Vote for those whose allegiance is to the people

By Laurie H. Rogers


Thank you to all community members who worked so hard this campaign season to inform the public about local political races. You helped fill a huge gap in your community, and your efforts are deeply appreciated by citizens who care about the truth.

A fundamental difference between political candidates is found in their language. Candidates’ use of pronouns tells voters nearly everything we need to know about their alliances, allegiances, priorities, and likely future decision-making. When they use the pronoun “we,” are they referring to “We, the Establishment” – or to “We, the People”? When they talk about “our" money, are they referring to government budgets – or to private dollars? When they want things for “us,” is it for the government bureaucracy – or is it for us, the citizens?

In the case of the Spokane school board race, the language of candidate Deana Brower warns of a tight bond between her and the district/union leadership. Her use of the words “we,” “our” and “us” continually evokes “We" the district, we the union, we the establishment, we the power-brokers, we the ones who know what’s best. It’s rare that Brower publicly questions anything the district does. Meanwhile, our children and teachers are being suffocated by district decisions and by an administrative elitism that shunts aside the public’s questions, concerns and needs.

When board candidate Sally Fullmer uses pronouns, however, she evokes “We," the parents, teachers, children, taxpayers, voters and community members. She naturally speaks of “Our" taxpayer dollars, our children, and our community. Through her, we hear that the government works for the people, that the system should be accountable to the people, and that absolute government transparency is necessary to a free country. My questions for voters are these:

• Do we like how things are being done now in our public school system?
• Do we think our children are being properly educated in our public system?
• Do we think public-school teachers have sufficient freedom to do what they need to do in their classrooms?
• With a public-school budget in Spokane that has exploded by $210 million (for operating expenses, capital projects and debt service) since 2002, and an administration that keeps telling us the budget has been cut, do we think our tax dollars are being spent wisely?

If your answers to these questions are “yes,” then you might vote for an establishment choice. But if you’re frustrated that more than half of the children are failing basic math tests, that most high school graduates are testing into remedial math in college, that almost half fail or withdraw from those remedial classes, that many of our middle and high-school students drop out of school -- without even the skills they need to fill out a job application – if you’re a teacher who is tired of being micromanaged and then blamed by the district – if you’re tired of your tax dollars going to fund administrative raises rather than instructional staff – you probably will vote for change.

In Spokane, if voters want the school district to be accountable and transparent to its publics, I think we must vote for Sally Fullmer as the next school board director. Spokane citizens are beginning to sense how little real administrative accountability or transparency there currently is in Spokane Public Schools.

On Sept. 28, I filed a formal complaint with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission regarding activities by Spokane Public Schools with respect to a) school board candidate Deana Brower and b) the 2009 bond and levy “campaign.” Curious to know how Brower and Fullmer would handle such a situation if they were elected to the board, I asked them about it at the Oct. 25 Northeast Community Center candidate forum. Their answers were illuminating.

Question: Project into the future. You’ve been elected as a board director, and you’re facing a situation similar to the one that we’re facing in Spokane today. The school district has violated state law by distributing campaign information for a candidate for public office, invited that candidate to attend district meetings to which no other candidate was invited, and used district resources to promote a ballot proposition. How would you hold the district accountable for violations of state law?

Deana Brower said: "I realize you’re speaking of a very specific situation that has been asked at previous forums. Some of your question addresses, that you’ve suggested (sic) is in violation of policy. In fact, it’s not. Some of it is before the PDC. Your complaint has been registered, and the PDC has not responded that, in fact, any wrongdoing has taken place. It’s being investigated.

"Flash forward. I’m on the school board. I believe that our educators, because our union, Spokane Public Schools is the second largest employer in the city of Washington – excuse me – in the City of Spokane. Our union are our employees, those are our teachers, our support staff, our custodians, our cafeteria workers. They are our employees. They have protected time in their day to conduct union business. It’s within their rights, in their contract. And so some of what you allege is wrongdoing took place during that time. And so, as a school board member, I certainly will honor and respect the negotiated contracts – the contract that’s negotiated between our administration and our employees – I find that, I will respect that fully.

"In terms of wrongdoing, should there be wrongdoing found, those individuals should be held accountable, absolutely. There should be a review of what happened and clarification of policies moving forward so that there is, we don’t, policies are not being violated. I don’t think anyone should be exempt from taking responsibility for their actions. I fully support having those be, (transparent?), being held accountable for their behaviors."

