Oh Yes, I Have Been Working!

I have a favor to ask of my gentle readers...

I've been distracted from my usual free-roaming education discourse here on RepairKit because we have a lot going locally, in Hillsboro School District 1J.

So, as some of you may have noticed, I began a local community blog that I hope will become a nexus of school patron communication. Already one elementary school parent blogger has linked up with me, and I hope for many more.

I also hope that the blog can refer district patrons and others interested in public education to sources where they can soak up some information about the inner workings of our school district, including administration, board work, and curriculum and instruction.

My links on Straight Talk are to blogs and web sites that address national education issues, so don't be offended if you don't see your blog linked there. (RepairKit's not there either.)

Back to the favor...I'd appreciate comments here on how to improve this effort as well as indications that I'm heading in the right direction.

Straight Talk from a Hillsboro School District 1J Board Member

Thanks very much!

Photo: Century High School, Hillsboro, Oregon (3rd of four high schools, opened 1999)

Lord Knows, I've Tried to Stay Away from Politics...

...but I admit that it's just not possible. I can't help but share this cross-post from Straight Talk.

Rebecca, Tell Me About a Week in the Life of a Board Chair.

November 8th, 2007

When I found out how HSD Board of Directors Chair Rebecca Lantz spent her latest week, I felt like a total slacker. Rebecca is a whirlwind of constructive activity that includes raising a bright and active family as well as serving the Hillsboro School District as a board member and chair this year.

Rebecca manages to fit family life and civic participation in with civic duty and still keep smiling. Even a little heat from a “prominent citizen” who would like to replace Rebecca (in 2009) because she has the integrity and grit to keep her word to the voters doesn’t slow Rebecca down (although citizens threatening elected officials over a single issue -- that has nothing to do with education -- irritates me a lot).

Here’s how Rebecca spent her week serving our school district patrons…

– Hugh O’Donnell

Hugh,

This week I’ve been to a boundary committee meeting, an agenda review with the superintendent, a City Council meeting, a meeting with the Director of Special Programs, a PTO meeting, an Open House at David Hill, a Rotary luncheon, and an RACC meeting to develop arts curriculum in our area. I volunteered three hours at the Glencoe Career Center making sure kids graduate. And I wrote an LTE to the Argus defending HSD. Including the emails and phone calls, I figure I’ve put in about 35 hours. With the OSBA convention taking up the weekend, I figure I’ve given everything I can to this district.

Yesterday, I had to be extremely clear with one of Hillsboro’s leading citizens: the HSD board has no plans to consider letting anyone do anything with the J.B. Thomas building. The board unanimously approved the demolition as part of the bond proposal in April 2006, which was then passed by the community by a narrow margin in Nov. 2006. We do not intend to reopen that decision.

People who do not agree with this decision are threatening to have board members replaced. Instead of focusing on what needs to be accomplished in terms of improving academic achievement in our district, this group would do anything to assure that a decrepit building remains standing.

I stand firm on Thomas with good cause, not because I enjoy tearing down old buildings. I enjoy being on school board. It really makes me smile. As a solid contributor here, I’m an asset to the community. I’m an imaginative, energetic, and indomitable advocate for learning of all types and do not deserve to have my integrity questioned by individuals with a single agenda not related to good school governance.

Making connections between the school board and the city is essential to continue forging partnerships in the areas of arts, science, languages, sports, and especially music. My leadership and collaboration skills are strong, so I will continue to do what I need to do to make HSD and Hillsboro the best place in the state to get an education.

Despite the threat of being in a contested election in 2009, I will continue being the same straightforward, positive individual I always am. I hope that together we can make Hillsboro an even better place to grow up.

Rebecca Lantz

Dealing With Difficult Stuff

My teaching career is behind me, and it's been years since I've witnessed anything like Matt Groening's "Classroom From Hell," but I'm still sensitive to the anguish of young teachers who are just learning to deal with all the personality niches Groening captures in his drawing.

The "Classroom" has other manifestations in adult civic life, and as a school board member, I sometimes get to deal with the craziness and collateral damage visited upon the school district by people with different political agendas.

The ones I truly don't understand are the people in public life outside the district who undermine the us for their own purposes, and don't realize that the kids are the collateral damage if they succeed in their quest to contaminate public opinion.

Here's a cross-post with a new blog I started to provide an additional voice to help citizens sort out the facts and reasoned opinion from propaganda, with regard to our school district.

It's a local blog, and for the most part won't be of interest to most of you, but you might get a jolt out of my first post just below. Most of my future pieces over there will be upbeat and full of excitement for better serving our students, instead of dismantling the propaganda rant of a so-called editor of our local paper, as follows:

Hillsboro Argus Editorial Board Member Serves Up Propaganda and Calls It Opinion

Susan Gordanier is a member of the Hillsboro Argus’ editorial board. I expect her opinions be the result of sound judgment grounded in fact because I hold her to a higher standard than the average letter writer who relies on journalists like Ms. Gordanier for the truth.

The general definition of “opinion” in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary is: “a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.”

