an attachment from math experts from around the country. As is typical of the current crop of board members, nobody even acknowledged the letter from Carla, with the exception of Tom Strand, who was too afraid to make an issue out of the poor math performance of the district.

In an email, I asked Carla about the response she received after she made further attempts to engage the lethargic school board on the topic of math. Here is her reply:

Funny you should ask.
As you know, I wrote to the BOE and several top D-11 administrators on November 30, 2007, providing them with information from two highly qualified math experts suggesting that the program in use in the majority of D-11 elementary schools does not give students the foundational knowledge necessary to allow them to succeed at upper level math, absent outside intervention by a tutor or parent. You have posted the information I received from Dr. Jim Milgram at Stanford, and Dr. Steve Wilson at Johns Hopkins University, in a prior blog entry. I received exactly one response to this information – from Tom Strand, who thanked me for the same and indicated he would be following up on math issues.

On January 7, 2008, I re-sent this information to the board and administration, along with a note expressing disappointment that no one other than Mr. Strand seemed at all interested in the information I had provided. This time, I received one more response – from Jan Tanner. In my original email, I suggested that the BOE ask D-11 administrators to provide data showing that kids who are not expected to learn standard algorithms and who are not expected to have fluency with basic math facts without the use of a calculator, are successful in higher level math. This suggestion was in the context of the Everyday Math program which does not, in fact, teach or expect those skills. Ms. Tanner’s response was, to quote, “Frankly, I don’t intend to do that since I don’t believe that is what our math curriculum expects of students.”

After I wrote back to suggest that she read the Everyday Math teacher’s guide, which does in fact set forth those very things, she responded, and I quote, “Your original mail suggested that none of our students are taught standard arithmetic algorithms, and that none are required to have fluency and automaticity of basic facts without the aid of a calculator, and that they are not successful at higher level math. This is what I said I do not believe is happening. I do not make such sweeping statements about any curriculum used or any learning happening in Dist. 11. If you share my response with others, I trust you will not put words in my mouth and say that I have a lack of interest in this subject.”

A couple of problems with this response. First, I never suggested that no D-11 students are taught standard algorithms or required to learn basic math facts without the aid of the calculator. My entire letter, as well as the documentation from Dr. Milgram and Dr. Wilson, dealt with the factual reality of a specific program, Everyday Math. Second, Ms. Tanner disagrees with the suggestion that students in D-11 are not successful at higher level math. Apparently she doesn’t know, or perhaps doesn’t consider important, that over two thirds of D-11 eleventh graders do not score well enough to meet the college readiness benchmark for algebra established by ACT. (Per ACT, a score of 22 on the math section suggests a student is ready for college algebra) This is stunning when you consider that the normal track for D-11 students is to take algebra in 9th grade – two years before they take the ACT. Since when is 33% of our students scoring 22 or above defined as success?

This little episode is indicative of the problems that pervade D-11, and how things work now that all the board members get along and are friendly. First, most of the board members didn’t even take the time to respond to a constituent. Not only did I provide specific information as to my concerns with a widely used math program, I provided information from two PhD level mathematicians with experience in reviewing elementary math programs, and specifically Everyday Math, and who have concluded that the program mathematically cripples students. One would think that in the normal course of things, in a setting where accountability and results are important, that the information provided, at least on its face, would cause serious questions to be asked. Sadly, there is little apparent intellectual curiosity by those in charge of the district to examine why math scores drop so precipitously the longer kids stay in the district, or to explore the reasons why mathematicians across the country have been sounding the alarm about math programs such as Everyday Math. As noted by Dr.’s Milgram and Wilson, the only kids with a chance to succeed are those kids whose parents have the knowledge base to understand something is terribly wrong, and with the means to do something about it. I would add to this and note that there are teachers in the district – some of whom I know – who know how bad this program is, and who close their doors and teach kids real math that gives them real competency. Right now, unless you have a precocious math student – one who will learn no matter what the program, or one who has parents and/or teachers to help them, kids taught under Everyday Math enjoy the illusion of math competency – which illusion will end abruptly when they are required to do real math.

Below is the complete exchange of emails between Carla and Jan Tanner, one of the most most ardent opponents of improvement in D11.

From: "Carla A." carla.albers@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:47:49 -0700
To: "'Carla A.'" , "'BISHOP, TERRY N.'" , , , , , , , Cc: , , 'Shari Griffin' shari.griffin@gazette.com
Subject: RE: D-11 Math Education

Dear BOE members, Dr. Bishop, et. al.:
I am resending the below email and information as I had only one response to my original email – from Director Strand. I would have hoped to see a little more interest by board members and administrators to the information provided. Both Dr. Milgram and Dr. Wilson have impeccable math credentials, and both teach mathematics at elite institutions. Furthermore, both have been actively involved at the national level in reviewing and studying elementary math education, its failures, and the resulting lack of students entering the science and mathematics fields. Given that fully 2/3 of D-11 11th graders fail to meet the mathematics college readiness score on ACT, I am increasingly frustrated by the apparent lack of concern, interest and desire to figure out what we need to be doing better with respect to our mathematics education. D-11 is getting ready to open a math and science magnet school at East. It is my concern that unless D-11 spends the time to figure out why kids can’t do upper level math with proficiency, it is doomed to open a school which will fail yet again at its supposed mission of educating the students of District 11. I can only hope you will prove me wrong.
Sincerely,
Carla Albers

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Tanner [mailto:tannerjj@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:30 PM
To: Carla A.Cc: Tami Hasling; Terry Bishop
Subject: Re: D-11 Math Education
Ms Albers,
I apologize for not acknowledging you correspondence. I see now that you expected a response to your original mail. I read no question to us in your mail, so I don’t know what you are asking of us, rather than suggesting that we ask administration “to provide data showing that students who are not taught the standard arithmetic algorithms, and who are not required to have fluency and automaticity of basic facts without the aid of a calculator, are successful at higher level math.” Frankly, I don’t intend to do that since I don’t believe that is what our math curriculum expects of students. I believe that our future Math and Science Magnet School will succeed in creating interest in math and science that is not evident in our students today. I also believe that our elementary schools will begin to focus on preparing students for this school, and whether students attend the magnet school or not, they will benefit from this preparation no matter what school they attend.
Jan Tanner
School District 11Board of Education
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain information regarding students or staff of District 11 that is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.

From: "Carla A." carla.albers@comcast.net
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:59:33 -0700
To: 'Jan Tanner' tannerjj@gmail.com
Cc: 'Tami Hasling' , 'Terry Bishop' , "'Carla A.'" Subject:
RE: D-11 Math Education
Ms. Tanner:
Thank you for your response. In the future, perhaps you might consider responding as Tom Strand did, i.e., to thank me for the information which I provided to the board. It’s an easy way to let constituents know you are actually reading their emails. It is unfortunate that you seem unwilling to listen to the viewpoints of two imminently qualified mathematicians as to the harm Everyday Math is doing not only to the students of D-11, but to students nationwide. There is a lack of interest in math and science precisely because students are not being taught the foundations necessary to succeed later, which becomes readily apparent when they reach middle and high school and simply cannot do the math. In light of district scores on CSAPs and ACTs, I had hoped for a little intellectual curiosity as to why that is. I will share your response with others who are concerned, as I am, about the seeming lack of interest by those in leadership positions to address the looming crisis described by Dr. Milgram in the letter provided for your information.
Sincerely,
Carla Albers
p.s. To the extent you do not “believe” that Everyday Math does not expect fluency in the basic operations without the aid of a calculator, I suggest you read the teacher’s manual. There, it is noted that time in class should not be wasted on pencil and paper calculations because answers can be found “quickly and easily” with a calculator. The facts are there if you choose to look for them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Tanner [mailto:tannerjj@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:22 PM
To: Carla A.
Cc: Tami Hasling; Terry Bishop
Subject: Re: D-11 Math Education

Ms Albers,
Please do not take the liberty of reading anything more into my response than what I wrote. I did not indicate I am unwilling to consider viewpoints of others. Do not presume that I did not read the opinions you shared with us, nor presume that I am not concerned about our students’ success in math. In your post script you make an incorrect assumption. I did not say that I don’t believe “Everyday Math does not expect fluency in the basic operations without the need of a calculator.” Your original mail suggested that none of our students are taught standard arithmetic algorithms, and that none are required to have fluency and automaticity of basic facts without the aid of a calculator, and that they are not successful at higher level math. This is what I said I do not believe is happening. I do not make such sweeping statements about any curriculum used or any learning happening in Dist. 11.If you share my response with others, I trust you will not put words in my mouth and say that I have a lack of interest in this subject.
Jan Tanner

-----Original Message-----
From: Carla A. [mailto:carla.albers@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:41 PM
To: 'Jan Tanner'Cc: 'Tami Hasling'; 'Terry Bishop'; 'Carla A.'
Subject: RE: D-11 Math Education

Ms. Tanner:
In your effort to backtrack, you forgot to read my original email. It is quite clear that it was directed towards a specific program, Everyday Math. The correspondence from Dr. Milgram and Dr. Wilson referenced a specific program, Everyday Math. You will find no language in my email which remotely resembles what you have just stated that it did.
The fact is that Everyday Math does not teach the standard algorithms as their focus algorithms. It never introduces the standard algorithm for long division. The teachers’ manuals do in fact suggest that students should not spend a lot of time with pencil and paper calculations because they can use a calculator to find the answer. Calculators are introduced in kindergarten. The majority of D-11 elementary schools use Everyday Math. Over 65% of this district’s 11th graders don’t meet the college readiness benchmark for math on ACT. (Do you really want to argue that our kids are successful at higher level math?) Those are the facts, whether you like them or not. Pretending they aren’t what they are will certainly do nothing to advance the education of kids in this district.
I would not presume to put words in your mouth. I will share your response verbatim. It speaks for itself.
Sincerely,
Carla Albers

Wow. There are several observations that can be made about Tanner’s replies. First of all, she apparently has no idea how poorly D11 students are being taught in math. This lack of interest in her own district’s performance is not surprising in someone whose agenda has nothing to do with educating kids.

Tanner claims now that the goal of the district’s elementary schools will be to prepare kids to have an interest in the new math and science magnet school. Stop being so ambitious, Ms. Tanner. Why bother preparing kids for life as an engineer or scientist when we can make the goal a bit less daunting by preparing kids for the magnet school instead?

The big problem with the math magnet school is that D11 does not have anyone in administration who has any concept on how to teach math. What value will the magnet school bring to the district when we can be certain that the same fuzzy math concepts will be taught – the same math that is failing to interest or instruct our kids today? If a curriculum is not working today, why would it work just because you now call a school a magnet school? If the district is not going to use fuzzy math at the magnet so that students will actually learn math, then why on earth would the administration continue to push the failed math programs on the rest of the district?

It is apparent by Tanner’s replies that she and her board colleagues have no interest in improving D11’s math education. She doesn’t even know the data in her own district, yet she pretends that a math magnet will be the cure-all for the entire district. This from a woman who claimed that “attention to detail” was actually one of her strengths.

Sidebar: Notice that Tanner, an elected public official, has a postscript attached to her emails that warns people NOT to distribute her emails. Talk about openness in government...Tanner's emails are public record, and she knows it. Elected officials who do not have the interest of their constituents at heart often try to keep their views hidden from public view.

Where’s D11?

2008-03-09T21:36:00.002-07:00

On February 27th, anti-reform Gazette reporter Shari Chaney wrote an article about the recognition that had been bestowed upon 39 Colorado schools by the Colorado Department of Education. This recognition was due to the fact that certain schools had done an outstanding job in closing the achievement gap between white and minority students.

D11 Superintendent Terry Bishop likes to discuss the fact that the minority population in D11 is increasing rapidly. He uses this fact as an excuse for why D11 continues to stagnate academically. Bishop is of the belief that minority children do not have the same capacity to learn as do white children.

While it is fashionable for public school administrators and labor union leaders across the country to blame a child’s skin color for his or her inability to learn basic academic facts, some schools are working to make a difference in the lives of children despite their skin color. According to the Gazette article, of the 10 schools in the Pikes Peak region that are closing the achievement gap, none of those schools are from D11.

This news is absolutely shocking. D11 Vice Superintendent for Something Mary Thurman has made it crystal clear that she cares. She doesn’t simply care, but she cares about children. Not only that, but Terry Bishop has expanded his central administrative staff to record numbers once again, even revitalizing the purple packet program to get even more old buddies onto the payroll. With all of these administrative geniuses running around the D11 grounds, how could D11 not be keeping up with such district powerhouses as D2?

How about the school board? Other than the constant bickering that takes place between John Gudvangen and Charlie Bobbitt at each board meeting, the board members are madly in love with one another. We were told that a school board that knew how to love was the magic cure for an ailing district. How can D11 be continuing to fail its constituents? Tom Strand promised us that if only he was re-elected, we would see ideas dripping from the dais each and every board meeting. Bob Null promised us that the community would be a better place if only the citizens would elect him to something – anything. Tami Hasling even asked a coherent question once and Sandra Mann hasn’t received a DUI enroute to a board meeting yet, so how could D11 NOT be making the type of progress that was promised us.

Notice what some of the districts are doing to improve the academic delivery in their schools. Teachers are actually collaborating over lunch in Widefield D3. Read your copy of the Master Agreement and see if your D11 teachers are allowed to do that. Some teachers are even collaborating while pulling hall duty, another no-no in your D11 schools.

“High expectations” are high on the list of common traits among improving schools, and that is where D11 is in trouble. Students at certain schools simply are not expected to do well, and they live up to their low expectations. Good grades are handed out for poor work, and kids are passed onto the next grade whether they have mastered the work in their current grade or not. At one of your “good” schools, Doherty High School, rather than enforcing rules and expecting students to behave, the administration painted lines on the walls that designate “academic areas,” the inside of these areas being where students really, really had to obey the rules or else…As one sharp student observed: “This is a school building; I thought the whole thing should be an academic area.” Not in this district, apparently.

As D11 prepares to pass the proverbial bucket to ask for more money to fund its increasing bureaucracy, ask yourself what it has accomplished with the ½ billion that it already has. Ask yourself why D3 and D2 and D49 can continue to improve while D11 continues to stagnate, even with a board that is all about the love.

CSEA fumes as sister union does right by students

2008-02-24T22:36:00.002-07:00

In an earlier post, I wrote about the Bruce Randolph Middle School in Denver and its fight to break free from labor union rules and regulations that stifle the education environment. At that time, Randolph leaders were asking for waivers from labor union rules, and the school board seemed poised to grant these waivers. The question was: would the labor union agree to allow autonomy to the school. It is a sad situation when a private organization like the labor union gets to dictate to a public school, but that situation exists in D11 as well.

When the Randolph situation arose, other labor unions around the state began to panic. Leaders of the local CSEA were begging the labor union leadership in Denver to hold fast and reject any attempt by any schools to improve. The last thing that the D11 labor union wants is to see schools performing well by breaking free from the labor union clutches.

The Denver labor union board initially felt that their interests trumped the interests of the parents, staff, and students. Nothing new there; this is how labor union leaders think across this country. The astounding piece of this initial rejection of autonomy is what the labor union leadership in Denver gave as a reason. The Denver labor union board released the following statement in a press release:

"In good conscience we cannot grant the extensive waiver requested that would favor Bruce Randolph teachers and students at the expense of other teachers and students in the district."

Now go back and read that statement again. Remember, this statement came from labor union mouthpieces. For one of the first instances on record, labor union leaders admit that it is a benefit for teachers and students to be released from the education-stifling rules of the labor agreement. As I have pointed out time and again, the labor agreements with school districts contain nothing of value to students or parents, and they contain nothing of value for competent teachers. The Denver labor agreement is very similar to that of D11 because labor union negotiators have a list of requirements placed on them by their masters at the NEA.

The self-serving decision by labor union leaders did not sit well with school staff.

"We're pretty outraged that they can't give us a straight answer and accept the fact that we want to move forward with our proposal," said Greg Ahrnsbrak, physical education teacher and union representative from the school. "They want us to move back to square one, and that is unacceptable."

Fortunately, unlike in D11, the Denver school district has leaders in high places. The school board and superintendent Michael Bennett (a businessman by trade), would not sit still for this self-serving labor union vote. The parents and staff at Randolph were equally outraged. Finally, in a decision deserving of praise, the Denver labor union relented and changed the vote. As a result, the leadership finally placed the interests of the Denver students and staff ahead of the political and financial interests of the labor union bosses.

This was a big day for Denver students, and a big step for the labor union. Sister unions, such as the CSEA here in Colorado Springs, are upset by this action in Denver. The saving grace for the local labor union is that the school board is union bought and owned, and there are no leaders serving today who will dare fight for the students of this district. The superintendent is busy building up his administrative staff, so fighting for better schools is low on his list of things to do.