Sally Fullmer said: "In the newspaper on Saturday (Oct. 22), there was an article that says the union broke the law with the KIDS Newspaper ad. ... What happened was, there was an ad written for three candidates, including Deana Brower, that was sent home in every elementary child’s backpack in a magazine called KIDS. If I was on the board, first of all, I would stop the practice of sending this magazine home to kids altogether because it’s just full of ads, and I’m not sure that we should be sending any ads home with our kids.

"And then the district claimed that they hadn’t done any oversight of what goes home in that magazine in the past, and they’re committed to have oversight from now on. And that’s important, but they should have had that oversight before now. They shouldn’t be sending anything home in the kids’ backpacks that they don’t know what it is, or what the content of that is. So it’s very important that – we’re asking our kids to be honest and transparent and open – that the district holds to that standard, too. So I would call definitely for an investigation, and the people that have broken the law have got to be held accountable.

"I also would want to stop the practice of – and I understand that this is negotiated by our district with the unions– for them (the unions) to be coming in during school hours and bringing candidates in. I don’t think that needs to be taking place during the school day."

Also at the Oct. 25 forum, Fullmer and Brower discussed academics in Spokane Public Schools, specifically mathematics outcomes. This is what they said:

Sally Fullmer said: “One of the areas that I think we really need to make a difference in is math. I mentioned the scores before. I’ve been talking to business owners who say it’s hard to find employees that can do just some of the basic math skills they need or write in complete sentences. I’ve talked to business professors, college professors who say kids coming into the colleges lack the skills they need to do college-level work.

"And so, we need to make sure that the $12,000 per student we’re spending in the schools is being used to give them the basic tools they need to be successful. We need to teach them how to do math, not just how to use a calculator. We need to make sure they can write in complete sentences. They shouldn’t be just socially promoted through the system, because it does you no good to graduate if you don’t have the skills to move forward in life. So, I think those are things that need to be made a priority for the school board."

Deana Brower said: "In response to the math comment, we do have tremendous work ahead of us, and I’m very proud of the work that is being done. Just recently, this week, there’s been an announcement that Bemiss Elementary School received an academic achievement award for this last, most recent school year. Garfield Elementary, Logan (Elementary) and Whitman (Elementary), all received academic achievement awards for the previous year for math and/or English, some combination thereof. We have fabulous strides being made. Rogers High School, under the direction of (the principal) – they’re doing – with their school improvement grant – they’re making tremendous strides in improvements for the quality of work that the students are being expected to do and that they are producing.

"And so, we know, we do have our analyses, our test scores. The number that keeps coming up about the 10th-grade math scores – our district was right in line – within a half a percentage point of what was happening statewide. So, to look at that as a reflection of failure on our students, our teachers, or our district, I think is a little bit out of context. I think we have to step back, take a look at the broader picture at what’s happening statewide in education, and be proactive as a district in making positive strides for improvement."


That’s how these two candidates answered to the people on matters of legality and academics. (Please do click on the links I provided for the schools Brower cited as having won awards. See how they're doing.) Which candidate appears to speak for the people? To me, Deana Brower sounds just like the superintendent - excusing failure, blaming others and asking for more money. Her use of "we" consistently refers to the district and not to the People.

Our children desperately need arithmetic and grammar, and we the people need public accountability and absolute transparency. Our elections MUST be fair, honorable, ethical, and lawful. We seriously need a change in school district leadership.

Please vote for Sally Fullmer, and please ask your friends and neighbors to do it, too. For more on Sally Fullmer, see her campaign Web site: http://www.seewhatsallysays.com/



Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (October 2011). "Vote for those whose allegiance is to the people." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com /

Newspapers neglect critical information about PDC issues

[Edited Oct. 27 to add a comment about the difference between union support for Brower and individual support for Fullmer.]


By Laurie H. Rogers

On Oct. 24, a Spokesman-Review reporter called me to talk about education. Over five years of education advocacy, this was the second phone call I've received from a SR reporter.

The first call came Oct. 13, after I submitted a Letter to the Editor about the formal complaint I filed Sept. 28 with the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC). This PDC complaint concerns Spokane Public Schools and school board candidate Deana Brower. Reporter Jody Lawrence-Turner called me to ask for a copy of the complaint.