Ms. Gordanier was careless with her facts in the “In My Opinion” section of the Friday’s Hillsboro Argus, and that’s putting it nicely. Her only opinion in the entire piece, entitled “Don’t Blame the Kids for Asking,” is that the Hillsboro School District “has had a string of public relations flubs in recent months.” That dubious assertion was in the first paragraph and her logic goes downhill from there.

Her piece sadly lacks sound judgment based on facts. In fact the remainder of Ms. Gordanier’s rant consists mostly of rumor, innuendo, fallacies, and, dare I say it, outright lies that she uses to justify her thesis that the school district is somehow having difficulties for which she provides no constructive insight or solutions.

For the sake of clarity, here are two related definitions of “propaganda” from the same source I used above: “the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person…” and “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause…”

Propaganda is used to elicit an emotional, not a rational, response. It is designed to side-step critical-thinking by presenting bias as if it was objective evidence. But it’s easy to spot.

Let’s take a closer look at the school district’s alleged flubs and the facts as I observed them from front-row center.

The next two paragraphs of Ms. Gordanier’s piece deal with the City of Hillsboro’s (as represented by Mayor Tom Hughes and consultant John Southgate) fantasy about accomplishing a building/land grab, that is, turning Thomas Middle School, or part of it, into an arts center at the expense of the school district’s taxpayers (I’ll explain more about that in a moment).

I was at the meeting where Ms. Gordanier alleges “At least one member [of the school board] suggested arty types so close to the new Lincoln Street elementary school might pose a danger to young students…” (Was Ms. Gordanier at the meeting?)

The facts: two school district board members at this meeting expressed concerns that the district would have no control over the comings and goings of the public at all hours of the day and evening, including the time school is in session. Those are reservations that need to be voiced and answered; otherwise we are not doing our sworn duty to protect our school children.

Does Ms. Gordanier suggest that we, the school board, not be concerned with the safety of school children?

In any case, the twisting of these legitimate concerns into a slam on “arty types” is disingenuous at best, and a blatant lie at worst.

The board did not encourage Mr. Southgate to move forward with the proposition to turn Thomas Middle School into an arts center because the city, i.e., the mayor and the people who share his point of view on this matter, wish to appropriate the building itself without cost. The benefit to the school district would supposedly be the savings of demolition costs. The school district would retain ownership of the land, so we really wouldn’t lose anything, right? That was the sales pitch, anyway.

By the time the meeting drew to a close, most of the board members realized that this was not a win-win proposition from a well-meaning partner. It was a slick attempt to acquire a large building for free as well as the land it occupies, which the district would never have the use of in the future. The city gets a big building and the land it sits on, and the school district gains nothing. In fact, the district would lose out considerably in this deal. (Remember, the district already has the money for the demolition.)

The school district would be giving up a prime piece of downtown land planned for use as athletic fields that the students of Lincoln Street Elementary School and patrons of Hillsboro Parks and Recreation desperately need. Nor would the district have the means or opportunity to acquire anything like it nearby for a reasonable price.

Furthermore, the school district would likely be stuck with liability insurance premiums to make sure that it could weather a lawsuit if someone, for example, slipped and fell in the city’s building that would be sitting on school district land.

Add to that the city’s miserable record for timely development of properties they currently own, and it’s easy to picture school board members imagining an empty Thomas Middle School building sitting idle and growing weeds in the lawn — right next to a beautiful new elementary school — while the city struggles to find the millions in grants they would need for renovation because they sure can’t put that on the city taxpayers by using city funds. That’s an ugly image, but a probable scenario, and completely unacceptable to the local neighborhood and the school district.

All in all, the city offered the school board nothing to persuade us that giving away Thomas Middle School and the land it sits on was a good idea, and now the board/district is taking heat from Ms. Gordanier for rejecting the offer. What a joke. The school board has a legal and moral obligation to exercise fiduciary responsibility with taxpayer investments in the school district, and giving away school district property, the board decided, was not a way to accomplish that duty.

The ultimate irony here is that the city wants to make an art center out of what is arguably the most unattractive building in town.

Next Gordanier slimes the school board with the innuendo that somehow [Superintendent] Jeremy Lyon isn’t worth his salary because “Some people have noticed their own incomes aren’t keeping a similar pace.” Who are those people? They are morons if they think their income should keep pace with anyone out of some sense of entitlement or handout from “Big Brother.” What is Ms. Gordanier thinking when she quotes those folks?

We all know that in the United States of America we are in charge of our own paycheck. Don’t like it? Do the work and change it, but don’t expect it to keep pace automatically with someone else’s paycheck.

Jeremy Lyon’s salary (and benefits) is a drop in the bucket when compared to the district’s return on investment in an exemplary leader who’s earning a statewide reputation for sound education management. It’s the single best investment school district taxpayers can make. His financial package is very much in line with what other district superintendents earn who run similar or larger districts. (This is a matter of public record easily researched by a member of the Argus editorial board, so why rely on innuendo, except to make an issue out of a non-issue?)

The third mudball Ms. Gordanier has thrown against the schoolhouse wall leads with another innuendo that is also a lie. Ms. Gordanier said, “More recently, word slipped out of a lawsuit against the district.” She then repeated allegations from the plaintiff as reported by a cheap shot one-sided Oregonian article that slimed our very capable special education group, the superintendent, and the entire board. The truth is that this “word” did not recently “slip out.” The lawsuit has been in the public eye for months. That Ms. Gordanier didn’t know about it until recently means that she didn’t do her homework.