Congratulations to the Denver school district leadership, including the labor union leaders, for doing right by the students. Randolph should be a shining example of what can happen when site based management and strong leadership merge. The Denver leadership is taking its role of focusing on kids very seriously. As the population of D11 continues to bleed away, we can only hope that the community will look to the north and notice that the public can truly remove control of its schools from the grip of the labor unions. They will notice that true leadership involves much more than changing the administrative organization chart once every two years and calling it progress.

Watch your wallets – here comes D11

2008-02-17T21:37:00.002-07:00

In 2000, School District 11 came to the voters and asked for a mill levy override. Give us the money, the district said, and we promise you that we will use it to improve performance across the district. The business community told the district to agree to a set of performance objectives in return for business community support. In 2000, the community passed this mill levy question, and the tax payers voluntarily raised their taxes, hoping for their kids’ sake that the district would keep its promise to improve performance.

As part of the mill levy question, a performance review of D11 is conducted every 2 years by an independent organization. Independent is used loosely here since the group is composed of ex-educators, and educators rarely criticize one another no matter how poor the performance.
In 2004, the review of D11 showed that of the 11 performance objectives that were directed by the mill levy question, D11 had achieved only 2. Give us more time, the administration begged, and we will show the community that we really will meet our obligation to improve. In 2006, the review showed the same result. No improvements were noted. While the D11 administration and anti-reform board members blamed “lack of time” for the continuing lack-luster performance of the district in 2004, in 2006, they blamed this stale performance on “too much pressure” from pro-parent/pro-reform board members. Quit asking us to do our jobs, they begged, because that was simply too much pressure for a 6-figure earning administrator to bear.

In 2004, the D11 community rejected a bond request by D11. In 2005, the administration begged the community to grant the bond request, pointing out that all it would take for D11 to improve was for the community to provide more funds for better buildings. Better buildings, we were told, result in better performance. The bond question passed, and the D11 community voluntarily raised their property tax rates.

Since 1997, the student population of D11 has steadily declined. The population of El Paso County and Colorado Springs has risen steadily in this time period, but parents have chosen to live in school districts that tend to focus on educating kids a bit better than does D11. Despite the mill levy increase in 2000, and despite the bond passage in 2005, D11 has failed to show improvement. Despite the declining enrollment, the labor union has insisted that the district maintain its teacher count. Despite an administrative hiring freeze ordered by the reformers in 2005, the administration has continued to add central administrative employees to its roles.

Is D11 facing a budget dilemma? Yes, it is. Is it going to cut staff to match the declining enrollment and associated declining budget? No, that is not the plan. In fact, hold on to your wallets, because Terry Bishop and his obedient sheep on the school board have decided that it is time, once again, to raise your taxes. The goal, of course, won’t have anything to do with raising student achievement; the goal is to maintain the high salaries and high standard of living for the ever-growing administration. The obvious answer to solving a declining budget would be for D11 to perform at a level that would attract parents and students. That is apparently too much like work. The easier route to solve a declining budget is to ask for the community to raise their taxes yet again.

You can be sure that with this tax increase request from D11 will come the typical promises (and threats). We promise that we will improve if you just give us a little more money, they will say. This time we mean it. We promise that we will be responsive to the community if you just grant us this request, just one more time. It’s all for the kids. Seriously, it’s all for the kids. If you don’t grant us this request, we will probably have to cut extra curricular activities. We really don’t want to hurt the children, but we just don’t have the money to do all of the wonderful things we need to do to bring us into the 21st Century. ½ billion dollars a year just doesn’t allow us to educate kids.

According to D11 employees, Bishop and his staff believe that this is a good year to ask for yet more money since it is a presidential election year. They feel that liberal voters, who typically enjoy high taxes, will vote in large numbers this November, so the chances of getting the voters to turn over more of their incomes to a lethargic district will be fairly high.

As D11 prepares to come to the community to ask tax payers to tighten their belts once again, you can be certain that there will be no belt tightening down at Central Admin. You can be sure that as you work harder to make up for your higher taxes, the administration will grow larger with the extra funds that it receives. More money has never improved performance in the past, and it won’t improve it this time, either.

She makes good money for this logic

2008-02-13T17:55:00.005-07:00

Dora Gonzales is the head of the District 11 math department. She has been in place since Norm Ridder was superintendent. After the February 2004 math town hall and the very clear feedback from parents that they were not happy with the state of math in D11, Ridder began to have second thoughts about keeping Gonzales on board in her math role. She had a troubling habit of forcing lousy curriculum and textbook choices on schools in the district. Most schools took her advice because she and certain executive directors left the schools little choice. Schools with strong math leaders, such as Holmes Middle School, resisted the pressure and maintained math curriculum that actually works. As a result, Holmes is one of the highest performing middles schools in D11 in the area of math. Students depart Holmes with an understanding of math, and they are generally prepared to move on to the next level. Due to Gonzales' failed leadership, thousands of D11 students are being cheated out of a basic math education.

Ridder decided to implement a restructuring of his administrative staff in 2004. Superintendents move people and change titles of their executives every couple of years to make the public believe that they are actually doing something (Terry Bishop is going through this process himself). Ridder informed board members that he was changing the job title to Gonzales' job, and that she would have to reapply for her position. He stated that he was confident that Gonzales would not be hired for her position due to the demand for improved math in the district. Ridder expressed concern that if he fired Gonzales or asked her to step down from her job, the Hispanic community would rise up in anger. He never thought to inform the Hispanic community that the decisions made by Gonzales were particularly harmful to them.

Recently, Gonzales was invited to speak at a League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) meeting in Colorado Springs. The topic was obviously math. Gonzales was invited to speak because the Latino community is becoming more knowledgeable about the state of education in D11, and particularly with regards to the math education, or lack thereof.

Gonzales was peppered with questions about D11 math and any plans she had to improve the performance of the district. Gonzales was challenged on her support for constructivist math programs such as Everyday Math. She defended these programs, claiming that traditional math programs and approaches (commonly called programs that work) were historically harmful to minority children. Citing no evidence for this claim, she told the LULAC members that constructivist math was the correct fit for D11 and for Latino students.

The LULAC audience was not buying Gonzales' defense of a failed math program for the district. They had seen the data, and the evidence was clear: Latinos, and all other "groups" of students, were not learning math in D11. The audience asked Gonzales why the data was showing that her programs were not working. She had no answer. She assured them that the data don't tell the whole story. She could not explain what information she had that DID tell the whole story, and she became frustrated.

Gonzales finally told the LULAC audience what really mattered the most. When they wouldn't accept her excuses and lack of plan for improvement, Gonzales went for the logical conclusion. She said, "Well at least you should be happy that you have a brown face running the math department."

There you have it. The most important issue at hand in the whole math debate in D11 is that a Latino is the head of the math department. As one of the LULAC members asked: "Is it supposed to somehow make us happier that our kids are being screwed by a fellow Latino rather than by a white?" Thank you, Dora Gonzales, for confirming what many of us already knew. You aren't there to serve the community or to advance the education of kids. You are there to serve other interests, and based on your overly high salary (over $100,000 when benefits are included), the interest you serve is largely your own.

Seeing the Light

2007-12-19T12:50:00.000-07:00

Luis Cortez is an ex-D11 school teacher. He is a former member of the Colorado Springs Education Association. He heads the League of United Latin American Citizens of Colorado Springs (LULAC). He is also a former city councilman. Luis was a strong supporter of the recall movement against Eric Christen and Sandy Shakes. He believed the rhetoric of the anti-reform crowd when they claimed that the reform movement was all about the destruction of our public schools. He believed them when they said that only anti-reformers had the best interests of "the children" in mind. Luis believed them when they said that the administration was truly working hard to improve the state of education in D11.

The following Oped was written by Luis Cortez. It appeared in the December 19th Gazette, just over a year after the recall election.

This past spring, the School District 11 Board of Education voted to close East Middle School. This came only months after a successful recall campaign against reform board members who, we were told, were plotting to “close schools and destroy neighborhoods.” It turns out that these accusations were shock tactics designed to inflame passions and halt much needed change in D11. I worked hard on the recall, passed out petitions, gathered signatures, donated money, and walked my neighborhood, hoping D11 would stabilize, wisely use the half billion dollar budget it controls and educate our children. Will it ever happen? I hope so. It’s not happening now and probably never will given the status of D11.

After the closure of East, a Configuration and Use Study Committee was formed to offer recommendations to the board through the superintendent regarding the reopening of East by 2008. The SCAUSE, made up of 31 original members, voted 14-2, and recommended to the superintendent he pursue opening East as a math/science Magnet School with the $5 million integration grant approved by the Federal Department of Education. As a volunteer on this committee, my suspicions as to the integrity of the committee process were aroused when the administration screened out applicants with established opposing views, hand-picked leaders for the committee rather than allowing the committee membership to choose its own leadership, and stacked the Committee with D11 agents.

It began to sink in that the interpretation of our charge and the purpose of our committee were to make recommendations for the closure of schools. I did not read it that way. Our charge, as I saw it, was to recommend school improvements and techniques to increase student achievement. I saw our role as to collect data to determine what best practices and methodologies would work at East and other struggling middle schools to increase graduation rates, to reduce the dropout rate and close the learning gap for Latino, black and other poor Anglo students.

I thought long and hard about what has transpired and what I had learned from this exercise. Have we elected to the board individuals who value the administration's business-as-usual, the "to get along, go along" and “harmony over truth” way of creating an unhealthy learning environment at the expense of D11 children?

Having attended numerous board meetings, met with the Latino community, and spoken with numerous parents and students, I am led to believe that the "old" board may have been right. I, for decades, was a committed and strong supporter of D11. I was against charter schools and vouchers, I voted for and worked for bond issues because I believed the district was doing its best by students, parents and the community. How wrong I was! Although I was not entirely in concert with the "reformers," my gut feeling is that they had the best interests of students and student achievement as top priority.

Latinos placed their trust in D11, thinking the district would educate their children, provide every element of expertise and professionalism to ensure a quality education for their kids. Instead, they were rewarded with betrayal, and scapegoating, They endured disrespect and were referred to as “those” kids, and saw their neighborhood schools closed.

Yet I see a reluctant, unaccountable educational bureaucracy, controlled by the “good ole boy/girl” interests within D11 that resists discussing with candor, transparency, honesty and professionalism, Latino education issues. The top three "bonus babies" and their minions are in complete denial that a problem exists, as witnessed by their smug attitudes and pronouncements that D11 is doing a great job. They failed miserably to meet the challenges brought in by the new wave of Latino, black and poor Anglo students with unique learning capacities.

They lack creativity, leadership, moral courage, and a desire to alleviate the crisis faced by the Latino children they profess to serve. I don't use the term “crisis” lightly; there is no more accurate way to describe the situation that exists in D11.

As a former City Councilman, I understand the role of elected officials. Their role is to stand watch for the community. They serve to ensure public employees are focused on providing quality service to the taxpayers. The role of the board of education is to advocate for the parents and students of the district. It's time the D11 community - business people, Latino, black, poor Anglo students and parents - informs the board that protecting the status quo is over. It is time for students to take priority over the administration.

After the recall, Luis had his eyes opened to what we reformers had been saying all along. There is a rampant disregard by D11 administrators and anti-reform board members for making the type of effort needed to improve this school district.

Yes, it is a good ole boy network designed to appease adults. Yes, there is no accountability for poor performing teachers or administrators. Yes, D11 is in a crisis that will not resolve itself and that will not be resolved by weak willed leadership. Yes, the current board covers for the administration rather than representing the public.

Luis has discovered that the board members and administrators who promised to do so much good, if only the reformers would stop picking on them, are not honest people. They are not honest about the state of the district, and they certainly are not honest about making efforts to fix what is wrong.

The anti-reformers will have to come up with a new name for Luis Cortez. They can't call him a right-wing zealot, because he certainly isn't right-wing. Rest assured, they will think of some way to attack and belittle him for betraying the trust of the status quo crowd. Nobody is allowed to criticize the elitists on the current board or in the administration. Just feed them 1/2 billion in tax dollars each year and keep your mouths shut.

Thank you, Mr. Cortez, for having the courage to tell it like it is. There are thousands more people in this district who can relate very well to what you have written. The more eyes that are opened, the more chance there is for thousands of D11 students who are being grossly under served.

Let's Shoot for the Stars...oh, never mind.

2007-12-17T22:55:00.000-07:00

When I posted my last article on the continuing math crisis in D11, a proponent of "fuzzy math" informed me that this discussion is old news because the district is moving forward and 'studying" ways to improve math. Sadly, as long as Dora Gonzales is heading the math effort in the district, there is not much hope for positive change. Each year since she has chaired the math department, Everyday Math has been pushed on more and more elementary schools in D11. Math instruction from this book encourages early calculator use and it discourages teaching hard and fast math facts.

The current school board members have shown no interest in improving math in D11, despite the obviously dismal statistics that appear year after year in the district. There is no arguing the fact that D11 is failing to teach solid math in its schools, yet the board and administration march forward proudly carrying the banner for the status quo.

Carla Albers has been a relentless proponent for improved math instruction in D11. She has researched and studied math programs from around the country and around the world. She has contacted college professors and reviewed data that shows that this "fuzzy" constructivist math that is being forced into our classrooms is hurting students' ability to perform higher level math.

Steven Wilson is a professor of math at John's Hopkins University. He conducted the survey of math professors that I had earlier cited on this blog. James Milgram is a professor of math at Stanford University. Both have conducted research on different math programs and both have concluded that constructivist math is harming the ability of U.S. students to compete with their peers on the world stage. The following email was written to Carla by Steve Wilson:

Dear Carla,
The decision to choose Everyday Math for the elementary schools in your district is a community wide decision that public schools will not prepare students for college.
Although the decision might seem to be made by just a few, they represent the community and its desires and make such decisions on their behalf.

There are a couple of consequences of this decision. The first is that, yes, everyone will now be qualified to be a cashier at Wal-Mart. The second is that the only kids who will be prepared for college are those with parents who have the education and the resources to recognize that there is a problem with math education and to see to it that their children are taken care of outside of school.

This will result in a big increase in tutors in the area such as Kumon.
One of the major benefits of this program is that more of the next generation will stay close to home after high school. This is because they either will not go to college or will not succeed. I've always suspected that programs like Everyday Math were designed for communities who did not want their children to leave them.

Sincerely,

Steve
W. Stephen Wilson (410) 338-1833
Professor of Mathematics
Department of Mathematics FAX (410) 889-8988
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218 wsw@math.jhu.edu
Former Senior Advisor for Mathematics
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
United States Department of Education

The following letter was submitted by Professor Milgram to the D11 board of education through Carla Albers. Only Tom Strand even acknowledged receipt of the letter, demonstrating the lack of seriousness that this board places on academics.
To whom it may concern.
Carla Albers has asked me to try to explain the issues involved with math programs like Everyday Math, and why people should care. It is ironic that just a few weeks back I learned that IBM had privately announced that they intend to move their software development to India – and they added that it was not because it would be less expensive. Currently 55% of the engineers and scientists in Silicon Valley were born and educated in foreign countries – mostly in East Asia.

In the elite schools like Stanford where I am a professor of mathematics, about 2/3 of our graduate students in the hard sciences and engineering seem to be foreign born. Last year's winner of the Intel Science Talent Search, Dmitry Vaintrob, is the son of a Russian mathematician who currently lives in Oregon and has worked closely with me to try to explain why programs like Everyday Mathematics do not work. In fact they actually give our citizens a huge hill to climb if they have any hope of working in technical areas.

Our economy and all of our futures are threatened by these poor choices. But people in the school systems with a weak understanding of even the rudiments of mathematics – the subject that underlies all of science and engineering – continue to insist that “fun” math like that in Everyday Math is the way to go. They ignore the almost universal objections of professional mathematicians, and the plaintive complaints of the scientists and engineers that U.S. students are more and more poorly prepared every year, since they believe “fun” trumps all.

Ms. Albers sent me a document from her local school district that tries to explain why a popular video complaining about the dangers to your children of Everyday Mathematics is “wrong.” There is incorrect mathematics and some incorrect quoting of research in that document. In a real sense, the document itself is testimony to the problems that almost 20 years of programs like Everyday Mathematics have caused. However, here is a more graphic illustration of the problems. Below is a table showing the age distribution of scientists and engineers at NASA, the world's premier aeronautics and space agency and the crown jewel of the United State's research and development agencies. As the data show, for the last 10 years NASA has been unable to hire the qualified young people it must have to continue to do its basic research work. A key part of the problem is that, unlike Silicon Valley, NASA cannot replace its aging technical workforce with scientists and engineers from other countries since, as a government agency, it must hire U.S. Citizens.