On Monday, Lawrence-Turner called again as I was driving home with my daughter and a student I’m tutoring. Before I talked with Lawrence-Turner, I confirmed that we were having a conversation that was NOT on the record. Having confirmed that, I talked with her about various education-related topics.

This is the article that showed up in the paper today (Oct. 25): http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/oct/25/caign-limit-trend-shifts-to-smaller-races

If Lawrence-Turner wonders why I asked if our conversation was off the record, all she needs to do is look at her articles. Gee, do you think The Spokesman-Review and Lawrence-Turner want Brower to win the school board election? I offered my entire blog to Lawrence-Turner, the information in it, and the links to district emails – and this is what she wrote. It looks to me like yet another slanted article with unsupported insinuations regarding school board candidate Sally Fullmer and a local community member, and with an accompanying free pass for opponent Brower.

As a ("self-described") education advocate, I find the newspaper's public-relations pieces for Brower and the school district to be annoying and unhelpful. As a former newspaper journalist, I’m embarrassed for the state of print journalism. As an American citizen, however, I find it disturbing. Three local elections are at stake. Where our elections go, so goes a free America. This is a point I made repeatedly to Lawrence-Turner.

The SR articles lack respectable coverage of what Brower and Fullmer stand for. They lack a solid explanation of RCW 42.17.130, of how it applies to the school district, and of what it means to the people that the district appears to have violated that law in more than one way. They lack any mention of the district’s activities with respect to the 2009 bond and levy “campaign.” They fail to delve into reports to the PDC regarding union and district support for three local candidates. They fail to clearly explain possible consequences to those races because of district activities.

Before Lawrence-Turner's deadline, I gave her one quotation by email, which she declined to use: "Free and fair elections are the basis of a free America, and I'll stand up for that principle any and every day."

All that Lawrence-Turner and self-described newspaper The Spokesman-Review appear inclined to talk about with respect to board candidate Sally Fullmer are 1) Sally’s involvement with the Jefferson Elementary School move and 2) Sally's campaign donations from Duane Alton. Brower was involved in the Jefferson issue, too, seeming in district emails to stand on the same side as the school district. They decline to add to Brower's union support the vast practical and financial assistance she has received from union activities on her behalf since before the campaign began, including campaign training, a ready email network, sign waving activities, and these two $1,000 per page advertisements in the KIDS Newspaper.

The SR and Lawrence-Turner continually repeat Brower’s talking point about receiving just $800 from the union, as if that’s all there has been. Meanwhile, they insinuate without proof of any kind that Fullmer and Alton share philosophy on bonds and levies. Fullmer addressed her contributions from Alton at the Oct. 17 "Face Off at Ferris":
“I will be an independent voice, not beholden to anyone. If it weren’t for individual citizens helping me get my message out, I wouldn’t have a voice, because the traditional methods that the school uses to contract people using school emails, to contact teachers using school resources, are not available to me. I was not invited to come into the schools to meet with teachers as Deana was. Also, these people have chosen to donate to my campaign because they believe in my message, and they want to help me get it out, and have not asked for anything in return. Although I do know that they are really big on transparency, as I am, and I think the majority of people want to know where the money is going, and what’s happening with that in the school district.”[Added Oct. 27] A big difference between the union's support for Brower and Alton's support for Fullmer is that board directors won't be voting on bargaining agreements with Alton. And board directors don't have to worry about Alton using public resources to campaign for elective candidates or ballot propositions. And Alton didn't violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement by sending out campaign ads to schoolchildren -- in contravention of RCW 42.17.130.

Regardless of what happens now -- Brower and two other local candidates will benefit from the district’s acknowledged and seemingly unlawful distribution of two campaign advertisements in issues of the KIDS Newspaper. The district distributed these publications to elementary schools and to elementary school children across the city. It had them available for community members in school offices and in the downtown district office. Only after a community member and I queried the district, did the district acknowledge that its activity with respect to the KIDS Newspaper was in contravention of RCW 42.17.130. The district's acknowledgement of wrongdoing was confirmed in emails to me and that community member.

Lawrence-Turner and the SR knew about the district's distribution of KIDS, but wrote instead that the union (which is not a public agency) broke the law. They didn't write that this activity also appears to violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement (see page 9).