Sadly, I cannot comment further on this matter until it is resolved. But I’m very much looking forward to commenting on it when it is resolved.

Mudball number four is Ms. Gordanier’s crucifixion of the district for conducting prudent business as it normally does (as do many other local governments and special districts in Oregon), and implying that the board, or the superintendent did something crooked when tax notices that included the new bond went out.

The bond was sold as costing $1.25/$1000 assessed valuation and that, or less, will be the cost of the bond. The school district erred in not questioning the time-honored collection policy of the first payment. And we learned that just because things have always been done a certain way doesn’t mean that we should always do them that way.

Dr. Lyon took full responsibility for the decision, even though any board member, or citizen for that matter, could have said beforehand, “Hey, what about that extra amount you guys always collect on the first go-round?” Who had a clue? But that’s no excuse.

We all took a hit to the monthly budget, but Superintendent Jeremy Lyon stepped up to the plate with a public apology printed in the November 2nd Argus, and he didn’t point the finger of blame at anyone but himself. That’s an honorable man doing an honorable thing.

And please don’t be confused. It’s a lesson learned for the school district, Jeremy took the responsibility, but he doesn’t grovel and neither do I. It’s over and that’s that.

I really don’t have much to say about Ms. Gordanier including in her ghastly propaganda piece an appeal for the Hillsboro Schools Foundation’s Answer the Call fund raiser, except to imagine that HSF Executive Director Aron Carlson is tearing her hair out that HSF would be mentioned in a calculated propaganda smear of the Hillsboro School District. How can that help the kids who are working hard to help HSF?

I’m sorely disappointed in Susan Gordanier, an editor of the Argus, who, as a member of our community, ought to subscribe to Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce President Deanna Palm’s now famous words that are included in the district’s strategic plan: “We will re-ignite the community’s passion and commitment for our schools in order to build a world-class school system.”

Why did Ms. Gordanier go out of her way, abusing her access to newspaper column inches, to undermine the school district, and its administration and board, with her irresponsible propaganda?

Does “the city” want the Thomas Middle School building so badly that they and their mouthpieces are willing to chip away at a significant chunk of the glue that holds this community together - an exemplary school district that can attract businesses and business leaders who want the best possible public education for their kids?

If someone wants to be critical of the school district, by all means voice an opinion. But please don’t dress a political agenda (the acquisition of the Thomas Middle School building) in a faux critique, as did Ms. Gordanier.

If I can see through it, I’m sure many others can too.

Politics: Where Do You Draw the Line?

Board Buzz, the NSBA (National School Board Association) blog, is asking questions about the legitimacy of political contributions linked to school personnel and Matthew K. Tabor has asked a relevant question to which I replied on his blog. Inasmuch as I'm committed to the study of boardsmanship that improves student achievement; leadership; and the general welfare of school districts, I decided to cross-post that reply here.

The question:

Can a superintendent contribute to a board member's campaign?

My response:

Possibly. All the arguments about individuals participating freely in a democracy -- on their own time and off-site -- apply to the supe as well as anyone else. But there are big downsides.

I'd like to rephrase the question and look at it from a different angle. Should a superintendent contribute to a board member's campaign? Emphasis on "should."

Let's consider the case of John Jones, superintendent of Onagonka Schools in northern Minnesota, who is thinking about making a contribution to a board candidate's campaign (fictional character, fictional district).

From a board members perspective (I'm in my second four-year term), John's exercise of whatever rights he has in this domain would signal me that he isn't thinking strategically, and therefore, might actually be the wrong person for the job of superintendent. After all, supe's have to be smart and savvy. It's a tough job, and anyone who can't figure the angles in this case doesn't inspire my confidence.

Here's why…

First, good superintendent-board relationships lead to high accomplishment in any district. Ingredients include honesty, transparency, and impartiality. "Integrity" on the part of all involved would be a good word to cover the bases.

Second, that relationship is fragile and not easily maintained. It's hard enough to strive for perfection, but unforgivable to purposefully detour into stupidity.

From a political point of view (and I really hate that part), what if John's candidate loses? Has the supe put himself out on a limb? Has he fulfilled his duty to maintain the impartiality of his relationship with the board? John has to work hard on mending fences with the new board member, and could easily have avoided this situation by staying out of it.

If John's candidate wins, not only will the board's perception of John change, but they will be looking askance at the new board member as well! "What's going on here?" they'll be thinking. Is John trying to "pack the court?"

Speaking of courts, the "court of public opinion" made up of "the taxpayers" will be another body looking with suspicion upon this turn of events.

Finally, since the board is the body that hires and fires the likes of John, and determines his remuneration, he might be seen by the court of public opinion, and possibly the state ethics commission, as trying to influence the conditions of his employment.

Any smart supe would shy away from contributing to a board member's campaign. Any experienced board member would nod in agreement.

Cross-posted (in adapted form) on Matthew K. Tabor's blog and Board Buzz, the blog of the National School Board Association.