If this is the future you want for our country, then keep doing the kinds of things you are doing.

After all, almost 20% of the children in our country are currently using Everyday Mathematics. So the
failures in your community will hardly even be noticed.

Yours,
R. James Milgram
Professor of Mathematics, Stanford University

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of national security. The math fad pushed by administrators such as Dora Gonzales is not only hurting D11 students, it is hurting our country. Colorado Springs is a high tech town with the heart of the military space community stationed at our doorstep. Graduates who cannot perform basic math and science calculations will have no chance working in an important industry right in their hometown.

While other nations are shooting for the stars, D11 administrators and board members are shooting for more excuses for why math proficiencies in the district just can't break 30% at the high school level.

Reform like we said- Just Not in D11

2007-12-13T21:02:00.000-07:00

In May 2006, the D11 school board voted to adopt a site based management system by a vote of 6-1. The purpose of this move to a site based approach was, simply put, to improve the district’s schools. Money would be prioritized to the school sites instead of to central administration. Principals and their staffs would have greater autonomy to do what was necessary to educate their students. Money would follow students to their schools using a student weighted formula.

For strong, competent principals, a site based approach is a welcome management model. Principals would have the opportunity to be leaders in their buildings rather than message takers for central administration bureaucrats. For obvious reasons, administrators would not welcome a site based approach. Terry Bishop and his staff worked hard to prevent a site based system from taking hold, and they were relieved when weak willed anti-reformers were once again firmly in charge on the board. Due to the failed leadership team of John Gudvangen and Tami Hasling, the D11 administration was able to kill the site based system before it got off the ground. Bishop is now free to direct funds away from the schools to continue his expansion of central administration.

In a Gazette article several months ago, Bishop declared that he had instituted more reforms than had the Denver school district. Bishop made this claim with the confident understanding that most people would have no idea what has been occurring in Denver. In short, Denver hired a non-educrat as its superintendent two years ago. This businessman superintendent has shown strong leadership and he has treated his district’s situation accurately like a crisis. He has been bold, forward thinking, student focused, and out of the box. Bishop and his anti-reform board partners have been nothing but “business as usual.”

Anyone who reads the Denver Post knows that it is not a conservative publication. Nevertheless, it and other large newspapers are beginning to understand the nature of the education crisis. The following article appeared in the Denver Post on December 6th:

School wants to set own course

As poor-performing Bruce Randolph Middle School improves under a reform plan by principal Kristin Waters, even further-reaching ideas are proposed.
By Jeremy P. Meyer The Denver Post

Teachers and administrators at a Denver school are seeking autonomy from union and district rules, asking for control over the school's budget, staff, time and incentives. Bruce Randolph Middle School in northeast Denver would be the first Denver public school to separate itself from key parts of the union contract.

"We don't see this as radical," said Greg Ahrnsbrak, physical education teacher and union representative at the school. "We see this as common sense. We want to be released from this bureaucratic entanglement that will allow us to do better."

The matter was presented Tuesday to the Denver Classroom Teachers Association board and will be discussed this month with the Denver school board. Bruce Randolph has been under threat of takeover by the state, which labeled it as one of the worst-performing schools in the state. For three straight years, the school had been rated unsatisfactory, but its 2006-07 scores improved and, for the first time, the school on Wednesday was rated "low." Principal Kristin Waters put in place a reform plan called Challenge 2010 and yearly is growing the school to a sixth-grade through 12th-grade program. The school day was increased 10 minutes; struggling students must attend after-school tutoring or classes on Saturday; and summer school is also a part of the plan.

Waters said the new proposal is being developed through collaboration with teachers. Ahrnsbrak said 75 percent of the school's 46 teachers have pledged their support for the proposal. It would allow the principal to hire teachers months earlier than is currently permitted. Teachers could add more classes for more money. Many of the decisions would be made by a leadership team that would be comprised of the principal, assistant principal and key faculty members. School board President Theresa Peña supports the idea. "They are not saying, 'Let it be a charter school,' " she said. "They are saying, 'Let us be a DPS school without the obstacles. It's courageous leadership saying here are policies that don't work for us. If you can relieve us of those, this is what we can do.' "

Union president Kim Ursetta said her board and the school board must approve the change. "There are a lot of questions about what they exactly want and how it would be implemented," Ursetta said. One teacher who asked not to be identified out of fear of retribution said there is concern about the proposal. Some teachers feel they cannot voice their disapproval and have not been part of the plan's development. Concern also surrounds one provision that gives the principal freedom to fire an employee without union protection, the teacher said. "They will take the calendar away, the workweek away and leave it up to this group of teachers," the teacher said.

Jeremy P. Meyer: 303-954-1367 or jpmeyer@denverpost.com

The following Denver Post editorial appeared on December 10th:

Principal is a rebel with a cause
By David Harsanyi The Denver Post

Two interesting developments occurred in Colorado education last week. One was business as usual, while the other offered us a glimmer of hope.

First, here's what we've learned about Gov. Bill Ritter's education plan: It will be big on spending and short on new ideas. Let's call it the teachers union plan. More counselors? Good idea. More all-day kindergarten classes? Great. The elimination of the waiting list for preschools? Wonderful. After all, it's imperative to get children into the failing school system as quickly as we possibly can. Injecting more money — in this case, many new jobs —into public education can be helpful. But over the past 30 years, we've learned that increased funding alone rarely correlates to better results.

So where is the fundamental change in culture? Where is the independence that schools need to succeed? Where is the flexibility for teachers? Where are the enhanced choices for parents? Ritter will ask the legislature for around $115million for the plan. Quite conveniently, it will be available after his property-tax "freeze" raises taxes on thousands of Colorado homeowners. (Just in time for the mortgage crisis!) "It's a conversation that transcends dollars and cents," Ritter told folks at a dropout conference in Westminster last week. "We must get down to the business of educating kids."

Every year that we conduct this imaginary"conversation," more kids are conscripted to failing schools. Of the many factors contributing to bad schools is a bad agreement made by the district and a union more concerned with saving incompetent teachers than educating children. So now the good news: Last week, in Bruce Randolph School, administrators and a majority of teachers requested autonomy from this smothering policy. They want control of the school's budget and staff. Imagine that.

"We're looking at things like flexibility with our budgeting process and how we spend our money supporting teachers," says Kristin Waters, principal of Bruce Randolph School. "We are asking for some freedom in how we can spend the money we're allocated."

In a rational world, hiring your own employees is a no-brainer. Yet in Denver and elsewhere, schools deal with so many regulations that they are often left with a staff that either doesn't fit or is incompetent. Before hiring the right person, administrators are forced to sit around and allow the district to place teachers. Often these teachers haven't gotten the job done elsewhere. I'm told this dispersal of sub-par educators is called the "lemon dance."

Then there is the question of incentive. Hard-working teachers should be paid more. According to Waters, administrators cannot decide how to pay their staff. Denver teachers who tutor kids, for instance, are paid $20 an hour, while those who busy themselves writing curriculum are paid $30. "In my eyes, working with a student and helping a student master content is much more important but in the end, I don't have a choice in how they are paid,"she explains. "Neither does the school, the personnel staff, have a choice. We want a chance to look at all candidates when positions come available. It makes sense."

Bruce Randolph has been one of the worst-performing schools in the state until it recently began to turn things around under Waters' Challenge 2010 plan. Waters says her reform plan is working. Maybe. And if we hold schools accountable for failing, the very least we can do is provide them a fair shot at success.

"Every school is different, and I only speak for mine. I know (that) here, every decision is made in the best interest of students," Waters says. "And we see this as the next step in raising our student achievement. And in the end, that is ultimately good for teachers." Most insiders believe that the district will allow Bruce Randolph the freedom it deserves. What about the teachers union? If they vote yes, and the school flourishes, rest assured that parents across the city will demand similar independence. And school independence is the last thing the Colorado Education Association wants.

Fortunately, education reform is coming. Principal Waters gets it. She rebels.

Ritter? He's got other special interests to placate.

Principal Kristin Waters is a leader of the type that is desperately needed in D11. She knows where she wants to take her school, and she knows that she needs the education and labor union bureaucracies out of her way to get there. Waters wants the resources to come to her and she wants to make decisions with her staff that will improve the education for her students. As Harsanyi says in his editorial, the last thing that the labor union wants is independent schools. Successful independent schools will illustrate that the labor union is not needed, that it is, in fact, one of the main obstacles to educating kids. Independent schools will lead to fewer teacher dollars for labor union political causes.

The fact that the board in Denver supports Waters’ independence movement shows that these board members are focused on students, unlike the D11 board members, who serve only to run cover for the administration and labor union.

Randolph Middle School in Denver is improving because of site based management. It will continue to improve as the principal receives even more autonomy. We reformers put a site based system in place in our own district. We gave D11 schools a chance to break free from the smothering bureaucracy. We gave principals and teachers a chance to show leadership. They didn’t want this chance. It was too hard.

Note the reason that the anonymous teacher gave for opposing a site based approach in Denver. She was concerned that principals might be allowed to fire incompetent teachers and she was afraid that she might have to work longer than her labor union contract allows. In a crisis situation, principals SHOULD fire incompetent employees and staff SHOULD work longer and harder. Teachers in D11 who opposed the site based approach here made the same argument as the Denver teacher.

Governor Ritter wants more money for education. He wants to hire more labor union members and bureaucrats. D11 has a $500 million budget already. It doesn't need more money. It needs leadership.

Labor Union & Other Anti-Reformers say battle is won!

2007-12-06T22:34:00.000-07:00

About the same time that I began this blog just over a year ago, Lois Fornander and a few of her anti-reform friends started a blog of their own. Their blog was created to foment hatred towards anyone who was a proponent of improving public schools. Fornander and her friends used her blog to support the recall effort and to support anti-reform and anti-parent school board members.

Since the anti-reform side has had control of the D11 school board, Fornander's blog has literally been at a loss to find anything about their hand picked school board to write about. While some people think that I am being flippant when I say that this board is a do-nothing board, the anti-reformers very obviously agree with me.

I have pointed out that the anti-reform board members have very little interest in improving D11. I have said that they define success by nothing more than sitting in seats of power.

A visit to Fornander's D11watch blog has once again proven my point. These statements were posted on the web site on November 20th:

"In short, the local problem has been solved--at least temporarily...The local battle has been won, but the war isn't over."

So there you have it. D11 has a graduation rate under 70%, it has a declining enrollment problem that has been sucking dollars from the district for more than a decade, it has proficiency levels in the teens in math, and it has flat reading and writing scores. But none of that matters. The board is once again made up of no one other than anti-reform, pro-labor union, pro-status quo board members. To these people, that constitutes success. Note that their definition does not include the education of kids. They only worry about maintaining complete control and maintaining their status quo.

But maybe I am misinterpreting their blog. When they say that the war isn't over, maybe they are talking about academics.

Well, no they aren't. They mean this: "The November 2007 school board election replaced the last privatizer with a more reasonable person."

The anti-reformers never define "privatizers," but they like to use that word. Why was it so important for them to remove Willie Breazell? Because he was a threat to the over-worked administrators. He asked questions and learned information that made these 6-figure earners uncomfortable. That just didn't cut it. On top of that, the labor union didn't choose Willie. Orders from the labor union bosses were to get him off of the board. Only labor union endorsed school board members are allowed to serve on boards in districts with labor unions running the show, such as in D11.

Not surprisingly, Doherty teacher and anti-reform labor union mouthpiece Tom Watson tells us what many of us already knew in his reply to this Fornander post. He confirms that he and his fellow labor union colleagues focused more on politics than they did on education during the time period that reformers were on the board. His post says this:

"I'm still reading, but I'm nuthin' but a disgraced former union thug.... thank goodness we have at least two more years of ceasefire and an opportunity to actually get back to the mission of educating kids and supporting schools and teachers..." Posted by: Tom November 22, 2007 11:06 PM

Yes, "disgraced" is accurate when describing someone who places a higher priority on fighting reform than on educating students. Sad and disgraceful.

So we can all go to bed and sleep better tonight knowing that the battle is over. As Fornander's blog warns us, though, there might be more people out there lurking in the weeds who want to improve our schools. These creatures just might want to enact and even enforce accountability measures on the district. Only a strong sense of duty towards the status quo will protect the level of mediocrity of which our status quo administrators and board members from years past have so jealously guarded.

Misleading their public

2007-12-03T22:36:00.000-07:00

On February 9th, 2007, I posted a blog entitled "More on Math." Within that blog is the following link to a Youtube video dealing with constructivist math issues. The link, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymvSFunUjx0, deals with math in Washington state, but applies here as well. On January 20th, I also posted a link to a site that shows the confusion that results from constructivist math programs, such as Everyday Math. That link is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI. Everyday Math is used across D11 and math chair Dora Gonzales continues to push this harmful program.

In the fall of 2006, the D11 administration published an analysis of math programs used in D11. Specifically, staff performed an analysis of Saxon Math compared to Everyday Math. Copies of this study were provided to those of us who were on the board at the time. The conclusions of this comparison are shown in the following page from that report:

Under "Conclusion," the report states, "After reviewing the limited data that is available, it appears that of the two math programs examined, one is no more effective than the other."

The report also states that, "Note that the school that has the higher percent of trained teachers is also the school with the higher percent of growth from 04 to 05 in each matched set of schools."

The table below shows the gains made by each school and the percent of teachers trained in the math program used by the school.

First of all, the data used by D11, as stated in the performance review, was taken from 5th grade test results for each school. While the Saxon Math schools show a 11% gain in math scores compared to a 14% gain for the Everyday Math schools, the administration concludes that there is no significant difference between the programs.

Based on data available at the Colorado Department of Education web site, the data on the above table for each school is incorrect. The gains on the Saxon table, according to D11's own figures, should be: Ivywild, 31%, Bates, 1%, and Rogers, 8%. The gains for EDM should be: Adams, 16%, Jackson, 7%, and Monroe, 18%. The correct averages should be 14% gains for each set of schools.

Based on the administration's conclusion that teacher training matters, note that the Everyday Math schools have significantly more staff training than the Saxon schools, yet the performance of schools using both programs, according to D11, is the same.

The conclusion of this study are almost irrelevant, because the damage caused by constructivist programs such as Everyday Math are manifest at the middle and high school levels where it becomes apparent that students do not know their basic math facts. That argument is made well by college level math instructors world wide, as I have shown in previous posts.

Having written all of that, D11 posted a written response to the Youtube videos on its web site. This response can be found at http://www.d11.org/doi/math/Facts%20Behind%20the%20Drama.doc. In the D11 response, this pronouncement can be found:

"Our own data reveals that of the math textbooks that are currently in use, Scotts Foresman, Macmillan McGraw-Hill, Saxon, Everyday Math, Houghton Mifflin, Addison Wesley, and Harcourt Brace, Everyday Math has demonstrated, on average, a higher percentage of student growth in all the elementary math standards assessed."

This statement is completely false based on D11's own data. The report clearly indicates that D11 could not find a difference using the limited data available.

The D11 response also says this:

"The research on brain compatible learning has led to some of the most popular math publishers including alternate methods of instruction that may be more appropriate for individual learners."

D11 leaders will not explain how this new brain knowledge has led to poorer and poorer math performance since the introduction of constructivist programs.

It is sad, but not at all surprising, that rather than do what is right, which is to remove damaging math programs from the district, D11 administration has chosen to place false information on its web site to present the illusion that its failed math programs are actually working.

Another disturbing finding on the D11 math page is this comment by Dora Gonzales. This was a featured speaker at a conference attended by Gonzales:

"Doug Clements, a leading educator in early childhood education, mathematics pedagogy, and the use of computers in education, http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/faculty/viewfaculty.asp?id=7 ."

Doug Clements is a leading proponent for calculators in the classroom. While Gonzales and other D11 administrators try to tell parents that calculators are required for 2d graders, but not really used, Clements pushes calculator use as low as Kindergarten. He published a paper in which he pushes calculator and computer use for kids at all ages. This paper can be found at http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/RP/PDFs/ECE_Comp_Math.pdf.

While D11 administrators spend time and energy misleading the public, math proficiency in the district continues to deteriorate. It is apparently much easier for the administrators to "pretend" that all is well rather than make the decision to move to math instruction that actually works.

Fact: Constructivist math programs in D11 are harming kids as they move through middle school, high school, and college.
Fact: D11 administration is doing everything possible to hang onto and increase the use of constructivist math programs.

Terry Bishop & Dave Schenkel Shortchange Military Employees

2007-11-28T19:47:00.000-07:00

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.

The "Experts"

2007-11-15T22:31:00.000-07:00

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.