The Oct. 25 SR article finally mentions the PDC complaint I filed, but spent about half of its space talking about the size of contributions to Sally Fullmer. What impression of the issues do you suppose the paper and district want you to have? Imagine for a moment how Lawrence-Turner and the SR might have reported on these issues had Sally Fullmer received the SR's endorsement instead of Brower.

Gretchen McDevitt, former District 81 teacher/counselor, and her husband Jim McDevitt, wrote today about the district's distribution of the KIDS Newspaper in a joint email to colleagues: "Such campaigning is clearly in violation of State law, which the District now acknowledges. Those of us that worked in the District for years and are retired, were truly stunned that this type of activity is occurring."

I have loved newspapers since I was a girl. My undergraduate degree emphasizes print journalism, and I worked for newspapers as a reporter, editor and columnist. I’m sad to see their general decline, but they have brought it on themselves. No newspaper can cover everything, and there will always be complaints. But our print media have gotten so far away from the mission of providing unbiased information, they’re often painful to read. Any time We, the People face Power-with-No-Accountability, it seems we wind up with self-interest trumping the public interest. That isn’t a political problem; it’s the nature of people. It’s why absolute transparency and accountability are critical to maintaining the people’s interest.

The SR endorsed Deana Brower. Its education coverage typically is friendly to her and to the district. On Oct. 13, the SR and Lawrence-Turner received my Letter to the Editor regarding my PDC complaint -- nearly a week before ballots were mailed. And this is their pitiful response, published nearly a week after the ballots were mailed, and without my Letter.

The Inlander also received information on the PDC complaint Sept. 29, and my letter on Oct. 13. To the best of my knowledge, it, too, has declined to mention these issues. Below, for your general fund of knowledge, is a copy of my Oct. 13 letter.

I guess all of this is job security for me. Unfortunately, I don’t get paid to do this job, and it’s a job I’d rather weren’t necessary. I’d like to go back to the life I used to have. But somebody’s got to do it. As an education advocate in Spokane, I will continue to advocate for the children, academics, accountability, transparency, and – now – for the law.

Please stay tuned. There is more to say about the issues surrounding the PDC complaint and how this district runs itself. Meanwhile, as you fill out your ballot, please reject the way business is done in Spokane. This year, please elect people who are there for YOU, the parent, teacher, taxpayer and voter. Please elect Sally Fullmer as the next school board director. Stand up for academics, accountability, transparency, the law, our community and our children.

****


Laurie Rogers’s Oct. 13 Letter to the Editor, sent Oct. 13 to the SR and The Inlander:

Election coverage fails to mention that a Public Disclosure Commission complaint was filed Sept. 28 regarding Spokane Public Schools administrators, superintendent, board directors and school board candidate Deana Brower.

The PDC complaint concerns RCW 42.17.130, which prohibits the use of public agencies, facilities, or resources to campaign, directly or indirectly, for a candidate for elective office (such as a board candidate) or promote a ballot proposition (such as bonds and levies).

Public records from District 81 indicate that Brower was invited into schools to speak to employees about her candidacy, and that her appearances were promoted using district emails.

Public records appear to indicate that district employees used district resources to promote the 2009 bond and levy, setting a minimum number of presentations for principals, sending home pamphlets with students, asking staff to mention the initiatives before drama and concert performances, asking teachers to wave signs and hand out leaflets, asking parents to write letters to the editor, and making presentations to organizations and media throughout the city.

Public records indicate that the superintendent and administrators planned to meet with Brower, co-chair of the bond/levy advocacy group Citizens for Spokane Schools, to talk about strategy for an upcoming levy.

***


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:

Rogers, L. (October 2011). "Newspapers neglect critical information about PDC issues." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/  

District distributes campaign material to students and community

By Laurie H. Rogers


Dear Spokane Community:

I’m writing to give you information that the local newspapers have so far declined to give you.

As you vote this week, understand that we need to get arithmetic and grammar back in our schools. We taxpayers need accountability and absolute transparency for the $500 million that will be spent in Spokane Public Schools this year. We desperately need administrators who respect teachers as professionals, children as individuals, and parents as allies. We need school board directors who see themselves as accountable to the people, not as allies of the superintendent.