Blogger Stalkers?

Let me say first that although this blog appears anonymous, it is not. Scattered throughout it are many clues to the identity of Repairman. Outing me would not take a work of genius, nor would I mind, although the time could be better used, I'm sure.

My blogging goals are focused on the improvement of public education, and any criticisms I have made have been in the spirit of helping another pilgrim avoid a screw up under my scrutiny. I have never tried to strengthen an argument by reducing other people (ad hominem). Generally, folks who make jackasses out of themselves don't need my help to accomplish the task.

A short while ago, one of my posts drew a boorish comment from a local person who is apparently angry about the perceived inequities between boys baseball and girls softball in our district. Following good advice from a more experience blogger, I ignored the comment, although I did save a copy.

I then reflected on the purpose of the blog, which includes highlighting various education issues and engaging in discussions about them. I decided I did not want to be a lighting rod or a forum for local issues, and I would concentrate on discussing examples of positive leadership, so I removed the posts that referenced those local issues and two others that referenced leadership flubs elsewhere.

Since that time, I have been mindful of two things:

First, the local person (actually persons, because there's more than one local IP Address showing on sitemeter) persisted in looking only at, then looking for (after removal) my posts on the local issue, "Tossing the Baby," and "Tossing the Baby 2." And today, in one of several exploratory sessions, he/she/they spent 28 minutes and 57 seconds on my site, finally exiting to the Google page that caches my entire blog. This person(s) has/have been at this since "Tossing the Baby" first appeared on RepairKit.

Second, I will continue to speak about all issues that are important to me whether they be local, regional, national, or world-wide. I will continue the practice of making only those observations that I would be willing to make in person, but I don't guarantee smiles.

My local readers, if they want to talk more, can find me in the phone book. (The district won't give out my phone number.) I'm listed and have been for 44 years.

I have reprised the deleted posts, with the most recent directly below this one. In "Tossing the Baby" I have also included, as forensic history only, the negative comment that plainly indicates that the writer, in his or her anger, chose to ignore most of what I said in the post. (I publish disagreements, not ad hominem rants. Also, I no longer accept anonymous comments. If anyone has something worth saying, they can register with Blogger or one of the other blogging services. It's all free.)

For those of you in the edusphere who have yet to add sitemeter or some similar tracking device to your blog, I recommend that you do not wait. I have a complete record of my local visitors' comings and goings and what they were curious about. They only live two miles away.

You'd think they could pick up the phone.

Tossing the Baby 2

Originally published August 23, 2007

The other day the supe and I were talking about school (what else?) and I asked how the Title IX situation was shaping up.

We had left our board executive session late last month with the understanding that we were going to do everything in our power to not merely spend federal money equitably (which we already do), but we would somehow, by problem-solving and working with sports booster organizations, ensure that differences in booster organization funding doesn't cause inequities. That's a pretty tall order, but we think we can get the job done.

We don't want to alienate patrons who contribute lots of time, work, and money by telling them that some of the fruits of their generosity will fund someone else's kid in another sport. We need and encourage their generosity. And despite the fact that I mentioned reverting to 100% club sports in Tossing the Baby, we don't want to do that either.

The board and the supe also left the board executive session with an admonishment from the attorney who studied the district's sports program that we should not share all the information in the full compliance report. The supe and I were both a little surprised at that, because the public executive summary really didn't leave any facts out, just a lot of verbiage that covered details that support the executive summary. Again, nothing substantive was left out of the publicly distributed executive summary.

When a lawyer warns you, you'd best listen. The state school board association lawyer, whom we had retained to do the compliance report, acted in good faith, which was to fact-find, support and protect her client (the school district, and the board). However, zipper-lip on the part of the district can really upset people. Loose-lip can do even more damage, for example, in personnel cases.

But the supe and I agreed that withholding the full report, especially since it contained nothing new, was not congruent with the reputation for transparency that we have been building for the last three years.

Long story short, the district's own attorney (different attorney) reviewed the report, and much to our relief, agreed with us. The major metropolitan newspaper's education reporter has gotten her wish - we sent her a copy of the full compliance report today.

Now all we need is for the parents who threatened lawsuits to hunker down with the district and get to work making things the best they can be in "our town." Neither party needs to waste money on a "second opinion" compliance report. Our end goals, great sports experience for students, are the same.

The supe is enthusiastic about working with all parent sports groups, meeting the challenges, and finding equitable resolutions. Like I said to begin with, athletics is important for everyone.

Posted by Repairman
Labels: athletics, Boardsmanship, leadership

2 comments:
Eric said...
Boy, I sure hope this works and doesn't somehow backfire!
August 4, 2007 4:32 AM Repairman said...
Drpezz: :D
August 4, 2007 4:33 PM

Tossing the Baby

Originally published July 28, 2007

When making changes, it's always desirable to keep good stuff and jettison bad stuff that will be replaced by other good stuff. When you toss good stuff along with bad stuff, either accidentally or on purpose, you are "throwing the baby out with the bath water." Not a pleasant picture, is it?