Civility and Local Control

2007-11-10T19:07:00.000-07:00

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.

Yes, it Happens Here

2007-11-04T23:03:00.000-07:00

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.

In their own words

2007-10-30T22:12:00.000-07:00

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!

2007-10-26T21:58:00.000-07:00

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?

2007-10-24T10:40:00.000-07:00

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

2007-10-18T12:42:00.000-07:00

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

2007-10-07T19:30:00.000-07:00

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

2007-10-05T13:39:00.000-07:00

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.

It makes perfect sense to somebody

2007-09-27T07:18:00.000-07:00

Diana Beatty is a math teacher at Coronado High School. One would expect that the expertise of a high school math teacher would logically be found in math. One would also expect that there would be teachers at the high school level who have expertise in reading, writing, and grammar.

The following letter is from Beatty to a D11 parent at the end of last school year. Remember, Beatty is a math teacher.

----- Original Message -----
From: BEATTY, DIANA E.
To: xxxxxx@xxx.com
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: Resend: xxxxxxx - Grade: 10

Hello,
This is (Student's) math teacher. I've tried to call you and e-mail you and am trying again. I am writing because I have been placed in charge of his ILP (Individualized Literacy Plan) paperwork. The plan addresses his reading needs as required by the No Child Left Behind Act. The aim is that every student be proficient in reading. We report the ILP data to the district and the district reports it to the state.

(Student) was placed on an ILP this year, as you may recall, because he did not score proficient in reading on the CSAP last spring. So, this year, we addressed his reading proficiency by working on comprehension. In my class, we used graphic organizers to build vocabulary and worked on understanding word problems all year. His other teachers have also worked on various methods of increasing his comprehension. Teachers have reported he has made inconsistent progress in his classes toward his ILP goals.

If you have questions about his ILP or his progress, our Literacy Resource person can answer your questions. Her phone number is 328-3677.

I have a form that requires your signature to indicate that I have shared this information with you. With your permission, I am allowed to sign off for you. I have talked to (Student), giving some information on what to work on over the summer and telling him what I have just written for you.

If you prefer to come in for a conference before signing, we have May 11 set aside for that purpose. Please let me know either way.

Take care,

Diana Beatty
Coronado High School Mathematics
beattde@d11.org
328-3658

Coronado placed a math teacher in charge of the “reading” ILP for a student. Coronado finishes below the national average in math ACT, and at the 10th grade level, performs at about the 39% proficient and advanced (PA) in math. In 10th grade reading, it scores about 74% PA. An argument could be made that maybe the math teachers should be spending their time dealing with math issues, of which Coronado has many.

Notice what this student was spending time doing in Beatty’s math class. He was using “graphic organizers to build vocabulary and worked on understanding word problems all year.” This was MATH class.

This is the type of math that the D11 leadership endorses, even in the “good” high schools. Although parents have demanded time and time again that their kids receive math instruction in math class, the administration continues to push reading literacy during math instruction. D11’s math scores are nothing less than abysmal at the middle and high school levels, but that won’t stop D11 administrators from doing the wrong thing.

The parent’s response to the math teacher’s reading ILP letter was what one would expect from a parent.

----- Original Message -----
From: xxxxxxxx
To: BEATTY, DIANA E.
Cc: EMERSON, KRISTY ; HUMPHREY, SUSAN A ; bishotn
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: Resend: xxxxxxx - Grade: 10

I am pulling (Student) from this school. Why are you the math teacher e mailing me about his literacy?? Is this because of the evidence part of your special math?? Where was the vocab for math? By the way, Why isn't Ms Emerson e mailing me this information.
I could care less about anything that has happened at Coronado. My son did want to play college ball. Not now, I should of left him at the Charter school. At least they have a teacher teaching math and the reading teacher teaches reading...

I am sick of the treatment my son has received. Starting with the horrible Title One lower level schools then this math that double honor students struggle with. I have been talking to many many parents on the side lines of both football and baseball. I KNOW how many F's you are passing out. You all should be ashamed of yourselves! I know the drop outs, the transfers and they are going to keep leaving the student led classes, the pod mentality, the F's. These athletes are losing their scholarships to play sports or even to get into college… The majority of the kids will never use this grammatical mathematics.

I am not putting my kid in any more classes. He should have had these in the third grade, not now. I am upset over the timing of his tutoring offer. He is seventeen this year and I have told him to just get by and he can go to developmental studies at PPCC with the rest of the kids that failed to learn in twelve years. It was not lack of parental involvement on my part. I have asked for help for (Student) for seven years and I have stopped. If I did not own my house I would of left the whole district!
I am not signing anything!!!!

Good job, D11. This parent has been constantly involved in her child’s education from the time he entered school. As she correctly pointed out, graduates now have to go to college to get the basic education that their parents paid $500 million for them to receive in K-12 in D11.

Coronado had a high number of students failing their math classes last year. I wonder how many of their reading teachers incorporated math in their reading classes.

There is no arguing the fact that D11 is not living up to its job of providing a basic education in math. The evidence is indisputable. The math town hall that we reformers sponsored was attended by an overflow crowd of parents who want their kids to learn math. Despite the ownership of these schools by the parents, the D11 administration, (particularly math czar Dora Gonzalez and her boss, Mary Thurman), continues to wear blinders and continues to provide substandard math education.

With this track record of failure in math, do they really want to put a math magnet school in the district? Will the school be used to teach reading or math, or neither? Until there is competent math leadership in the district, calling a school a “magnet” will be an empty PR gesture and a waste of tax payer dollars.

Why East Could not become a Good School

2007-09-23T21:22:00.001-07:00

After years of declining enrollment and a total lack of meaningful academic instruction, East Middle School in D11 was closed by the labor union owned school board. The Cesar Chavez Charter School, which got its start in Pueblo, offered to move into the building to provide a quality education for the middle school students residing in the neighborhoods surrounding the East school building. Cesar Chavez is one of the highest performing public schools in the state of Colorado despite having a higher free and reduced lunch student population than almost all of the D11 schools. This benchmark is used by educrats to excuse poor performing schools. Cesar Chavez is very troubling to traditional school bureaucrats because of its successes.

The current D11 school board would not even consider allowing Cesar Chavez to utilize the East building. The issue was not whether Cesar Chavez could succeed in that neighborhood; everyone knew that it would succeed. That, in fact, was the problem.

Along with the list of National Education Association (NEA) resolutions that were adopted this year at the labor union's "Anything but Education" summit was resolution A.11. This resolution states: A-11. Use of Closed Public School Buildings. The Association believes that closed public school buildings should be sold or leased only to those organizations that do not provide direct educational services to students and/or are not in direct competition with public schools.

The Colorado Springs Education Association (CSEA) labor union is the local affiliate for the national labor union. By labor union arrangement, local affiliates cannot buck the wishes of the national mommy union. The NEA gives each local affiliate Uniserve grants. This is "behave yourself" money. The CSEA would lose its grants from national if it did not show active support for "national program priorities." In other words, despite the local labor union's claim to be independent from its national master, it has no independence whatsoever.

Each of the current D11 school board members had his or her seat purchased by the labor union, with the exception of Willie Breazell. The financial support of the labor union comes with the requirement that these board members do the labor union's bidding. The labor union informed the board members that they were not allowed to even consider having a charter school in the East building because it would be in direct competition with the labor union schools. In other words, the D11 school board, which is supposed to represent the interests of the D11 tax payers, had to make a decision based on the wishes of Reg Weaver and the NEA.

Cesar Chavez is a proven school with a track record that would have put D11 to shame. The Cesar Chavez staff would have taken East and made it into a model on how to run a middle school in D11. The hundreds of middle school age kids who live within the East boundaries would have had a neighborhood school that would have provided them with an education for a change. But the labor union won't allow competition. It won't allow competition because its leadership realizes that it would lose that competition. Cesar Chavez, through its success, would have destroyed all of the excuses that D11 apologists love to make for poor performance. What is even more appalling to labor union leaders is that Cesar Chavez would have achieved its success with teachers who were not members of the labor union.

Are the parents who live around East better off sending their kids to distant middle schools than they were sending them to East? No doubt, yes. East had long ago become something that had no resemblance to an educational institution. However, those parents would have been much better off had Cesar Chavez been allowed to take over that building and offer the same education that it is providing in other middle schools within the state.

Once again, a victory for the labor union equates to a loss for educational opportunity in D11.

Terry Bishop defends builders of Titanic

2007-09-18T13:01:00.000-07:00

D11 superintendent Terry Bishop spent $12,000 on an ad in the Gazette on September 15th to justify his $33,000 bonus and his $10,000 pay raise. He also wrote an oped wherein he defended the status quo performance of himself and his staff. While some critics would suggest that Bishop put more time and effort into pretending that he was accomplishing something than he has into actually doing anything, supporters feel that his oped showed that he is the right man to defend poor performing entities. To test this theory (in a mock interview), Bishop was asked to take on another tough topic: the sinking of the Titanic.

Q: Terry, what exactly went wrong with the Titanic?
TB: First of all, you may call me "Doctor." By referring to me thusly, it helps to justify my pay. Pay is important to us doctors in education. Second, you seem to be attacking the builders and crew of the Titanic by claiming that something "went wrong." We could have a deeper understanding of the issues if you stopped using such harsh language and stop attacking the passenger ship industry.

Q: The Titanic was billed as unsinkable. Is it not justified to question the legitimacy of that claim when, in fact, the Titanic did sink?
TB: The Titanic was the largest passenger ship afloat at the time. It could carry over 2,000 passengers and crew. It was a very important ship. What value is there in attacking the crew and builders of that ship? There were other types of transportation in existence at the time, and I don't see the press being critical of their performance.

Q: Um, this was the largest single loss of any type of transportation in existence. This loss was devastating.
TB: Now we're comparing apples to oranges. The Titanic took on a larger and more diverse population than anything of its day. It carried people from all types of income levels and backgrounds. When it pulled out of port, it carried everybody. You can't compare it to ships or plains or trains that served only the privileged.

Q: OK, we are probably getting a little off topic, which is the sinking of the Titanic. But since you brought up the topic of serving the underprivileged, only 25% of the 3rd class passengers survived the sinking of the ship, while 62% of the first class passengers survived. Of course, even those who survived had to pay extra money to get to the U.S. via other means since the Titanic did not get them to their destination. Do you really consider this service?
TB: Look, each of those 3rd class passengers who got onto that ship counted as income to the ship. Of course they mattered to the cruise line. As John Gudvangen wisely stated just a couple of years ago, if the parents of these 3rd class passengers would have made wiser choices when they were younger, these people would not have been in the position to have to settle for the worst and most dangerous rooms on the ship.

Q: You claim that they "mattered," but they were not even allowed onto the life boats.
TB: I am not clear on the confusion. Of course they mattered. Without the money that their kind paid to the Titanic, the survival of the cruise line would have been in question. It was very important that those big ships from those large cruise lines survived.

Q: Out of 2,224 passengers and crew on the Titanic, only 711 survived. Do you consider that success?
TB: Anybody can make numbers say anything that they want. Of course that is success. The press needs to understand that the largest passenger ship of its time needed to have positive coverage for the passenger cruise industry to thrive. 711 people survived. There were some very important and accomplished people on that boat who lived and continued to be productive citizens.

Q: That may be true, and we agree that it was very fortunate that those 711 survived, but wouldn't you consider it a disaster when you consider that 68% of all souls on that ship were lost?
TB: I just told you that 711 people lived and you turn around and use the term "disaster." That type of terminology won't get us anywhere. That is what I mean by lack of support.

Q: Why don't you go ahead and tell us what went right with the Titanic.
TB: I just told you that 711 passengers survived. That is extremely positive. Also, the Titanic had some of the finest woodwork of any ship of its kind. The ballroom was absolutely marvelous, and the first class state rooms were top notch. The Titanic had some of the best chefs around at the time, and the orchestra was phenomenal.

Q: That all sounds great, but it seems to be a historical reality that the ship hit an iceberg and sank. What did any of those items you mentioned have to do with the overall success of the Titanic's mission, which was to transport passengers safely across the ocean?
TB: Now you are getting into semantics and number games. You can't simply blame the crew for the performance of the ship. There were only about 900 crew members on that ship, which means that there were over 1,300 passengers. The passengers have responsibilities as well. Why didn't any of them notice the approaching iceberg? If we are going to play the blame game, then answer that question.

Q:Yes, but these people paid money to be on that ship. The crew was supposedly trained (and paid) to navigate that ship. How can we blame the passengers for the performance of the ship?
TB: It is all about personal responsibility. And choices.

Q: The crew of the Titanic prohibited hundreds of people from boarding lifeboats. Even if they had allowed each of the boats to be filled, there was only enough capacity to handle 1084 people. There were 2,224 souls on board. Does that suggest a lack of planning?
TB: It suggests nothing of the sort. That crew had spent countless hours aligning resources with passengers. These were professionals. Besides, the fact that 711 people survived speaks volumes about how much these people cared. 711 survivors means that only 373 people did not make it onto life boats. That is not bad when you consider that 711 is almost twice 373.

Q: Wait a minute. There were 2,224 people on board and only 1,084 lifeboat seats. 1,513 people did not make it onto lifeboats. You are using the 1,084 figure.
TB: Well, you've got your numbers and I've got mine. We won't get anywhere if all you want to do is focus on the negative. Let's be honest here. A lot of those 3rd class passengers weren't destined for the lifeboats anyway. I imagine that a bunch of them went right over into the water, so how can you blame the crew for that?

Q: What could have been done differently to ensure that the Titanic had not sunk?
TB: Absolutely nothing. That ship was a beauty. It even had metal doors and walls and a partitioned design to prevent water from flooding more than one compartment at a time in case of a leak. The grand staircase was absolutely the best of its kind and the marble floors were unbelievable.

Q: Yes, but the design was flawed. Those metal barriers did not extend upward high enough to prevent water from flowing from one compartment to the next. Wouldn't you have changed anything now that you know that the design and performance was a total failure?
TB: I can't believe that you are so determined to deem the Titanic a disaster that you can't appreciate the successes. The designers obviously did something properly or 711 people would not have survived. Why on earth would you want to change anything that could jeopardize that type of success?

Q: So you fully support the performance of the Titanic?
TB: I fully support the performance of the Titanic and I would not have changed a thing. In fact, I was told that the Titanic was TOO advanced. I'm not saying that was a bad thing, of course, but that is what I was told.

Q: Based on your advocacy of the Titanic, you most certainly would have allowed your family to have traveled on this vessel, correct?
TB: Are you out of your mind? With the money I make, why on earth would I ever let my family anywhere near something like that?

CSEA: Anything but education

2007-09-12T15:52:00.000-07:00

The items listed below are resolutions adopted at the 2007 National Education Association (NEA) convention. The local labor union, the CSEA, is subservient to the NEA. While local labor union leaders will try to distance themselves from these non-education issues, they will not explain why the local CSEA delegates voted in favor of them, all of which passed.

Notice the socialist nature of this labor union agenda. Notice that while we tax payers own our schools, they believe in forcing their extreme left-wing agenda down the throats of all tax payers and their kids. Notice that the labor union does not adopt resolutions related to education, and notice that it doesn’t even adopt resolutions relating to teachers except for a few social related resolutions. Keep in mind that this is the labor union that currently owns the D11 school board and will purchase the November board as well. This is a long entry, but worth the read to understand what this private organization is all about.

A-2. Educational Opportunity for All. The Association believes that all schools must be accredited under uniform standards established by the appropriate agencies in collaboration with the Association and its affiliates.

Craig: The private labor union wants to tell you what constitutes a good school. Great accountability that would bring.

A-14. Financial Support of Public Education. The Association believes that:
· Funds must be provided for programs to alleviate race, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination and to eliminate portrayal of race, gender, sexual orientation and gender identification stereotypes in the public schools.
· Full-day, every day kindergarten programs should be fully funded.
· Federal, state, and, as appropriate, local governments should provide funds sufficient to make pre-kindergarten available for all three- and four-year-old children.

Craig: And they claim to believe in local control?

A-15. Federal Financial Support of Public Education. The Association opposes any federal legislation, laws, or regulations that provide funds, goods, or services to sectarian schools.

Craig: They want federal funds for all public schools for sexual orientation education, but they don’t want non-public schools to receive a dime for anything, nor do they want federal accountability with their funds.

A-24. Voucher Plans and Tuition Tax Credits. The Association opposes voucher plans, tuition tax credits, or other such funding arrangements that pay for students to attend sectarian schools. The Association also believes that any private school or agency that receives public funding through voucher plans, tax credits, or other funding/financial arrangements must be subject to all accountability measures and regulations required of public schools.