As you vote, take a moment to feel sympathy and sadness for the children and their teachers, all of whom are bludgeoned daily with a clunky, inefficient, ineffective system – forced on them by administrators who aren’t accountable to you. Understand that the children want to learn and the teachers want to teach, and that the main thing standing in their way is administration. Understand that instructional positions are being cut so that the district can fund administrative interests.

The union leadership, local newspaper, and various administrators and others in leadership have indicated that they want Deana Brower to be the new Spokane school board director. It comes as no surprise when you know how close are the ties, connections and personal and business interests of all of these people. But who is looking out for the children and the teachers? District administrators often say, “It’s all for the kids,” when the truth is closer to, “It’s all for us, on the backs of the kids.”

Deana Brower's positions clearly align with the positions of district administration and union leadership. Forgive me for saying it so bluntly, but the district and union leadership seem more concerned with their own interests and with stroking like-minded political and business allies, than with supporting the best interests of students or teachers. Classroom teachers soon will be assessed based on an unproved “value-added model,” when they know they don’t have the classroom freedom they need to properly add that value. How fair is that? Who is fighting for the teachers on that?

As you vote, understand that this district needs a serious and dramatic change in its leadership – across the board and top down.

The newspapers haven’t told you much about these issues. Instead, they'd have you believe that math is hard, that everything is fine, and that if it isn’t fine, the children probably have dyscalculia.

Local newspapers were given notice of the formal Public Disclosure Commission complaint I filed Sept. 28, which expresses concerns over possible school district violations of election law. Why did they choose to not tell you about this formal complaint BEFORE you received your ballot?

I filed a formal complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission regarding Spokane Public Schools and school board candidate Deana Brower. The PDC complaint concerns RCW 42.17.130, which prohibits public agencies from using public resources to campaign, directly or indirectly, for a candidate for elective office (such as a board candidate) or to promote a ballot proposition (such as bonds and levies).

Most people don’t realize that school districts are prohibited from using taxpayer dollars to campaign for elective candidates or for bonds and levies. Public records from District 81 indicate that:

• Earlier this year, district employees invited board candidate Deana Brower onto district property to talk with teachers and staff. Brower also was invited to multiple district meetings, breakfasts and gatherings to which other candidates were not invited. Some of the events took place during so-called “union-protected” time; others didn’t. Some were promoted using private emails; others were promoted using district emails.
• In September and again in October, the district also distributed to every elementary school a publication known as the KIDS Newspaper. Both issues contained union endorsements of three political candidates, including board candidate Deana Brower.
• Public records also appear to indicate that district employees used district resources to promote the 2009 bond and levy, which passed in a March 10, 2009, vote. In 2009, students were taken out of class to talk about helping to campaign for the bond and levy. District administrators sent home bond and levy materials with elementary school children, gave more than 100 presentations across the city, told principals they had to schedule at least two presentations at their school, used district emails to ask employees to wave signs and hand out leaflets, asked parents to write letters to the editor in support of the bond and levy, challenged parent groups to donate to the bond and levy campaign, and told teachers to mention the bond and levy before school district music concerts and drama performances.
• Board candidate Deana Brower (who was a co-chair of the local bond/levy advocacy group Citizens for Spokane Schools) also worked on the 2009 district bond and levy campaign. Public records indicate that Deana Brower worked with the district on the next levy campaign, making plans to meet with the superintendent and administrators to talk over strategy.

These matters are separate, yet connected, and they show a pattern of district behavior. At serious risk is a basic principle of a free America – the people’s vote.

As mentioned, in September and again in October, the district distributed the KIDS Newspaper to at least 34 elementary schools in Spokane Public Schools, as well as to several other area school districts. According to KIDS – supposedly a nonprofit venture – 30,000 copies are distributed with every issue. Spokane Public Schools distributes KIDS throughout the school year, but in September and October, the editions for Spokane each contained a full-page article written by Jenny Rose, president of the Spokane Education Association (the teachers union). Those articles cited SEA endorsements for three candidates for political campaigns, including Brower.

The district used public resources to stuff this newspaper into the children's backpacks to take home to parents and extended family members. Copies were left out in each school for parents, which is how I got copies of it, and also were provided to the public at the downtown district office, which is how a community member got a copy. The district said nothing about any of this until the community member called to ask if sending out the newspaper with the endorsements was permissible under Washington State law.