The primary business of public schooling is academics, but athletics is important too. Every student, regardless of sex, race, religion, or ability should have access to athletics at some level, and access should equitable according to law. The most obvious, and sometimes most contentious athletics inequities occur in major sanctioned sports like baseball and softball.

State athletic associations sanction sports, and those sports that are at the top of the list get first crack at the funds schools have to disburse for athletics, federal and local. Unsanctioned sports are either nominally supported by districts or exist as club sports with only a secondary claim on district facilities, and possibly no funding at all from the school district.

Recently, some of our patrons - parents of high school girls' softball team members - have threatened a lawsuit against the district under Title IX, a series of federal laws that, among other things, demand equal treatment for both sexes with regard to athletic opportunity, and therefore, funding.

Why would they want to sue? They resent that boys' baseball supporters have fundraised and contributed labor to building what they consider better facilities for boys' baseball than the district has provided for girls' softball. Ironically, girls' softball boosters have provided very little in the way of augmentation of district funding for their sport.

The district, which has equally funded each sport, wisely undertook an outside audit for Title IX compliance. Guess what? We're in compliance, but the lawyer who wrote the report (she works for the state school board association) recommended that the district get a handle on private contributions that are the root of perceived inequities.

So, should we tell boosters that their money is going into a general fund to be distributed equally amongst all sanctioned sports? (Guaranteed to dry up the flow of funds.) Or should we forbid private contributions, use only scarce district funds for sports, and tell patrons if they don't like it, come back as a club sport? (There goes the baby!).

Our supe is a state scholastic athletic commission member, loves sports, and does a fantastic job overall. He is confident that what we have is an opportunity to examine and redefine the importance of sports in our district and provide other districts with a model to follow so that they may avoid Title IX lawsuits by treating participants equitably despite differences in patron donations.

But I wonder if we can avoid tossing the baby. I am very disappointed with parents who'd rather complain and sue instead of follow the example of more prolific fund raising parent groups. I'll let you know what I learn from all this right here on the RepairKit channel. :-)

Oh, I forgot to mention that the disgruntled parents, according to today's major metro paper, don't believe the compliance report, an executive summary of which was distributed at our board meeting early this week. That lawyer would have crucified us if we were violating federal law. It's what lawyers do. Any bets on the outcome?

Posted by Repairman
Labels: athletics, Boardsmanship

Here's the Anonymous comment I chose not to publish first time around:

I understand Repairman wants to throw out the federal law that says all kids are created equal. He wants to replace it with one that says some kids are more equal than others and that is really not a pretty picture.

If this “lifelong teacher” goes to Google Earth he can gather information as he looks at satellite shots of the school district. In each picture he can zoom down to where he can count the features on each sport field for each sex. Girls lose and the evidence will suggest some kids in the district are really less equal and now a lifelong teacher wants to punish them further. Repairman wants us to wink and look the other way as he blames parents of kids now playing sports for 35 years of district blindness.He says the girls are going to pay because the boys have better booster clubs and have had since these girls weren’t even born.

The school district spends the money they receive from the federal government. The money is sent to districts that agree to treat boys and girls equally and now Repairmen wants to rescind the law that says equal treatment is fair. He wants to scrap Title IX and ignore the effects of discrimination, blaming the girls for not having built booster clubs years ago when this huge difference started.

He also credits the superintendent, a state scholastic athletic commission member, with wanting to define ways to avoid Title IX lawsuits.

May I suggest the district invite a real outside expert to assess the equity of sports and the rest of the areas covered by Title IX of the Amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

May I suggest RMC Research Corporation can handle the job along the lines of the one they did for California Postsecondary Education Commission and California Department of Education a couple of years ago.

May I suggest the superintendent give away copies of the full report so I can read more than the Executive Summary? It seems silly to have to go to court to get public documents written by the district’s own Risk Management Pool’s young lawyer but I just don’t believe Title IX is as simple as the Executive Summary pretends it is.

I have read the law on the Internet at the Office for Civil Rights website and so can you. Let’s stop pretending something is wrong with parents who want the best for their kids and stop using phony measures that distort the meaning of words like, “equal.”

The problems of the district are there. Anyone can see them and the best way to avoid lawsuits is to stop discrimination paid for with my tax dollars. Or let the boys and girls programs trade between existing facilities and budgets every other year and let the parents and students decide if they are equal or not.

Anonymous Sportsfan

3 comments:

The Science Goddess said...
No bets on how this will turn out. It is unfortunate that some parents want someone else to fix problems...instead of taking the initiative themselves. Might the softball team have benefitted more if those same parents had used time and energy to fundraise or solicit private contributions...rather than parents using time and energy to whine?

Life doesn't have to be fair---just equitable. Your district has done its part.

It might still be tossing out the baby, but what if the district set a ceiling on private contributions. And after a set amount, any overage would go into a general fund that would be shared among all athletic groups?
July 29, 2007 6:44 PM

DrPezz said...
Our school's journalism program recently started a booster club completely run by the journalism parents. I know other clubs (Debate, Knowledge Bowl, and others) are taking notice. Just like in academics, the parental support can greatly raise the level (of the playing field?) of the students' achievements.