Craig: Notice the anti-religious flavor of the labor union. How about subjecting the public schools to the same accountability as private schools, ie, how about making them compete in the open market for their students and dollars?

A-33. Federally or State-Mandated Choice/Parental Option Plans. The Association believes that federally or state mandated parental option or choice plans compromise free, equitable, universal, and quality public education for every student. Therefore, the Association opposes such federally or state-mandated choice or parental option plans.

Craig: The only thing missing is logic. Giving parents options is just the tool necessary to ensure that every student has the chance at a quality education.

B-1. Early Childhood Education. The National Education Association supports early childhood education programs in the public schools for children from birth through age eight. The Association also supports a high-quality program of transition from home and/or preschool to the public kindergarten or first grade. The Association also believes that early childhood education programs should include a full continuum of services for parents/guardians and children, including child care, child development, developmentally appropriate and diversity-based curricula, special education, and appropriate bias-free screening devices. The Association believes that federal legislation should be enacted to assist in organizing the implementation of fully funded early childhood education programs offered through the public schools. These programs must be available to all children on an equal basis and should include mandatory kindergarten with compulsory attendance.

Craig: Scary. Why are these socialists so eager to get their hands on our kids at such a young age? To teach them “diversity?”

B-8. Class Size. The National Education Association believes that excellence in the classroom can best be attained by small class size. The Association also believes in an optimum class size of fifteen students in regular programs and a proportionately lower number in programs for students with exceptional needs.

Craig: What they are saying is that small class sizes equates to more teachers which equates to more forced labor union dues which equates to more political funds for liberal democrats. For the record, the schools in D11 with larger classes (Martinez/Scott, etc) are performing at a higher level than those with smaller classes (Adams/Hunt, etc). Small class size does not equal better performance.

B-10. Racial Diversity Within Student Populations. The Association believes that to achieve or maintain racial diversity, it may be necessary for elementary/secondary schools, colleges, and universities to take race into account in making decisions as to student admissions, assignments, and/or transfers.

B-11. Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Discrimination. Discrimination and stereotyping based on such factors as race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identification, disability, ethnicity, immigration status, occupation, and religion must be eliminated. The Association also believes that these factors should not affect the legal rights and obligations of the partners in a legally recognized domestic partnership, civil union, or marriage in regard to matters involving the other partner, such as medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption, and immigration. Plans, activities, and programs must -
· Increase respect, understanding, acceptance, and sensitivity toward individuals and groups in a diverse society composed of such groups as American Indians/Alaska natives, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered persons, and people with disabilities
· " Eliminate discrimination and stereotyping in curricula, textbooks, resource and instructional materials, activities, etc.
· Foster the dissemination and use of nondiscriminatory and nonstereotypical language, resources, practices, and activities
· Integrate an accurate portrayal of the roles and contributions of all groups throughout history across curricula, particularly groups who have been under-represented historically
· Eliminate subtle practices that favor the education of one student over another on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identification, disability, ethnicity, or religion
· Encourage all members of the educational community to examine assumptions and prejudices, including, but not limited to, racism, sexism, and homophobia, that might limit the opportunities and growth of students and education employees
· Offer positive and diverse role models in our society including the recruitment, hiring, and promotion of diverse education employees in our public schools
· Coordinate with organizations and concerned agencies that promote the contributions, heritage, culture, history, and special health and care needs of diverse population groups
The Association encourages its affiliates to develop and implement training programs on these matters.

Craig: Don’t worry. With Tim Gill funding your D11 board, be prepared to see a lot of sexual orientation related changes in the district.

B-20. Education of Refugee and Undocumented Children and Children of Undocumented Immigrants. The Association supports access to financial aid and in-state tuition to state colleges and universities. The Association further believes that students who have resided in the United States for at least five years at the time of high school graduation should be granted amnesty by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, granted legal residency status, and allowed to apply for U.S. citizenship.

Craig: You spend millions of dollars each year educating children of illegal aliens in D11, and the labor union wants you to be happy about that. Keep in mind that the labor union blames these illegals for the poor performance of your schools.

B-35. Multicultural Education. The National Education Association believes that multiculturalism is the process of valuing differences and incorporating the values identified into behavior for the goal of achieving the common good. Multi-cultural education should promote the recognition of individual and group differences and similarities in order to reduce racism, homophobia, ethnic and all other forms of prejudice, and discrimination and to develop self-esteem as well as respect for others.

Craig: How about education on the great melting pot, the United States of America?

B-44. Family Life Education. The Association believes that programs should be established for both students and parents/guardians and supported at all educational levels to promote -
· The development of self-esteem
· An understanding of societal issues and problems related to children, spouses, parents/guardians, domestic partners, older generation family members, and other family members.
The Association also believes that education in these areas must be presented as part of an anti-biased, culturally-sensitive program.

Craig: There you go – self-esteem. Not self-esteem through education, mind you. The part about teaching students about “problems” related to family is where schools in some cities have begun turning students against parental authority. Watch out for this.

B-45. Environmental Education. The Association supports educational programs that promote -
· An awareness of the effects of past, present, and future population growth patterns on world civilization, human survival, and the environment
· Solutions to environmental problems such as nonrenewable resource depletion, pollution, global warming, ozone depletion, and acid precipitation and deposition
· The recognition of and participation in such activities as Earth Day

Craig: Who wants Al Gore in their child’s classroom?

B-47. Sex Education. The Association recognizes that the public school must assume an increasingly important role in providing the instruction. Teachers and health professionals must be qualified to teach in this area and must be legally protected from censorship and lawsuits. The Association also believes that to facilitate the realization of human potential, it is the right of every individual to live in an environment of freely available information and knowledge about sexuality and encourages affiliates and members to support appropriately established sex education programs. Such programs should include information on sexual abstinence, birth control and family planning, diversity of culture, diversity of sexual orientation and gender identification, parenting skills, prenatal care, sexually transmitted diseases, incest, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, homophobia.

Craig: They want a bigger role for the schools in this area, as well as Planned Parenthood, as well as the Gill Foundation.

B-55. Education on Peace and International Understanding. The National Education Association believes that educational strategies for teaching peace and justice issues should include the role of individuals, social movements, international and nongovernmental organizations. The Association also believes that educational materials should include activities dealing with the effects of nuclear weaponry and other weapons of mass destruction, strategies for disarmament, methods to achieve peace. Such curricular materials should also cover major contributing factors to conflict, such as economic disparity, demographic variables, unequal political power and resource distribution, and the indebtedness of the developing world.

Craig: In other words, USA=Bad; socialist countries=good.

B-63. Standardized Testing of Students. The National Education Association believes that standardized tests should be used only to improve the quality of education and instruction for students. The Association opposes the use of standardized tests when -
· Used as the criterion for the reduction or withholding of any educational funding
· Results are used to compare students, teachers, programs, schools, communities, and states
· Scores are used to track students
· Students with special needs or limited English proficiency are required to take the same tests as regular education students without modifications and/or accommodations.

Craig: “Give us the money, but don’t you dare hold us accountable.”

B-75. Home Schooling. The National Education Association believes that home schooling programs based on parental choice cannot provide the student with a comprehensive education experience. When home schooling occurs, students enrolled must meet all state curricular requirements, including the taking of assessments to ensure adequate academic progress. Home schooling should be limited to the children of the immediate family, with all expenses being born by the parents/guardians. Instruction should be by persons who are licensed by the appropriate state education licensure agency, and a curriculum approved by the state department of education should be used.
The Association also believes that home-schooled students should not participate in any extracurricular activities in the public schools.

Craig: They know better than you what to teach your child. And they want you to have a license before you can homeschool, and even though your taxes fund your public school, they want to prohibit your child from participating in extra-curricular activities.

C-27. Student Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification. The National Education Association believes that all persons, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identification, should be afforded equal opportunity and guaranteed a safe and inclusive environment within the public education system. The Association also believes that, for students who are struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identification, every school district and educational institution should provide counseling services and programs that deal with high suicide and dropout rates and the high incidence of teen prostitution.

Craig: Yep, lets spend funds telling kids that although they were physically born as a boy, they might actually be something else.

D-21. Competency Testing of Licensed Teachers. The National Education Association believes that competency testing must not be used as a condition of employment, license retention, evaluation, placement, ranking, or promotion of licensed teachers.

Craig: After all, incompetent teachers put a lot of money into the labor union, too.

H-7. National Health Care Policy. The National Education Association believes that affordable, comprehensive health care, including prescription drug coverage, is the right of every resident. The Association supports the adoption of a single-payer health care plan for all residents of the United States, its territories, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Craig: And which article of the U.S. Constitution guarantees this “right?”

H-11. Statehood for the District of Columbia. The Association supports efforts to achieve statehood for the District of Columbia.

Craig: This one will really improve your neighborhood school.

I-1. Peace and International Relations. The Association urges all nations to develop treaties and disarmament agreements that reduce the possibility of war. The Association also believes that such treaties and agreements should prevent the placement of weapons in outer space. The Association believes that the United Nations furthers world peace and promotes the rights of all people by preventing war, racism, and genocide.

Craig: When has the UN ever accomplished any of this?

I-2. International Court of Justice. The Association urges participation by the United States in deliberations before the court.
I-3. International Criminal Court. The Association believes that the United States should ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and recognize and support its authority and jurisdiction.

Craig: Wow.

I-28. Freedom of Religion. The Association opposes any federal legislation or mandate that would require school districts to schedule a moment of silence.

Craig: Didn’t they mean “freedom from religion?”

New I. Global Warming. The National Education Association believes that global warming causes significant measureable damage to the earth and its inhabitants. The Association also believes that humans must take steps to change activities that contribute to global warming. The Association supports environmentally sound practices that abate global warming and its effects.

Craig: Last year, my daughter’s teacher could not explain how the glaciers melted oh those many years ago.

There you have it. The top priorities of the teacher’s labor union and their school boards, including your D11 board. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about sending your kids off to school.

The Gatekeeper

2007-09-06T22:07:00.000-07:00

There have been questions on this blog and within the district about the selection process for the principal of Freedom Elementary. Was this principal the best suited for the job? Did he have the qualifications to lead the new school, and is he a match for his community? Were the parents of Freedom involved in the selection process and was their input considered before the new principal was selected?

As I have pointed out over and over again, the parents and tax payers of any public school district are the owners of those schools. They should be allowed to be a part of the selection process for the principals of their buildings. Each school building is required by law to have a building accountability committee (called a BAAC) whose membership is made up of citizens from the community. These BAACs should play a heavy role in the selection process of new leadership for a building.

“What should be” and “what is” in District 11 are two very different animals.

David Schenkel is the D11 Director of Human Resources (HR). He is best known in the district for having the same discrepancies within his department year after year when the district’s external auditors perform their evaluation. Schenkel never takes action to fix these discrepancies, and the superintendents, his bosses, have never had the courage to sanction Schenkel for his failure to perform his duties. His errors include faulty record keeping year after year, and he was responsible for a $700,000 pay blunder that hit the district during the same time period that ex-superintendent Sharon Thomas was absconding with $400,000 tax payer dollars for getting fired.

In addition to his HR position, Schenkel also happens to be the lead “negotiator” who, in theory, is supposed to represent the district in its “negotiations” with the labor union. Ex-labor union boss Mike Coughlin once informed me that the labor union absolutely loved having Schenkel on the district’s side of the table during negotiations. The reason: because Schenkel gave the labor union anything it wanted.

When a school such as Freedom needs a new principal, Schenkel is the gatekeeper through which any candidate must pass. First and foremost, the person applying for the administrative job must be a loyal labor union supporter. If the person applying is currently a teacher, then Schenkel checks with the school principal to determine if the applicant was “manageable,” ie, is someone who will take instructions from central administration without questioning whether those instructions will be beneficial to the students. Schenkel then consults with the labor union to ensure that the applicant is a solid labor union member and is acceptable to the labor union bosses. If either the principal or the labor union leaders give a thumbs down, the applicant in question will never make it through the initial screening process. Even if the members of the school staff and community want a specific person as their leader, Schenkel will not allow that person to move through the selection process if he deems them not worthy.

Schenkel likes to pretend that the school communities are allowed to be involved in the selection of their principals. After he trims the candidate pool to one or two people, he pre-determines the candidate who will receive the job based on the candidate’s relationship with him or another high ranking administrator. Schenkel is not looking for leadership in the schools. Academic performance and achievement never cross the mind of the head of HR. The chosen candidate will be someone who will never question authority and who will never make waves. In short, central administration had better take priority over their school.

After Schenkel has determined who his next principal will be, he will send the one or two finalists to meet with the BAAC and school community members. This meeting is not a meeting for the BAAC to have a say in which candidate is ultimately chosen. Schenkel will have already made that decision. If the BAAC decides that it likes candidate B, and Schenkel has decided upon candidate A, then candidate A will get the nod and the BAAC will be said to have been allowed to participate in the process.

George Marin had no special qualifications that made him best suited for Freedom. He and his wife first came to D11 as special education administrators. Under his leadership, Penrose Elementary remained an average performing school. Marin never offered any strong initiatives to improve the school. Average was good enough, but most important to central administration and Dave Schenkel, he never made waves.

Parents of a new school such as Freedom have high hopes that the academic performance within their building will be top notch like the building itself. Parents of Freedom students are probably not sending their children to that new building in hopes that the school will be just another school. These parents need only look across the street at D20 and they will see schools performing at the 80%-90% proficient and advanced (PA) range on standardized testing (with “High” accountability reports), and they will ask themselves if they want to settle for 50%-70% PA with “Average” as the school accountability grade.

The fact that some Freedom parents might be upset with the principal selection for their school only 3 weeks into the year is beside the point. The Freedom principal has a performance record that all parents can view. They have a right to demand the best for their kids. There is no requirement that these parents have to wait for several years to determine whether their kids are receiving the type of quality education that they deserve. Did other candidates submit their names for consideration at Freedom? Absolutely, but Schenkel will never discuss his selection criteria for making his final choice. He will use “personnel confidentiality” to tell you that he cannot discuss his process.

Dave Schenkel is not interested in what Freedom parents (or any other parents) think about their principal. His is a system of rewards and punishment based on a person’s loyalty to the system, not their performance in the schools.

All it takes to get a $10,000 Raise...

2007-08-25T07:43:00.000-07:00

In 2000, the voters of School District 11 passed a mill levy override question for the district. Within this question was a mandate for a detailed performance review of the district to be conducted once every 2 years by an outside agency. In the case of D11, the Quantum Performance Group (QPM) has performed the reviews. QPM noted during its reviews that D11 staff would always provide lists of tasks that were being accomplished, but never lists of results from these tasks. QPM correctly noted that these tasks were meaningless unless they resulted in improved performance by the district. After all, the mission of a school district is to educate kids.

The Sunday Gazette carried two articles on the performance of D11 superintendent Terry Bishop. The article noted that Bishop had a list of 25 tasks that he wanted to tackle as superintendent. The article also noted that after his first year on the job, Bishop has managed to tackle exactly one of these tasks. For this one accomplishment, Bishop receives a salary of $130,000 plus benefits and bonus. Nowhere in the article was the academic performance of D11 mentioned after Bishop’s first year at the helm. The reason might be that the overall performance of D11 declined slightly last year.

While no one would expect that Bishop and his massive staff of bureaucrats would accomplish all 25 of his tasks, one might expect that they would accomplish more than one. The tax payers might also be interested in understanding the academic goals attached to each of those tasks. By contract, Bishop was required to present the school board with specific performance goals by mid September of last year. One year later, this list of goals has still never been created.

One of the most disturbing accomplishments of Bishop to date is his dismantling of the site based management system. When he was hired, Bishop publicly announced his full support of reducing the bureaucracy to push more funds to the classrooms where they were needed most. Bishop quickly reneged on this promise in favor of hiring more administrators to continue the growth of an ever expanding central administration.

Bishop claims that he needs a strong central administration, but he confuses “big” with “strong.” The reality is that a large bureaucracy is actually a weak governing instrument. Large bureaucracies place layers of interference between the principals and the superintendent, diluting any possibility of strong accountability. Bureaucracies suck money from the classrooms and impose meaningless mandates on teachers. Above all else, bureaucracies are extremely inefficient.

D11 has always had a large central administration. By choosing to stick with this governing model, Bishop has chosen to tell the public that although the district is in decline academically and in numbers of students, he will remain wed to a system that has proven beyond doubt not to work.

If anyone wishes to see the results of the power of a decentralized school system, they need look no further than New Orleans. Due to a catastrophe in the form of Hurricane Katrina, the school district opted to do allow neighborhood schools to function without the bureaucratic oversight of a central administration. In one year’s time, these schools have performed miracles because the teachers and staff have been given the power and authority to do what it takes to educate their students. They have been given funding based on their student populations with no skimming off the top by overpaid administrators.