In response to this question, the district contacted the Public Disclosure Commission. District Community Relations Director Terren Roloff issued an email to the community member and to me stating that the district will prepare a statement for an upcoming issue and that, in the future, it will not send out endorsements of specific candidates.

The Oct. 22 issue of The Spokesman-Review (SR) said that the union broke the law, that everyone failed to "think about it," that everyone is sorry and that everyone promises to not do it again. There was no other voice in the article. To the best of my knowledge, the SR - which endorsed Deana Brower - still hasn't informed the public about the PDC complaint.

These responses are ... words fail me ... insufficient. Whatever the district does about its distribution of the KIDS Newspaper from this day forward, it will not be able to withdraw its implied endorsements of three candidates for public office. It's too late for a retraction or any other action that might attempt to reverse what the district has done. How does any independent candidate overcome this kind of free assistance? The three candidates NOT in those newspapers were not endorsed by the union and their viewpoints were NOT distributed by the school district.

I believe that Spokane Public Schools, in twice sending out materials that endorsed specific candidates, might have critically influenced three elective races. It’s personally offensive to me. Honorable people with our Armed Forces - including my husband - have shed blood for the Republic and for principles that are at risk here. I do not accept this pitiful response from the district.

Please stay tuned. There’s more to tell you about the people who run Spokane Public Schools, and about the elected board directors whose job it is to be accountable to taxpayers and voters. These are your 500 million tax dollars they’re spending for operating expenses, capital projects and debt servicing, and these are your children they’re supposed to be educating. Your children deserve to have a good education, we deserve to have the truth, and we must be able to participate in free and unbiased elections.

As you vote this week, please ponder these issues, and consider our desperate need for academics, accountability and transparency in this district, for adherence by all to the laws of this Republic ... and for real consequences for their failure to do any of these things.

And then, to Spokane voters: Please vote for Sally Fullmer for the District 81 school board.



Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:

Rogers, L. (October 2011). "District distributes campaign material to students and community." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

District wants data system and more money. Taxpayers want academics and accountability. Vote for Sally.

[Edited August 8]

By Laurie H. Rogers


What’s the point of a school board?

• Is the role of a board director accountability and responsiveness to the district -- or to voters?


• Should directors work to support the superintendent and staff? Or, should they work to hold the district accountable for fiscal responsibility and academic outcomes?


• If the district and the voters disagree on what should happen with taxpayer money and our children, to whom should the board listen?

Your views on this will guide you as you vote. As the only elected officials in our school district, board directors should be accountable and transparent to the people. They approve expenditures of taxpayer dollars, and they oversee the education of our children. There should be very little about their work that’s closed to public view. When the district pushes something the community doesn’t want, the board should pay attention and be inclined to support the electorate.

That’s why, on July 27, I asked Spokane board directors to allow the people to vote on whether the district should spend several million tax dollars on a proposed new data system, and on the new federal vision for public education. As directors contemplate these multi-million-dollar expenditures on (unproved) products – they're also contemplating cutting people and programs that parents actually want. So, at the July 27 board meeting, I asked the directors to put the proposed expenditures on a ballot. They were silent. They looked at each other. Then, they went on with their meeting.

Before the July 27 meeting, I gave the directors a copy of my blog article from July 16. That article shows clearly that, rather than engage in full public disclosure, the district tends to present selected slivers of pretend achievement – even as student data indicate serious declines in outcomes. On any measure of what a good district looks like – excellent academic outcomes, college and career readiness, financial and data transparency, administrative accountability – this district fails.

At the July 27 meeting, having received this article, the directors voted unanimously to renew or extend the superintendent’s contract. On what basis did they vote to do that? Astonishingly, they don’t have to say.

Here’s how administrative accountability works in District 81. The district considers the superintendent’s board evaluations to be exempt from public records requests. Staci Vesneske, head of Human Resources, assured me that there were “no discussions of specific incidents of misconduct in any of the evaluation documents” I had requested, and so therefore, the superintendent’s evaluation isn’t open to the public.