By the way, thanks for the well-wishing on my admittedly novice-level blogging. I hope to improve.
July 29, 2007 7:17 PM

Repairman said...
Very reasonable suggestion, SG. I'll toss that into the discussion mix at our next work session.

Like SG told me, DrPezz, it's whatever you want it to be. ;-)

With the feds involved, well-meaning parents who want to do right by the kids wind up getting the district in trouble. What is wrong with that picture???
July 29, 2007 9:03 PM

How About Zero Tolerance for Stupid Administrators? The Sequel

Originally published July 20, 2007

Ten days after my first post on the scandalous disciplinary treatment of a sixth grader in the Katy School District (Texas) vs. Shelby Sendelbach graffiti case, we finally have some good news. About Shelby's fate, anyway (she's not expelled for four months or going to alternative school). As for the Katy School District superintendent, well, the news is not so hot. These quotes from different stories in the Houston Chronicle came after the public outcry.
During Frailey's first week on the job, he was thrust into a position that required him to study state law to determine if the district could allow leeway in the decision. [Italics mine](Link)

"They pledged that in the next session they [the Texas legislature] will work to get this clarified," Katy Superintendent Alton Frailey said. "We hope to have some clarification and maybe some options in some areas." (Link)
Frailey is the Katy SD superintendent hired by the board to run the district and handle difficult matters appropriately, not make excuses. Newbie or not, he should not have made a decision like this without having researched the law(s) thoroughly, with the help of his school attorney. Disciplinary sanctions for Shelby should have been applied with a sense of advocacy for school kids and some "common sense."

If I were on his board and read the above quotes that were generated after the fact, I'd be sooo disappointed. In fact, I'd be bracing for a lawsuit.

Posted by Repairman 0 comments
Labels: Boardsmanship, leadership, Protecting Kids

How About Zero Tolerance for Stupid Administrators?

Originally published July 10th , 2007

This article in the Houston Chronicle [link expired] on Saturday really frosted my pumpkin. A sixth grade (!) girl wrote, "I love Alex" with a baby blue Sharpie on an already graffiti-laden wall in a gym. Dear God.

The Katy Independent School District unleashed the hounds of hell on the poor kid.

From the article...

The graffiti offense is a Level 4 infraction in the district's discipline plan, along with making terroristic threats, possessing dangerous drugs, and assaulting with bodily injury. Only a Level 5 — for murder, possessing firearms, committing aggravated or sexual assault, arson or other felonies — is more severe.Alex, the love object, must be one mean bad guy to inspire that kind of overreaction, don'tcha think? Could he be a wanted gangster or a terrorist?

I'm all for protecting the homeland, sans violating the constitutional rights of citizens, but I'm adamant about protecting school children from the whims of doltish administrators (and teachers).

This piece of the article says it all...

"Stanford [district spokesperson], who said he could not discuss the specifics of the case because of privacy laws, defended the punishment, saying the district had no choice.

But Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, disagreed. Eissler co-authored House Bill 603 in 2005, which gives administrators more latitude to consider disciplinary history, intent, whether a student has a disability that would impair judgment or acted in self-defense in deciding punishment.

"They have all the leeway they want," he said. "They didn't have to hammer this young lady the way they did. That's why I wrote HB 603 — to give school districts authority to back off the black-and-white justice."

Stanford said he is confident the district is following the law."How does Stanford think the district is following the law when a lawmaker is setting him straight?

In another life, I'd have been a lawyer who specializes in education justice for children.

UPDATE Friday, July 13, 2007

Find out who Alex is and watch the Katy Independent School District backup after setting off a firestorm of criticism for its crude handling of student discipline.

The superintendent meets with the board in closed session (generally permissible in student discipline cases) July 18. Let's hope Shelby gets a little in-school suspension, no big gaps in achievement opportunity, and retained eligibility for sports and clubs.

And let's really hope that the superintendent follows through with the analysis of student disciplinary policy.

Lifelong Learner 2.0

David Warlick, who writes the blog 2 Cents Worth, provides some stimulating follow up to the concerns I voiced yesterday about raising awareness in school districts about what he calls "learning literacy." These are perennial questions, but no less relevant in the world of Web 2.0, the interconnectivity of people as opposed to the exchange of electrons between digital machines.

If you haven't scoped it out today, now would be a good time to beam over to 2 Cents Worth and then help me answer the next logical question: how do we get the school district patrons on board?

Does Everyone Know This Stuff?

I'm not easily aroused to a state of anxiety, but I can see a cloud looming on the metaphoric horizon.

Our district Information Services (IT in the rest of the world) executive director and I had lunch a couple of days ago and discussed everything from simplifying (and making more meaningful) monthly departmental reports to the board, to blogs and wikis for school execs, teachers, and students. I was looking for an idea of where we are going with educational technology, and as always, my focus is on instruction. In this case, instructional technology.

We had a very satisfying and fruitful conversation. But now I cannot wait to call him (and the supe) in the morning and ask some questions I hadn't thought to ask.

The IS guy, a former teacher and very early adopter and innovator, is up to speed, I'm sure (he attended NECC), and we talked about board reports that dealt with concepts rather than out-of-context departmental activities, and all the things that lie ahead for the district and the kids. But since this afternoon's edublog net surf ending with 2 Cents Worth, I realize that the board has no clue about what's ahead in terms of the uses of 2.0 ed tech, and if we don't get up to speed ourselves, we will fail our kids.