Bishop claims that it is inequitable to fund D11 schools based on their student populations. Is it really equitable to give a school with 150 students the same funding as a school with 600 students? Schools with low populations should not be subsidized by schools with large populations. The whole point of a site based funding system is to make the schools responsive to their public. If schools need more students, then they should work harder to provide the academic excellence that will draw students to their buildings.

The D11 school board now has to determine whether Bishop receives a performance bonus for his first year as superintendent. Based on the lethargic performance of this board to date, it is likely that they will grant Bishop 100% of his bonus for completing one of 25 tasks. Sure, this board has not been fighting, but that is because they are not fighting for the public for whom they are supposed to serve. While the student population in D11 shrinks, the D11 administration continues to grow.

4% and proud of it

2007-08-21T21:19:00.000-07:00

The Sunday, August 19, 2007 Gazette contained an article on D11 superintendent Terry Bishop. The article appeared to be a press release issued by D11 and printed without critical analysis by D11’s own reporter, Shari Griffin.

I have been critical of the bloated D11 administration and of individual administrators, who I believe make way too much money for the work that they perform. D11 bureaucrats claim that they are working hard to ensure that D11 students receive a quality education, but these same bureaucrats are at a loss to inform the public what it is that they actually do during their work day.

It appears that Terry Bishop and his advisers are taking a new tact. It seems that Bishop has decided that it is more beneficial to publicly admit that he does very little, but to pretend that the little that he does is actually a big deal.

The Gazette listed 25 goals that Bishop had decided were important for him to tackle during his tenor as superintendent. Keeping in mind that Bishop has stated that he only desires a 2-year stint as CEO of the district, it would seem odd to most people to read that Bishop has only completed one of his self-imposed tasks even though he is half way through his desired term as superintendent. Rather than acting humbled by his lack if ambition, Bishop actually bragged about this 4% accomplishment rate, claiming as always, that he just needs more time.

For anyone who knows how education bureaucrats function, the task by task listing of Bishop’s to-do list is as predictable as can be imagined. Each of the unaccomplished tasks has a corresponding explanation by D11 officials that the task is (a) Being studied (b) Being worked on (c) Being looked at by a committee. One would think that with this massive bureaucracy of friends that Bishop has surrounding him, he would have at least been able to have accomplished four or five tasks. But no; he has accomplished 1.

What does the ever vigilant school board think about this blistering pace of action by their employee? Yaaaawwwnn! If the superintendent tells them that he is doing a great job, who are they to hold him accountable? After all, the labor union has not given them their talking points yet, so how are they supposed to know what to think about all of this.

Another glaring point that stands out about this article is that Bishop does not tie any of his tasks to a measurable objective relating to improved district performance. D11 is a district that is losing students by the hundreds and is flat in academic performance, and Bishop cannot think of one objective that will improve the academic standing of the district to draw students back into the schools. Faced with a budget crisis brought on by declining enrollment, Bishop resorts to the only action that pops into his mind: hire more administrators. How will this help to improve D11, you ask? According to Bishop on radio station KVOR, he heard that “all the large urban districts are doing it (hiring big administrations)…” Are all of the large urban districts worth sending your child to? Of course not, but they are all blessed with large inept bureaucracies, so why not lead D11 down that same path?

It will not be surprising to learn that the school board will present Bishop with a minimum of 90% of his bonus pay for accomplishing 4% of his goals. He only had a year on the job, they will say. This is hard work, they will tell us, and we don’t want to push these poor people too hard. It is not easy earning 6-figures and having to drive all the way from Monument every day to get to work. Besides, just a little more time and you will see miracles happening again in D11. Just you wait. Really.

Sometimes, it is OK to just laugh

2007-08-14T16:19:00.000-07:00

Today was "welcome back" day for many of the D11 teachers and staff. The welcome back ceremony traditionally takes place in the Doherty High School auditorium. What was once supposed to be a motivational ceremony designed to prepare teachers for their first day with students has brought such memorable moments as Sharon Thomas talking about a "one-eyed titty banger" and Terry Bishop wooing the crowd with his rendition of "Country Roads."

According to to teachers who attended today's event, the entertainment was the best that it has been in years. The visual alone is enough to lift one's spirits.

John "it's all about me" Gudvangen, the most unaccomplished board president that D11 has ever seen, placed the teachers into a deep slumber with a rambling 25 minute speech that contained the same empty platitudes that Gudvangen is known for speaking. But the best was yet to come. Was it his discussion of the academics? No, he never mentioned that. Did he touch on his plan for making D11 great? Of course not - what plan? Did he promise to show leadership for a declining district for a change? Now that would be funny, but it didn't happen.

As Gudvangen was finishing off his yawner, Bishop and his band prepared to play once again. Much to the surprise and pleasure of everyone who was looking for a reason to laugh, Gudvangen sauntered off stage, then returned, accordian in hand. Witnesses said that it was a site to behold - Gudvangen performing a little jig and playing his little accordian. I suppose that if anyone was looking for a way to take the attention away from the dismal performance of so many of D11's schools, this was one way to do it. The good news is that for those who can't visualize the humorous scene in the Doherty gymnasium, it will probably be shown on D11's channel 16.

Tim Gill, your purchase of the accordian player from the Old North End was priceless.

"Those" kids

2007-08-07T16:34:00.000-07:00

The School District 11 administration and labor union talking heads constantly defend the poor performance of the $500 million government entity by explaining that there is a fairly large population of poor and minority kids in the district. They will tell you that "those kids" just aren't smart like certain other kids, and are therefore not able to learn.

East Middle School was recently closed by the labor union controlled school board, and the performance of the staff in the school's final year was bordering on criminal in its incompetence. The math scores for 6th grade were 14% proficient or advanced (PA), while the reading scores were 29% PA, and writing was 13% PA. The corresponding scores at the 7th grade level were similarly awful, coming in at 15%, 34%, and 22%, while the 8th grade scores were 17%, 34%, and 17%. Apologists for this incompetence will point fingers at the students and parents, claiming that the East staff did just fine.

Read the following article from Forbes magazine and defend the East staff and the D11 administration.

Notice the indictment against the education cartel. It took a "disaster" in the form of a hurricane to force the city to ditch the bureaucracy to focus, for the first time, on the students of the city. One would think that school boards around the country would look at this and decide that they are not going to wait for a natural disaster to focus on their student populations. The reality, as we all know, is that this will not be the case. The labor union and the overpaid bureaucrats will not stand for a loss of power and funds over the silly notion that they are to educate kids.

What excuses will the apologists for mediocrity use to explain away the successes in New Orleans? Are these kids all privileged kids from the wealthy neighborhoods? Of course not. These kids were specifically targeted by the Kipp charter school because they were impoverished. 90% were from low income families, and not just low income families, but low income "African American families." This is the exact population that the D11 administration and labor union claim cannot be educated.

The key element in the New Orleans situation is that the bureaucracy has been stripped away and the schools (public charter schools) are free to innovate. They are free to focus on kids and not have to worry about placing the needs of the administration above the needs of the constituents.

In D11, the needs of the bureaucracy greatly outweighs the needs of the students. Staffs such as the East staff would never "do what it takes" to educate their students. They will only go as far as their labor union contract allows them to go. The staff at East and other low performing schools could make immediate gains if they made a true effort. The excuse that it always "takes time" has been put to rest by the accomplishments in New Orleans. Man of those kids suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. Many had lost friends or relatives in the storm, yet the educators were able to move these kids, 85% of whom were working 2 or more years below grade level, to grade level or better in only one school year. These were not just elementary students; these were students in grades 3-8. It took hard work and it took effort, just the two ingredients missing in D11.

On the morning after the latest D11 CSAP results were published in the paper, D11 Deputy Superintendent for Instruction Mary Thurman was interviewed by radio station KVOR. She actually stated publicly that she was "encouraged" by the latest data, data that showed decreases in overall district performance.

What do people like Thurman say when they see "real" encouraging data like that coming out of New Orleans? Everyone will agree that the barriers that educators use to explain away poor performance are much greater in New Orleans than they are in Colorado Springs, yet Thurman and her labor union allies will continue to insist that there is nothing different or better that D11 could possibly do to improve. They will pretend, year after year, that D11 is just on the verge of greatness, and that all it will take is more time.

The teachers and staff in New Orleans understand that their students don't have "time" to wait for educators to pretend to care about their futures. It took the literal destruction of a failed and inept bureaucracy for kids to become a priority. Many who follow education locally fear that it will take just such a disaster to force improvements on the local education cartel. Sadly for the students, they may be correct.

CFO Glenn Gustafson blames NCLB for growth of Central Admin

2007-08-03T12:42:00.000-07:00

School District 11 Chief Financial Officer Glenn Gustafson told community members that the D11 administration was indeed growing under the watch of superintendent Terry Bishop. At a citizen’s committee meeting on Monday, July 30th, Gustafson blamed this growth on the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program.

It is fashionable in education circles to blame NCLB for every shortfall or problem faced by the nation’s public schools. The real problem that public educators have with NCLB is that it forces school districts to have their data exposed to public scrutiny. This is unacceptable to a multi-billion dollar enterprise that never meets its supposed goal of education America’s future.

In D11, Gustafson is just one of many who use NCLB as an excuse for every failure. What Gustafson failed to do at the July 30th meeting was to explain, specifically, which NCLB mandates have caused D11 to have to hire more administrators. NCLB requires school districts to improve student performance. The hiring of more friends and family of current administrators can hardly be seen as an attempt to improve student performance. Has there been a recent change in NCLB reporting requirements that caused a need for more administrators? No, there has not been. What could Gustafson possibly be talking about?

During the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year, I asked Gustafson and Deputy Superintendent for Instruction Mary Thurman to provide the school board with a list of unfunded mandates in D11. I and other reform board members had suggested that, since there was this claim of unfunded mandates in D11, the district should forgo accepting federal funds. Using simple math techniques, it was clear that if federal mandates were dipping into D11 operating funds, any logical person would conclude that there was no reason to take these federal funds. After having to prod for several weeks, the D11 administration finally issued the board a report that conclusively showed that D11 was suffering under no unfunded mandates whatsoever. According to this report, of which Gustafson had a part, all NCLB mandates were being funded by federal dollars.

Since Gustafson now claims that the hiring of a massive administrative staff is due to NCLB, and since he officially stated that there are no unfunded mandates in D11, that would indicate that these new administrators are all being paid with federally supplied dollars. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The new administrators of which Gustafson is so proud are being paid from the same general operating fund as is Gustafson himself.

Gustafson’s excuse for the current central administrative hiring binge is completely false. There is nothing in NCLB that requires D11 or any other school district to expand its administrative work force. As more and more D11 schools prepare to fall under sanctions for poor performance, there will be requirements for training teams to enter these schools to assist with training for the school staffs. These teams should be comprised of competent teachers, not the current group of bureaucrats who have done nothing but push CQI gibberish on schools. For the record, if Gustafson is claiming that these training teams are the reason for the administrative surge, then that is not the fault of NCLB. The fact that D11 has failing schools rests squarely on the shoulders of Gustafson’s comrades in administration and on the labor union leadership, all of whom have fought any type of improvement in the schools.

The D11 administration is under a board mandated administrative hiring freeze. By law, the administration is required to obey this freeze since it has never been lifted by the current board. The administration pays no heed to the freeze at all. This is the perfect example of how hapless the current D11 board is and of how little respect the current administration has for its bosses.

As has been the case for over a decade in D11, the student population (and hence, the funding) in D11 continues to dwindle, while the high paid administrative staff continues to grow, unchecked. While labor union activists continue their cry for more money for public schools, they sit by silently as more and more D11 tax dollars get pulled from the classrooms to fund the ever expanding club of high paid bureaucrats. Don’t expect the property taxes of these new administrators to help fund D11 schools. These administrators will live anywhere BUT D11.

Why Bishop chose the status quo

2007-07-31T15:01:00.000-07:00

Like most superintendents around the nation, Terry Bishop took control of School District 11 with big promises of big results. Like most superintendents of most school districts, Bishop's talk was just that - all talk. Even before the recall election in December 2006 (which Bishop supported), Bishop chose to move down the path of least resistance, which is to say, the path of"status quo." Bishop was convinced by D11 staff that it was not wise to ask D11 employees to actually work harder to achieve better results. After all, Bishop and his close advisers all believe that there is only so much that can be done to educate poor and minority children, so he felt that there was no need to push for something that was not in the realm of possibility.Bishop was convinced by D11 board president John Gudvangen that the recall election was going to be successful, and therefore there would be no need for Bishop to actually do anything in the course of his large salaried job.

In fairness, it cannot accurately be said that Bishop has not done "anything." He has succeeded in growing central administration and placing more of his close friends on the public payroll.
The 2006-2007 CSAP preliminary results have been posted on the Colorado Department of Education website today, and as can be expected when a school district has lethargic leadership, the overall composite CSAP results for the district declined slightly,.from 56.5% Proficient and Advanced (PA) to 55.9% PA. Congratulations Terry Bishop and Instructional Superintendent Mary Thurman. Your hard work in fighting reform has allowed you to continue your records of mediocrity. Congratulations also go out to this labor union purchased school board for overseeing yet another decline in district performance. While you are busy "getting along" and attending board meetings while drunk, the district continues to lose students and families to perform at a level that places it near the bottom of all school districts in El Paso County.

The CSAP results indicate that D11 has declined or remained level in 15 of 26 tests given this past Spring. No doubt that Bishop will receive a healthy check for his at-risk performance bonus, and he will immediately pay a bonus to his deputy superintendents.All of the current board members will run for re-election and they will promise the public that if just given more time, they will surely drive D11 to new heights. They will talk of caring about kids and respecting teachers, but none of them will provide any specific ideas or plans to actually shake D11 out of its decline.

For the record, to highlight the unhealthy state that D11 finds itself, in 2006, 17,435 students took the CSAP. In 2007, only 16,841students took the test. That is 594 students whose parents found someplace else to educate their kids.

The only slight bright spot in the statistics fall in middle school math. 7th grade statistics show a jump from 45% PA to 56% PA. 6th grade math had a 3 point jump, and 8th grade math had a 4 point increase. On the down side, 10th grade test results slipped from 30% PA to 28% PA. In another ominous sign of things to come, in 3rd grade, test results showed a decrease from 74% PA to 70% PA. Much of this decline stems from the fact that math chair Dora Gonzales continues to push the nationally discredited Everyday Math Program on the elementary schools. If 30% of D11 students at this young age cannot be taught basic math, this does not bode well for the futures of those students.

If anyone thinks for a minute that Bishop or his staff will take this data and develop a plan to improve D11, they are sadly delusional. While the teachers' labor union was deep in felony scandals, and while the board members were sipping cocktails at their North End dinner parties, and while Bishop and his staff were taking home their 6-figure salaries, your kids and you tax payers were continuing to be told that 50% effort and 50% performance were not only good enough, but were good enough to reward those in the district who already get paid the most and, in reality, do the least.

This is exactly the type of performance that recall supporters wanted to see in D11. This is exactly the level of achievement that labor union activists were pushing for. All of this results from low expectations, low standards, and a board that demands nothing of the D11 employees. This is exactly the type of school board that will assure the continued decline of the largest school district in El Paso County. As usual, the crisis continues (ACK TAS).

Just another "Day" in School District 11

2007-07-27T08:09:00.000-07:00

Back on April 3rd, 2007, I wrote about the hiring of Barbara Day (by Terry Bishop) on a "part-time" contract for $50,000. This is $5,000 more part-time than what the average D11 teacher makes full time (or 35 hours per week based on the labor union contract, which is slightly different than full-time). In that April blog post, I pointed out that Day and her boyfriend Mark Maksimowicz had recently purchased a $527,000 home in Monument together. I also pointed out that since Day was only working "part time" at the time, then you could be certain that Bishop must have promised her and ex-D49 superintendent Maksimowicz a lucrative job in D11 in the near future.

As of July 1st, D11 Special Education Director Robert Howell retired. To no one's surprise, Bishop saw this as an opportunity to provide his long time friend with the income that she needed to pay for her expensive home. Bishop has named Barbara Day to as the new D11 Director of Special Education. I said this in my April post: "We can expect Day to receive a full time job in D11 next year for a six-figure salary, and we can probably expect to see Maksimowicz on the D11 payroll as a contractor or salaried employee about the same time." The salary and benefits that Day will receive will place her nicely into the 6-figure income range.

What qualifications does Day possess that got her this important and high paying job? What licensing does she have that made her the best suited person to fill this slot? How many applicants did Bishop interview before handing this job to his long time friend? Those questions have never been asked by the current do-nothing board.