Few of the district’s rubrics for evaluating top administrators even contain academic outcomes as a criterion for evaluation. The rubric for the four administrators known as "school directors" (which aren't the same as "board directors") do contain this criterion: “…establishes an effective academic program.” Obviously, they fail in this area, yet there they are, each costing taxpayers more than $100,000 per year. I asked for copies of some past evaluations; when they arrived, they were so heavily redacted they’re actually funny. For example:

• This is what remains from a paragraph for Lorna Spear: “Lorna … She … She … her … she….”;


• From a paragraph for Jon Swett: “Jon … He … his … He…”;


• From a paragraph for Irene Gonzalez: “Irene … She … She …”;


• From an eight-line paragraph on Tammy Campbell: “Tammy. She … Her … her … She … Tammy … She … Tammy … her … her … her …”

Are you angry yet? Oh, wait. It gets worse.

We parents, business owners and taxpayers stare at expenditures of $11-12,000 per student, a budget that has NOT been cut since 2002 (despite what the superintendent keeps telling you), high dropout rates, high remedial rates, low levels of skills in math and grammar, ridiculously low levels of pass rates on basic tests, and a nearly complete lack of financial transparency or accountability. Yet, we have no way to know WHY we’re stuck with the same leadership for which we paid excessively last year.

Last week, I heard a business owner say we shouldn’t “throw Nancy Stowell under the bus.” Holding the superintendent accountable for student outcomes is NOT “throwing her under the bus.” She gets paid extremely well to run this district, and she should be held accountable for the results. Instead, the board directors gave her a raise last year, and on July 27, they renewed or extended her contract.

That’s just one reason why voters should vote for Sally Fullmer for the Spokane school board. Sally is a breath of fresh air – not beholden to the union or in sync with the district (as Deana Brower appears to be). Sally believes the board should be answerable to the voters and to parents. She is willing to be the "lone voice in the wilderness," voting against things that will not help our students academically. She intends to make special effort to inform parents and taxpayers about district policy and decision-making. (Board candidate Bob Griffing has said he is NOT intending to be that lone voice -- that once a majority of directors decide, he would support the decision and not speak out against it. But that's what we have now.)]

Our current board directors appear to have an unfortunate tendency to brush off concerns from parents as they cozy up to the superintendent. Board director Bob Douthitt has gone so far as to email administration about how to best present “our” message to the public. Current board relationships appear to be much too friendly to foster real accountability to the people. Having interviewed Deana repeatedly, and having listened to her speak in several public forums, I believe she will continue that trend. She tends to argue for and support the district’s point of view. I know she’s been endorsed by the union, the daily newspaper, and Stand for Children. Like I said, transparency and accountability are in short supply these days. Ask yourself why you don’t get this information elsewhere. Ask why Deana assures Republicans that she's a Republican -- as she is endorsed, trained, and supported by progressives who have the sole goal of electing progressives.

Sally Fullmer agrees that district transparency is a problem. But Deana Brower said during the July 26 Greater Spokane Inc. forum that she’s “very proud” of administrators for supposedly “opening the books” during talks about raising graduation rates. She said administrators engaged in “full disclosure” and “honest conversation.” She said the graduation rate has “increased up to 10%” at one of the high schools, and that “more attention” is being given to extra programs.

(I was eating a muffin at the time and nearly choked. Oh, please. Do read about the district’s actual presentation of graduation rates. We don’t need to be “proud” of full disclosure; full disclosure should be expected. And some of the extra expenditures Deana mentioned wouldn’t be necessary if the district just taught the students properly in the first place.)

Sally Fullmer questions the district’s presentation of student outcomes, whereas Deana praises the district in exactly the same way the district praises itself. Sally questions expenditures, asking if the money is going to the right place. Deana says the state isn’t “fully funding” education (not mentioning that the district now spends several thousand dollars more per student than it did a few years ago, and that the budget has increased by $60 million since 2002). Last year, the local levy paid for administrative salary increases. The public was not told that – not then and not now. Deana’s position is that inflation has been a problem and that the district needs more taxpayer money in order to be successful. But inflation doesn’t account for a $60 million increase on a $250 million budget – especially when student enrollment has dropped by thousands of students (net).

I thought about comments from Deana Brower and Bob Griffing on July 27 as the board talked about the proposed data system -- right before they continued discussing cutting instructional assistants. The district’s torturously long presentation assured the board directors that this new (untested, unfunded, unproved, unnecessary) multi-million-dollar data system – to be preceded by a preliminary expenditure of $500,000 – would somehow improve student outcomes, reduce dropout rates, and increase graduation rates. You can see the presentation: click on the PDF for the July 27, 2011, Board Book. Read it and weep.