We board members all have laptops, a few PDAs, and cell phones all around, but I guess that's Modern Life 1.0. Maybe 0.5. Wish us luck.

Here's the video on YouTube that got me fired up. It's called Did You Know 2.0 . Thanks for the heads-up, David!

Reflecting on Future History

Today we’re parading, picnicking, partying, boating, fishing, setting off fireworks, playing with our kids and grand kids, and remembering our most American of holidays, “The Fourth.”

For some cool historical perspective on the potential of a democratic republic, check out a lengthy quote from the 100 Farmers blog for today. Ben Franklin is my favorite among favorite Founding Fathers.

I’m on a break between the delightful morning parade/party in my sister’s Main Street front yard and the afternoon barbecue at my house (heavy-duty fireworks are illegal in my state, although the neighbors seem to be unaware of the fact). I could comment on all the cool stuff going on at the party – it was kids; candy thrown by paraders; high school reunion time; a great buffet breakfast outdoors; the mayor, a short guy, riding in the lift basket of the extension arm of the largest engine in our local fire department waaay above the crowd (analyze that, Dr. Freud); sweat, and chugging water from frosty bottles (too early for beer).

But the history I’m also thinking about just now is about how we will look at history in our community tomorrow. The history we make today (actually, late last month).

We’re building four new elementary schools and a replacement middle school in our district. Part of that exciting effort is naming the schools. The board of ed has the final say. We commissioned a community-based committee to come up with suggestions.

Usually, school names memorialize people, indicate geographic places, or suggest an intangible, perhaps a concept. The people names are usually drawn from history, places are sort of obvious, and concepts are tricky.

The suggested school names we received from our committee were very heavy on people, light on history and place, and bereft of concepts.

Our seven-person board, with some help from our Community Relations Director, developed an exercise to help us get consensus quickly. We named four elementary schools, but held off on the middle school, which will be a landmark building in the community and the state.

We did not name a single school for a person. Surprisingly (because we can't talk about issues to be voted on prior to public meetings), the entire board had an aversion to naming schools after people.

Some board members were anxious because, although we had plenty of suggestions for the names of people from the community via the committee, and some of them had died as recently as 2007 (!), none of us had ever heard of these people and those board members didn’t feel remotely qualified to judge based on “evidence” submitted and heavy lobbying at board meetings.

A well-built school endures for a long time. Recently dead people can lose their reputations in a heart-beat. “Time will tell” applies to this decision challenge.

My own feeling is, and this is where my thought for today began, that if named for a person, that person should have been in the ground for 100 plus years, and their reputations should have endured graduate-level historical research. In addition to that, I don’t feel that we’re actually naming the school for the individual, but what that person represents to the community in terms of commonly held values or ideas.

My Dad was the finest man and teacher I ever knew. I studied Latin II with him as a sophomore in high school in addition to having him as a mentor for forty-two years. He’s been gone for twenty years now and I still miss him. I’d love to see his name on a school, but outside the educational community and the students whose lives he influenced, he’s not well-known. So there’s no common cultural evocation of the integrity, compassion, professionalism, and kindness that were my Dad's most endearing traits. I'm not upset that we won't be naming a school after my Dad, and so far, I haven't heard any complaints from the folks who advocated for other persons' names.

It was easy for me to restrict my choices to a menu of geographic place names, historical place or people names, and concept names. Those potential school names have to have significant meaning to every child that steps in the door, and that means, well, shared cultural meaning.

Where's the Flak?

If you read my recent posts about what a superintendent is worth to a school district, you may have gotten the impression that I was over preparing for a big ration of criticism both at our monthly board meeting and in the press. Well, I was.

Aside from two nasty letters the week before our meeting from people whom I consider uninformed, there hasn’t been a peep about our raising his salary significantly. The usual anti-tax whackos are silent and nobody at all showed up at the board meeting to contest our decision last Tuesday night.

When I got back from the river canyon yesterday and got my mind running again, I asked my wife for copies of the local papers I had missed. They were handy right there in the recycling bin. The big urban paper’s Metro section (Thursday) regularly features our county, and there was a nicely written article by the reporter who attended out meeting. I had given her a copy of the statement I read during the discussion on the motion to offer the supe a new contract, and explained that I was taking off for nirvana and wouldn’t be available for a quote should she consider me worthy.

Apparently I saved the urban reporter a bunch of time, because she managed to work in one unattributed statement and two attributed statements from a shorter version of What’s a Superintendent Worth 2. The local paper, much smaller, came out a day later. Fortunately, that reporter, who had to go to a wedding Tuesday evening (small town, right) and got my text emailed from the board secretary wisely decided not to use it because it was the basis of the larger paper’s article. The local reporter quoted three other board members who all agreed that the supe was worth it. (It was a unanimous vote, 7-0)

It’s almost a week later and there’s still no blowback. I’ll soon relax my guard and go back to the normal transparent and collaborative board activities I’ve become accustomed to, but hey, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not really out to get ya. ;)

What's a Superintendent Worth? 2

I began last month's board work session on superintendent contract deliberation by saying that just because we are the fourth largest district in the state does not mean we have to be in fourth place with regard to salary and benefits. The requirements of the job locally are no different than in the state's largest districts. These jobs require a very special person and are exceptionally demanding of time, energy, and spirit.