Day has absolutely no qualifications to be director of special education or director of anything else in D11. In fact, Bishop had to ask for an emergency waiver to allow Day to take this lucrative job because she does not possess the training or licensing to qualify for that position. Her only qualification is that she is chummy with Terry. The watchdogs of the D11 budget, led by John Gudvangen and Jan Tanner, will say nothing about this hire.

Special Education is an area that costs the D11 tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. Much of this cost is due to lawsuits by parents who believe that their children's' special education needs are not being met. The person in charge of special education should certainly have the experience and training to deal with the very unique situations that arise in the special education arena. Barbara Day has neither the training nor experience to lead the district in special education services. Nobody can argue against the very clear fact that Day was only handed this job because of her relationship with Bishop. Bishop never interviewed any other candidates for this job that was supposed to be publicly posted due to the laws dealing with a pubic entity.

Bishop clearly brought Day back to Colorado Springs as a personal favor to her rather than as a benefit to the students and tax payers of D11. He first hired her part time to be a site based management consultant, even though he was preparing to cancel the site based program that the full board voted to adopt. Day literally never did anything in her role as the site based project manager. Bishop then assigned Day to lead the citizens' committee on school utilization, which is still meeting regularly. Howell's retirement gave Bishop the opening he had been waiting for to reward his friend. As is typical in public education, there is no requirement for any type of proven competence in a specific area for a person to be handed a 6-figure job. The only requirement for someone like Day is that they know somebody in a position to hand them the money, no strings attached and no performance expectations.

The other half of my prediction will also shortly come true. Maksimowicz will likely be discovered on the D11 payroll in the very near future. Who knows, with the level of secrecy that this administration and board have practiced, he may already be on the payroll. Naturally, D11 is not a better school district as a result of these cronyistic hires. That is OK, though, as long as the school board members are getting along.

John Gudvangen rips Labor Union & D11 teachers (But only behind their backs)

2007-07-12T14:14:00.000-07:00

D11 board president John Gudvangen has not earned much respect for himself since being elected to the school board in 2005. His ability to turn any board discussion into a soliloquy on himself and his whiny demeanor have been a big turn-off, even to fellow anti-reformers. His lack of honesty when dealing with the public has also been a major problem for this weak board member.

Gudvangen was elected to the school board through the vote purchasing power of the teachers' labor union. The labor union threw over $200,000 of its member dues into the 2005 election to elect board members who would do the labor union's bidding, which is to say that they would do nothing to improve D11. Gudvangen was a huge supporter of the 2006 recall campaign to oust ex-board members Eric Christen and Sandy Shakes. He made numerous behind the scenes promises to community members to do "big things" in D11 if only the meanies were out of the way. As to be expected with people like Gudvangen, he had no intention of keeping his word.
Many recall supporters have been sorely disappointed in the performance of Gudvangen's board since December. A very prominent and vocal supporter of End the Chaos, (the group that was formed to run the recall), met with Gudvangen to express his/her displeasure with Gudvangen's lack of leadership. I also met recently with this same Chaos supporter, who I will refer to as "CS" so he/she does not receive the full force of hate that would surely come upon him/her from the Chaos community.

During the meeting between CS and Gudvangen, the issue of the East closure was discussed. During the time that the reformers were on the board, Gudvangen had constantly told his anti-reform supporters that the reformers were trying to close D11 schools, and that he would never allow this to happen on his watch. He was not even willing to allow board discussions on the topic of closure or re-utilization. This is a matter of public record. The question that CS had for Gudvangen was, why the sudden rush to close East Middle School? Gudvangen told CS that he was pushing for the hard decisions that the reformers left on the table. Since CS has been very involved in D11 for many years, he/she knew that what Gudvangen was saying was pure nonsense. Gudvangen talked to CS about the budget issues that would be helped by the closing of East, and CS pointed out that the biggest part of the operational budget for any building is teacher pay. CS asked Gudvangen if he was saying that the East teachers would then be laid-off since the school would no longer be in use.

Gudvangen's response to CS was a response that Gudvangen would never have the courage to say in public. Gudvangen is terrified of upsetting his labor union handlers, so he would never jeopardize his good-standing with the labor union bosses by standing up for the tax payers.

Gudvangen told CS that the district could not lay off the East teachers and that the district had to place these teachers in other D11 schools because that is what the labor union demanded that the district do with the teachers. Gudvangen went on to say that this was a shame because East was nothing but a warehouse for poor teachers. Gudvangen then blamed the labor union for the warehousing of teachers at the troubled middle school.

This illustrates a major problem that exists in D11 and other similar school districts. When you have weak and timid board members purchased with millions of labor union dollars, these weak board members will never do what is right for the parents who fund the school districts in the first place. Here you have a case where the board president realizes that there is a major problem in his district, yet he openly admits that he is afraid to address the problem because his union handlers will object.

By state statute, the school board makes all final decisions on employee hirings and firings. State statute trumps bargaining agreements, so the Master Agreement cannot be used as an excuse for having to keep underperforming teachers on the payroll. D11 is facing a budget squeeze, and rather than eliminate teaching positions due to the elimination of a school building, Gudvangen and his fellow anti-reform union puppets on the board chose to keep squeezing the budget by simply shuffling these teachers around. While the school board, as representatives of the tax payers, is supposed to be in charge of the school district, Gudvangen admitted that this is not the case under his watch. The labor union, a private organization, is pulling his strings. What a surprise.

What Gudvangen said about warehousing at East is probably a true statement (a rare occurrence from the lips of Gudvangen). This highlights a sad reality in D11. East was a very low performing middle school. Rather than push to help the students of that school by placing highly competent teachers in the building, the administration simply wrote off the students in that area and assured that they would receive a minimal education by, according to Gudvangen, placing poor performing teachers in the building.

D11 parents should now be concerned about which D11 school will be designated as the next "warehouse."

More on Poore

2007-07-10T08:43:00.000-07:00

As mentioned in my last post, ex-D11 employee Michael Poore has been hired by his old buddy Terry Bishop to be the newest Deputy Superintendent of something. Poore will receive a salary of over $120,000 in the cash-strapped district. What experience does Poore have with IT, the area over which he will be responsible? Absolutely none.

While in his previous stint as a D11 employee, Poore served as the Mitchell High School principal. During the time of Poore's service at Mitchell, the performance of the school declined. Apologists for medicority in D11 will blame that decline on the fact that the minority student population grew at Mitchell while Poore was in charge. These apologists claim that "those" types of students just don't have the same ability to learn as white students. Even if that were true, Poore never developed any plan to improve Mitchell, regardless of the student body composition.

Poore spent the last few years up in the Sheridan School District, serving as the Superintendent up there in the 1700 student school district. A Sheridan resident added this comment to my last post on this issue: "Poore was the super of Sheridan school dist and a dismal, weak leader that depended on everyone else to do his job including the former super Judy Kary. This is well known up here and a major source of disgust and a continuance of their revolving door problems with their teachers."

"Revolving door" is exactly what exists in D11 as far as ex-employees are concerned. Although it will sound like a smart-alec question, can anyone honestly name one of the 6-figure earners in D11 who is anything other than a "dismal, weak leader?" Poore was not hired for his competence; he was hired due to his friendship with Terry Bishop. Bishop, like his predecessors, is far more interested in building the incomes of his old pals than in building a good school district.

As to the new Executive Director that Bishop hired in D11, at a salary of $95,000+, Christian Cutter is related to current Mitchell principal Larry Cutter. Qualifications for his job? Again, who knows. That big wheel keeps on turning.

If you read comments from labor union mouthpieces throughout this blog, they pretend to care about the future of D11. Notice how deadly silent they remain on the issue of the hiring of old D11 cronies who bring no competences with them at all. This money is being spent to continue to grow an already bloated administration, and the labor union remains silent. What about those watchdogs of D11, the McNally's and Annie Oakley's and Lyman Kaiser's? Where is their outrage at the expenditure of big dollars to hire old cronies of the current D11 boss, despite track records of low performance?

Maybe Bishop has a good reason for wanting to use East Middle School as a new central administrative building. East was built to hold 800 students. As central admin continues to grow, that space might be put to good use.

Poore-ing it on

2007-06-26T07:38:00.000-07:00

Before Terry Bishop became Superintendent of School District 11, he was the Deputy Superintendent for IT. While serving in that role, Bishop built a fairly large infrastructure of IT administrators, most of whom had very little savvy when it came to technology related issues. One of the largest areas of dissatisfaction towards administrative support to the schools was in the area of IT.

As Bishop took the job of Superintendent, he stated that he was not going to fill the Deputy Superintendent slot that he was vacating. He said that he could save the district money simply by making the head of IT a Department Chair position. While we reformers were on the board, Bishop stuck to that promise.

It is a tradition in D11 for administrators to use tax payer funds to create wealth among like-thinking friends. While Terry Bishop, Mary Thurman, and Glenn Gustafson would be stumped if asked to create a plan to improve the academic performance of the district using the $500 million tax payer funded budget, none of them would blink an eye at how to funnel big money towards other administrators. No impact on student achievement needs to be considered when placing old buddies on the payroll, so this is much easier than educating kids.

We reformers implemented an administrative hiring freeze in D11 while Sharon Thomas was superintendent. This woman was planning an administrative hiring frenzy that would have placed every ex-D11 administrator she could contact on the payroll again. The hiring freeze required the administration to separate administrative hiring requests from general personnel actions. The administration was required to specify the job duties of any new administrative hire, to include the position's impact on student achievement.

Thomas was a student of former D11 superintendent Ken Burnley. Burnley designed the position of Executive Director to fit somewhere below the job of deputy superintendent. These slots were to be filled with loyalists and were designed to pay $95,000 per year or more. The joke among district employees has always been that nobody had any idea what executive directors really did for a living, other than collect big paychecks.

Now that Bishop has a board that answers to the administration rather than one that demands accountability, Bishop has decided to ignore his promise of leaving his deputy superintendent slot vacant. Bishop has changed the name of his old position slightly, but he has given his old friend Michael Poore the job of Deputy Superintendent and has given him a salary of over $120,000. Poore used to be the principal of Mitchell High School. Although he was liked by many people, he was rather ineffective at providing educational leadership for the struggling school. Poore has been working these past few years in the northern Colorado area. Although he has no real background in IT issues, that is irrelevant. He is being hired by Bishop because he wanted to move back to Colorado Springs and he needs a large salary. No one on the board questioned this hiring at all. On top of that, the administration has begun to ignore the hiring freeze with no vote ever being taken by the board to lift the freeze. Once again, the cowardly leadership on the board did not have the guts to tell the community that they favored tax dollars going to the admin building rather than to the classrooms.

In addition to the new deputy superintendent position, Bishop has created yet another executive director position. This position was given to Christian Cutter and is titled
"Executive Director of Student Achievement and School Accountability." The position pays over $95,000 annually and reports to Mary Thurman. Notice the fancy title. As Deputy Superintendent for Instruction, one would think that Thurman would be responsible for student achievement and accountability, but her $120,000 salary is apparently not high enough to allow her to handle those important responsibilities. No one on the board questioned Thurman or Bishop when they decided to tell the board to hire Cutter. No one asked how this position would possibly cause student achievement to rise. There are already executive directors for each level of schools (elementary, middle, and high school), so it is not clear where Cutter will fall into place. No chain-of-command relationship was required to be set up by the administration, and no clear area of authority has been detailed. As expected, no one on this board even cares.

Bishop took the job of superintendent with big promises of bold initiatives and a focus on students. It should probably not be a surprise that he has, instead, taken on the pattern of his D11 predecessors, which is taking more money from the schools to build a bigger administrative empire.

Notice that the labor union leadership, who are supposed to have the interests of teachers in mind, will never say a word about this. If they keep their mouths shut like good boys and girls, they know that the D11 Gravy Train will one day pass by their door steps, as well.

Courage of Their Convictions (or lack thereof)

2007-06-22T13:48:00.000-07:00

Besides opposing vouchers for everyone else and then demanding one for herself, the one other thing that ex-D11 board member Karen Teja is known for is her constant demand that the BOE follow "process." Teja used the "process" excuse to slow down any agenda item that she opposed. She taught her current status-quo allies on the board to use that same tactic to delay implementation of any reforms in D11. "Process" was more important to these liberals than was any progress towards improving D11.

On June 6th, the D11 board voted to accept members on a committee that was formed to look into the issue of how to dispose of East Middle School now that the board voted to close the school. Interestingly, this agenda item never appeared as a non-action item. D11 board policy requires every item to appear on non-action before it appears on action at a subsequent meeting. The purpose for this process is so that the community will have time to see what items the board will be dealing with. It gives the community time to speak on those topics and to give input. For some reason, the board chose to rush this item through with no public notice at all. Teja did not appear at the board meeting screaming about "process."

More importatntly, the June 6th meeting was listed as a Work Session, where no votes are taken. Without posting any type of notice on the D11 website, Gudvangen changed the Work Session to a Special Meeting at the last minute to avoid any public scrutiny of his actions. For a person who pretends to care so much about his public, Gudvangen did not want the public to know about this meeting.

According to the minutes of the May 16th BOE meeting, this item was to be brought to the board on June 6th as non-action, then voted on during the June 27th meeting.

"Dr. Bishop advised that a list of proposed committee members would be presented to the board on June 6 and that the board would approve committee membership on June 27, 2007. Director Tanner asked to see a list of names of the applicants. "

According to the posted agenda, this item was never listed as non-action. It went straight to action without a vote of the board. Where was the "process" that always seemed to matter when we were on the board?

Notice that Tanner wanted to see the names of the applicants. In fact, Tanner was given the authority to pre-screen applicants and to eliminate applicants who she did not agree with politically. During my tenor on the board, we never pre-screened committee applicants. On one occasion when Eric Christen wanted to reduce the bond oversight committee from 48 applicants to 25, the liberal board members screamed that he was using his position to keep citizens from serving their community. They accused him of playing politics with committee membership.

Tanner eliminated 20 applicants from the committee, and the board did not have the guts to deal with this issue publicly. The board never even released the names of all of those who applied for the committee. To have done so would have shown that Tanner eliminated anyone who she felt did not agree with her anti-reform worldview. Where is the outcry from D11 watchdogs? Where is the Gazette headline?

The makeup of the committee had to be very limited to allow the administration and anti-reform board members to lead it to a pre-determined recommendation. In an unprecedented move, the administration and Jan Tanner pre-selected to committee chair persons rather than allowing the committee members, all of whom are adults, to select their own leadership. Not surprisingly, one of the chairpersons is the wife of John Gudvangen's campaign manager.

As the Gazette mentioned a couple of weeks ago, the administration wants to keep the meetings of this committee secretive. During the first meeting of this committee on Wednesday, committee members were actually told to not have conversations about committee meetings with non-committee members. This was on the instructions of Gudvangen and Tanner and the other cowards in the administration.

The reason that this board and administration are so concerned about secrecy is because they are not looking out for the best interests of the D11 community. The administration, in concert with the very weak and compliant board, are working to further the interests and fatten the pocketbooks of big-wig administrators and their liberal friends in the community. As an example, Barbara Day, a close friend of Terry Bishop, was brought into D11 to be a "program manager" for the site based management implementation. Bishop knew that he was going to eliminate this program, but he brought Day in anyway and paid her over $50,000, part-time, he said, to manege the program that does not exist. Since Day just purchased a $500,000 home in Black Forest with her boyfriend, another Bishop friend, Bishop felt the need to keep Day around, so he charged her with running this utilization committee. Bishop has not yet made public how much money he is paying his friend to "run" this particular committee. Friends of D11 administrators always receive at least 6-figure tax payer funded incomes.

Not only did the board secretively select a majority of members for the utilization committee who they could control, but now the committee members have to sit through 4 meetings wherein the administration does all of the talking. These administration lectures will be designed to lead the committee members down a particular road. Facilities director Frank Bernhard will present slanted information, and CFO Glenn Gustafson will provide limited budget figures that will support his pre-chosen path. I don't know what the administration wants to do with East or other schools, but the point is that the committee was chosen to pick the options that the administration and anti-reform board members want it to pick.

In a humorous but pathetic side note, Gudvangen told a committee member that this current board had to close East because the previous board had refused to make tough decisions. Unfortunately for Gudvangen, there is ample public record of his opposition to ever even addressing the situation with East or any other poor performing D11 school while reformers were on the board. The only reason that Gudvangen acted is because the state required the board to act. Sorry, Johnny, but pretending to be a leader does not qualify you as one.