I also said that I wanted to make it as difficult as possible for the superintendent to leave us if he got an attractive job offer elsewhere, which I know is inevitable. To those who worry about public perception of salary raises, let me say that I'm far more concerned about what knowledgeable patrons would think if we let our supe get away. That he has said he wants to stay here is reassuring, but not to be taken for granted.

It would be unpardonable false economy on the board's part to skimp on the superintendent's salary because, dollar for dollar, that is the most powerful expenditure we can make in terms of positive results for our school children, and the least expensive in terms of the return on investment. That money would not be sufficient make any difference at all in class size or any other quality of the school child's experience. It is well-spent to attract and retain a leader other districts covet.

The school superintendent position presents one of the great leadership challenges in our country today and partially explains why there is a nation-wide shortage of superintendent candidates, and an even more acute shortage of highly desirable candidates. The organizational and public demands of the position require an individual with exemplary communication and collaboration skills, combined with bed-rock honesty, a firm belief in transparency, unshakable integrity, and the ability to learn quickly from mistakes and make corrections, which is a sign a still another elusive trait, humility. (Walking on water is also nice, but optional.)

The quality of leadership provided by a school superintendent affects everything from the morale of teachers and staff to opportunities for partnerships and grants with businesses and public agencies. The superintendent's leadership influences perceptions of community members and families regarding their belief in the school district, and most importantly, superintendent leadership influences student achievement outcomes.

A recent research study (Waters and Marzano, 2007) on school superintendents featured three major findings:

1. There is a statistically significant relationship between district leadership and student achievement. (The teachers are much affected by district leadership, and thereby, so are the students.)

2. Effective superintendents focus their efforts on creating goal-oriented districts. (In our district, this is the basis of the 2006-2011 District Strategic Plan and the Alignment and Accountability model that drives our classroom instruction.)

3. Superintendent tenure is positively correlated with student achievement. (This finding tells us that we must not just hire, but train and hold on to superintendents who produce good results for the community. Positive change occurs over time.)

I feel strongly that we have, in our superintendent, not merely the best of the candidates we had in 2004, but that rare professional who could step into any school district in the country and lead that district to an on-going legacy of excellence in public education.

I will vote tomorrow to offer this contract to our superintendent.

What's a Superintendent Worth?

Over the next couple of days I'm going to think out loud about the importance of excellent school district leadership at the top. Why? This coming Tuesday, one of the items on our regular board meeting agenda is to vote on our superintendent's evaluation, and another, on his new contract in which we are proposing to give him a significant bump in both salary and benefits commensurate with the three larger school districts in our state. We'll still be fourth salary-wise, but only because the supe himself applied the brakes in a board authorized contract negotiation meeting with our board chair.

About a month ago, an article in the major metro newspaper reported on our last public work session and accurately depicted our initial deliberations on these subjects. I knew the lunatic fringe would be yamming big-time. Today, in our local paper's letters to the editor section, the looney's found their voice. The next edition of the local paper comes out the same day as our board meeting on June 19, so there is no time for disagreement in print.

Even though I'm not the sharpest political tool in the shed (I frankly don't pay attention to political details -- "just do the right thing" is my mantra), I knew from the get-go that I'd best be prepared to explain my vote during discussion after the motion to approve the supe's contract.

Here's what I'm thinking so far...

The most important thing a school board can do for its community is hire a good superintendent. Then, if the board strikes it rich, the next most important thing is to keep the superintendent! (That's something that negative armchair quarterbacking local newspaper letter writers don't or don't want to understand.)

When the Board of Directors, duly elected by the people, hired our superintendent, we hit the mother lode. He is gold, with national potential, and he hasn't lost his luster after three school years. We're out of the honeymoon phase, but we're still very fond of him. His annual evaluations have been superlative. That he publicly stated he wants to stay in the district should be a cause to rejoice for taxpayers who understand and care about the education of the community's children. (And if you didn't vote for me in 2003 or 2007, tough. Organize a recall.)

I knew we were on to something important for our schools when, in 2004, I was serving as the "phone guy," investigating the soon-to-be supe's references. He had plenty, but I had plenty of time. I called everyone on his list, and then I began to seek out people that were not on the list. Before I called it a ballgame, I had talked to custodians, secretaries, and a professional union representative from his former district. I figured that someone would give me some dirt.

But the results of all the hours spent on the phone and over 40 phone calls was this: not only did no one have anything bad to say about our candidate, but at least one of three words -- two adjectives and one noun -- popped up in every conversation. Sometimes all three words! Those words are: honest; collaborative; and integrity. Realizing that no conspiracy to deceive me could be that extensive, I concluded that these people were telling me the truth. When asked point blank about things they were unhappy about with regard to him, all they could say was, "I wish he wasn't leaving."

Next, I'll deal with why leadership is "thee" crux issue in school improvement.