Still Missing in action

2007-06-12T22:31:00.000-07:00

In a post back in December, I provided teacher absentee data for D11. That data included absences for several school years. Listed below is Colorado Springs Education Association leadership absentee data for the first half of the 2006-2007 school year (through the end of December 2006). As I pointed out in my prior posts on teacher absences, the district can consider a student truant if the student misses 10 or more school days in a school year. With that in mind, note how many days some of these labor union leaders were absent in one semester and notice how many are on track to exceed 10 days absent once again in a 170 student contact day school year.

Mark Hampson – No data
Diane Beatty – 3
Nancy Haley – No data
Margie Couper – 8
David Fisk – 7
Katie Friedel – 7
Brian Kachel – 4
Jeff Marshall – 6
Scott Noller – No data
Patsy Oneal – 13
Lori Watson – 14
Tom Watson – 6
Jeanne Williams – 15

A new CSEA president was selected after the felony theft scandal. That person is Kevin Marshall. Kevin was absent from his classroom 10 days in the first semester of the 06-07 school year. He’s already truant and he hasn’t even taken the helm of the labor union yet.

The above labor union leaders were the same people who I listed in my prior post. There have been changes at the top due to the scandal and to new elections.

Former East math teacher Lori Watson frequently posts to criticize me on this blog. In her posts, she tells me that she is fully dedicated to her profession and that I am nothing but a low-life for questioning anything that she does. Note that Lori was absent for 14 days in the first semester alone this past year. If any of her students missed that same number of days in the whole year, D11 could take that student to court for truancy.

At the middle and high school levels, let’s take a look at the numbers of teachers who would be considered truant by D11 policy if they were held to the same standards as their students. This is numbers of teachers per school who were absent 10 or more days in one semester alone this past year. This does not include extended absences for sick days.

The first number is the number of teachers absent for 10 or more days during the first semester. The second number is the total number of teachers employed at that school. For example, 5/25 would mean that 5 teachers were absent for more than 10 days in a school with 20 teachers. The third number is obviously the percent of the teaching staff that was absent for more than 10 days in one semester.

East Middle School: 18/30 60%
Holmes Middles School: 6/36 17%
Irving Middle School: 11/47 23%
Mann Middle School: 5/36 14%
North Middle School: 12/34 31%
Russell Middle School: 5/45 11%
Sabin Middle School: 9/42 21%
West Middle School: 4/30 13%
Jenkins Middle School: 2/48 4%

The D11 board recently voted to close the doors on East Middle School. Lori Watson and others would have us believe that the staff spent the year working hard to save the school and to educate the students. 60% of the teaching staff missed more than 10 days in the first semester alone. What would those statistics have looked like had the staff NOT been giving their all for those kids? Does that really look like a serious educational environment?

As far as high schools, they looked like this:

Coronado: 10/80 12.5%
Doherty: 11/98 11%
Mitchell: 15/83 18%
Palmer: 18/103 17%
Wasson: 18/84 21%

Teachers are public servants and teacher absentee data is a matter of public record. Anyone can request to see the attendance data for any school that they choose.

The teacher absentee issue is a major issue that neither the board nor the administration will attempt to fix. As usual, the labor union stands squarely in the way of any attempt to reduce teacher absences. Not only does it affect the students whose teachers are chronically absent, but it affects the district budget as substitutes are hired by the hundreds each day, but particularly on Mondays and Fridays.

Those who make an effort to pay attention will probably be surprised to find out how many days their children find themselves sitting in front of a substitute teacher each year.

They actually believe themselves

2007-06-11T07:05:00.000-07:00

The suspense was absolutely killing me as I awaited the certain reply to my Gazette Oped of a week ago. Mary Ellen McNally had emailed the D11 board members and ordered them to respond to my oped in which I pointed out that this board had literally done nothing since taking full control after the recall. McNally demanded that her little people on the board tell the world all of the great and important things they had done in the past 6 months. Unfortunately for McNally, her people had to tell her that they couldn't think of anything to write about. They were stumped because, well, my Oped was actually right on the money.

Finally the suspense was broken as McNally and her caustic friend Richard Serby came to the rescue. Their "In Response" letter in the Gazette can be summed up in one sentence: This board closed East Middle School.

The irony of that accomplishment is hard to miss. One of the people who McNally recruited during her recall effort was Norvelle Simpson. He was an ex-D11 board member who served with McNally when the academic decline in D11 first began. While Eric Christen and I were appearing on the Joseph Michelli show, Simpson called in and explained that his support for the recall was based on the fact that we reformers wanted to shut D11 school buildings. He pointed out that he and McNally had closed the old South Middle School, and that had led to all types of problems for the affected neighborhood. He was angry because minorities were hit hardest by his decision. In an amazing leap of logic, Simpson declared that since he and McNally had closed a school and caused hardship in the community, then we should be removed from the board because they were telling people that WE also wanted to close a school or two. Got it?

The decision on East was not initiated by this school board. Due to the continuing unsatisfactory performance of the East staff, the state directed that something be done with the school. While I was on the board, we reformers warned over and over again that dramatic action had to be taken to improve certain schools or the state would step in and force action. The state forced action in this case. This board could have chosen to allow East to remain open under management that actually knows how to educate kids (Cesar Chavez), but due to the total anti-charter mood on this board, they chose to close the building altogether. That wasn't necessarily a hard decision for the board; it was simply something that their handlers told them to do.
McNally and Serby brag that this board has assembled a committee to study the East facility and other D11 facilities. Big deal. Another committee spent 2 years studying facility usage. The Long Range School Use Study (LRSUS) committee recommended consolidating or reutilizing 6 different schools in the district. Gudvangen and his allies refused to listen to that committee. The West Side Task Force committee existed prior to the LRSUS committee. If putting committees together is an end in itself, them yes, liberal D11 boards have always accomplished a lot.

The next biggest accomplishment that McNally and Serby can latch onto is that board members have been visiting schools. When I served, we reformers always visited school buildings. In fact, school staffs commented that we were the first board members to actually come out to the school buildings on a regular basis. People like Gudvangen, Karen Teja, Mary Wierman, and Tami Hasling were actually upset about our school visits. They accused us of interfering with school staffs when we visited buildings, and yet they now want to pretend that they are visiting schools.

In my Oped, I mentioned (correctly) that this board relishes its secrecy. McNally and Serby point out that this board spends time "communicating with one another via telephone and e-mail frequently to ensure common understanding of issues...and to reach consensus, whenever possible, when voting on important matters." First of all, keep in mind that this is actually a response to an accusation that this board is a do-nothing board. The best they can say is that they call and e-mail each other? Wow, heavy stuff.

Soon after our swearing in in 2003, the Independent ran a scandalous article accusing us reformers of violating the Sunshine Law by having more than 3 of us gathering publicly at Old Chicago's for a snack. It was a social gathering in public with numerous D11 employees. Now McNally informs us that the current board is reaching consensus in phone calls and e-mails, which is a direct violation of state laws. Reaching consensus by phone or e-mail is called a "rolling quorum," and it is forbidden by law. This further proves my point that this board operates in secret and out of view of the public. By the way, how would McNally know that the board is communicating by phone and email to reach consensus on important issues? She is no longer on the board, correct?

McNally says that the board is holding the administration accountable for providing detailed information necessary in making good decisions. How have they done this? What measure is she using to validate that claim? Is there any accountability for academic performance, a charge for which all school districts are responsible? McNally and Serby don't say, because that is not important to them.

In short, McNally and Serby wrote a silly article that said absolutely nothing. It proved, beyond doubt, that what I said in my Oped was right on target. Beyond the closing of East, which was mandated by the state, this board has "gotten along" with each other. D11 remains in an academic crisis and students and families are fleeing to higher performing districts by the thousands, and the best that status quo supporters can tell us is that the board is getting along. There is no need to parody a sad group like this board when their own supporters do it so well themselves.

The saddest point to all of this is that people like McNally and Serby, who don't have kids in school, really believe that "getting along" is all that matters. They don't believe that certain kids can learn, and they don't believe that D11 can or should improve, so why bother?

The crisis continues.

Why doesn't he just do what Irma did?

2007-06-09T20:23:00.000-07:00

Two different government agencies, two different unions, and two totally different methods of handling felony theft. One of those government agencies was Colorado Springs School District 11; the other was the Colorado Springs Police Department.

The headline in the June 8th Gazette read: "Springs police officer arrested in mileage fraud
He claimed $1,400 after he was injured on the job"

The police officer. Neil Ashenbrenner, was arrested for fraudulently claiming a $1,400 reimbursement from the city. The teacher and labor union president, Irma Valerio, was forgiven by D11 officials after fraudulently claiming over $1,000 in reimbursement from D11.

The police labor union leadership was not quoted in the paper as trying to minimize the theft by the officer. The chances that this police officer will be back on the street as a police officer are pretty slim. The teachers' labor union leadership did the right thing by asking Valerio to step down as labor union leader, but they then claimed that it was a private matter that was of little significance to the public. Valerio will be back in the classroom for the 2007/2008 school year.

One public service agency understands that it is obligated to uphold the public trust. Police Chief Richard Myers has vowed to maintain a transparent agency because the public expects that. D11 Superintendent Terry Bishop has said nothing about the D11 theft, using the age-old excuse of "employee privacy" to keep the public in the dark. Instead, he has asked his spokesperson Elaine Naleski, to put out two contradictory statements about the incident. Her first statement was that since Valerio repaid the stolen funds after she was caught, the district would not push for charges because "legal authorities," (who were not identified) told district officials that the return of the funds erased the foul. The next statement was that "legal authorities" had been inquiring about the felony, so D11 had to turn the case over to the DA.

Using the logic of D11 officials and teachers' labor union leaders, all the police officer needs to do now that he has been caught is to pay the money back to the city. No harm, no foul. Give him his badge and weapon and place him back in a position of trust.

The police department leadership understands that the department exists to serve the community. The leadership expressed shame over this incident. D11 leadership, as usual, has been working to hide the D11 theft. No shame was expressed by anyone in a leadership role.

Two government agencies, two different approaches to managing the public trust. The total Colorado Springs Public Safety budget is $116 million, combining police and fire. The total D11 budget is nearly $500 million. The police want to be transparent with their piece of the $116 million. The school district wants the public to turn over $500 million and then turn a blind eye to the use of that money. Hence the administration's desire for a hand-picked school board comprised of weak and controllable members.

Even the liberal city council members would have been outraged had the police chief showed a ho-hum attitude towards the police theft. D11 school board members have been indifferent towards the ho-hum attitude of D11 officials. They really have no choice; their seats were purchased by the labor union and they are afraid to burn bridges.

The actions of the police leaders demonstrated respect for the community; the actions of D11 leaders, as usual, demonstrated contempt for the tax payers.

The status quo lives on.

Six months after recall, D-11 board back to ‘normal’

2007-06-01T14:58:00.000-07:00

The School District 11 recall election is now six months in the past. Since that time, there have been no controversial headlines, no articles on individual board of education members, and apparently no disagreements in the board room. Since all current board members are madly in love with one another, teachers are free to teach and children free to learn.

Apologists for the status quo would like the community to believe that since the reformers are gone, the school district is now looking out for the best interests of the parents and students. The sad reality is that once again, no one is holding the administration or board accountable for anything. Just as in the past, the board room is empty during meetings, with the exception of a few slumbering staff members and disinterested board members, some of whom even know what is on the agenda.

During my three years on the board, every proposal or action that the reformers brought forth was met with an article or headline questioning our motives. The D-11 administration and labor union actively rallied employees against every move we made, and they both rewarded employees who took the time to protest against any reform idea that was presented. In short, D-11 employees took an active role in creating an appearance of controversy and chaos in the district. Those of us who wished to reform a district that is badly in need of reform were constantly accused of imposing secret agendas on the district.

Now that another school year has come to a close, can anyone honestly claim to have any idea what the current school board or administration have accomplished in the past six months? Probably not, but there are several items of interest to be noted. In 2003, just after we took office, the reform slate voted to televise the board meetings, giving complete and open access to every meeting. Board members were very public with our ideas and proposals. We understood that we would face scrutiny for ideas that were not approved by the education establishment, but the education debate is one that must be engaged. Where are the ideas from the current board?

Last year, we who were on the board voted to implement a pay for performance system for teachers. Without a board vote, the administration has quietly allowed this directive to die. Principals were given no performance benchmarks to achieve, so it will not be possible for incentive pay to be distributed. Also last year, we voted 6-1 to implement a site based management system wherein more money would be directed to the school buildings and principals would be granted more ownership over their schools. Again, without a vote of the board, D-11 dropped this student-centered approach to funding schools. Board president John Gudvangen and his anti-reform allies on the board all campaigned for site-based management because they knew the public liked that approach. Better to kill reform in secret than to let the public see their true agenda.

Gudvangen has since vowed at a public meeting that he would wipe clean any evidence that reformers had ever served on the D-11 board. He has further bragged to supporters that the D-11 community does not pay attention to the board anymore, so he can impose his will on the district without fear of angering the community. Where are the so-called community activists who expressed concern over secret agendas in the past? Where are the former board members who claimed to support reform but not board infighting? Reform is secretly being swept away and these watchdogs are strangely silent.

Equally troubling is the absence of The Gazette. Why are articles on the union theft and forgery scandal buried in the Metro section? Where was the article questioning the motives of the board as it voted to close a D-11 school? Where are the articles highlighting the accomplishments (or lack thereof) of the current board?

The D-11 community is exactly where status quo activists want it to be — in the dark. The fact that there are no more headlines about D-11 is not a good thing. While the district once again operates in secret with no leadership on the board, the taxpayers continue to be grossly underserved.

The Infighting is hurting our children!

2007-05-25T19:22:00.000-07:00

Remember how the D11 community was informed by indignant unionites and other status quo supporters that school board debates were taking the focus off of education and hurting "the children?" Remember how we were told that there are never any disagreements in the district and that the only people who ever argued were reform board members? Remember how the recall election was going to allow stressed out teachers to focus on "the children?"

We have already seen on this blog that there is much discord within the labor union among people who are supposed to focus their energy on students. All of the following entries were posted on the online Gazette after the Sean Paige editorial in which he detailed the labor union strife. As you can see, there is no love between warring factions of the teachers' labor union.

What about the kids, guys? What about the kids?

Good job of presenting the issue about the union without your usual union bashing, Sean. I'm sure the teachers that are represented by the union will be more careful to watch over their leadership because of this.
impressed - May 24, 2007 11:42:49 AM

Gotta love the union people using the gazette like a political tool. These are the unforgivable travesties that should get our president impeached? Pathetic. Obviously their hatred of Irma trumps their love of kids. Sad, but very typical of those willing to engaged in open warfare over menial microscopic issues. Ironically, people who like to burn down forrests many times don't realize that they could be standing right in the middle of the blaze themselves. Is that membership numbers I smell burning?
Ammo to the enemy - May 24, 2007 09:26:15 PM

You have to love the educrats in their continuing defense of the those that have done so much damage to our education system, like the unions. If you call them out, like Sean often does, as the destructive force they are, you are bashing them. Nice. Remember folks these union bosses are the ones teaching your kids, in fact that is where Irma is now headed back to, the classroom! These people have made our district a laughing stock and run it into the ground. Get your kids out now!
Lisa - May 25, 2007 08:12:26 AM

Misappropriating a thousand dollars is not menial or trivial, Big Lie. Valerio abused the teachers trust by commanding a salary of six figures, which is simply obscene. And she still has to misappropriate funds to pad her pocketbook more. She had to overspend her own budget by over half. Although I doubt that a forest fire has been sparked, if it has, it's due to Valerio's greedy self centeredness. Talk about a narcissistic personality!
Sherlock - May 25, 2007 10:54:50 AM

I see that you're not above using the Gazette yourself, Ammo. See, that was the problem all along, the leadership was always in the right and honorable position when thay acted, and all others were dishonorable if they dared to oppose tham. In that sense, Eric and Craig were on target for attacking the union mentality. The membership numbers will burn if those that want to blindly follow the leader continue to do so. An association should not be about leadership, but the members. Although I am concerned for those that choose to leave, I know that in the end the association will recover and represent the members in a more personal and caring way than has been modeled in the past year. You might want to don a firesuit yourself while criticizing the fire that you are standing in.
T for Tat - May 25, 2007 11:18:33 AM

There is absolutely no perspective in this thing. Irma would have been out in a year anyway, but that wasn't good enough. The political operatives wanted a carcass, so they got one. Now that they've gotten what they wanted, they don't know what to do. Where do they go, what enemy do they attack now? I suspect they will begin wars with each other soon. These CSEA politicos have forgotten the lessons of Shakespeare's Richard the Third. I give them a year and then they'll be selling their little kingdoms for little horses to ride away with to fight little issues in little towns elsewhere.
micro viewpoints - May 25, 2007 02:23:15 PM