After the district's presentation, no board director said, “Uh … where is the proof this system works? How can we possibly spend taxpayer money on this data system when we just cut remedial programs, we’ve whined to the public about possibly cutting teachers, programs, or after-school activities, and now we’re talking about cutting instructional staff?”

Dear board directors: Repeat after me: Data does not teach a child – not even snazzy data that slices and dices the students 17 ways from Sunday. Administrators will ignore this new flood of data just as they ignore the flood of student data they already have. Nancy Stowell and her administrators will do what they’re doing now, which is to imply that they’re fabulously successful and it’s just the teachers, parents, students and, well, the entire community that are flawed.

After viewing the district presentation for the data system, you can scroll down in that same July 27, 2011, Board Book to the budget presentation. See how the district also plans to set aside a few million dollars for an (untested, unfunded, unproved, unfinished) nationalized K-8 math curriculum (AKA the Common Core initiatives). The district isn’t telling you – but I know – that the federal government has indicated plans to have nationalized standards, tests, and curricula in ALL subjects. Nationalized science standards already are in the works. District expenditures for this federal plan will be massive and ongoing. The time to say no is now. But our district administrators support it. The board so far has supported it. Deana’s comments indicate that she supports it. Sally Fullmer, however, does not support it.

Do you see that the trend is to push for ever-more money for non-academic expenditures? Deana Brower says the district needs more money and that the superintendent’s salary is not excessive. Sally Fullmer says the Spokane superintendent's salary is excessive but that the larger issue is: Is she getting the job done?

We need someone who will question the district and advocate for the people. I believe that Sally Fullmer "gets it," and I believe she will hold the district accountable. Please vote for Sally and give her a chance to advocate for you.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (July 2011). "District wants data system and more money. Taxpayers want academics and accountability. Vote for Sally." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

District rejects community efforts to help Celesta - (part 3)

By Laurie H. Rogers

[Note from Laurie Rogers: This is part 3 of a series of articles on Celesta, a grade-11 student in Spokane, WA. I interviewed her for a June 4 episode of “Cut to the Chase,” a local radio show hosted by Rob Chase for the ACN Network. Part 1 of the series described Celesta as lacking multiple basic skills in mathematics. Part 2 discussed the district's response to my queries about how to help Celesta and her classmates.]


I’ve been writing about Celesta, a high school student who was carrying a 3.6 GPA, who passed her math tests, got As in her math classes, was placed into honors pre-calculus, and who – like many of her classmates – suddenly found out she was missing multiple critical skills in elementary math. She was struggling to pass her honors math class. She also has few skills in grammar.

I’ve been trying to figure out a way to help Celesta and her classmates.

The best way to help the students:

Go back in time and teach the students the grammar and the six years of math skills the district refused to give them. I need a time machine to do that, and no one has invented one – not that they’ve told me, anyway.

The second best way to help the students:

Someone at their school could work with the students and bring them up to grade level. But when I called around to all of Spokane’s middle and high schools a few weeks ago to find out how to help students like Celesta, most had no remedial programs for students who are NOT special education. Nearly all wanted to test Celesta for learning disabilities. Several expressed doubt about the veracity of her story. One suggested she might have brain damage. Few expressed interest in community members coming into the school to help with skills; almost all referred that idea to central-office administration.

Additionally, Celesta said the “homework center” at her school isn’t for remedial skills. Kids view it as detention, not help, she said. She also was denied access to remedial algebra classes, she said. As an honors student, she said, she was told she can’t go backward. She must march forward to Statistics, ready or not.

Celesta’s situation reflects the sheer depth and magnitude of the problem. She is smart, articulate, and dedicated to her schoolwork. She is considered to be an honors student. Because of her achievements in math, she was placed into honors pre-calculus, which – with a great deal of effort – she passed, with a C. But I know what she doesn’t know in basic math, and it's devastating.

Now, imagine all of the students who DIDN'T pass their math tests, and who AREN'T getting As. Just 38.9% of Spokane’s 10th graders passed the 2010 state math test, on which they needed just 56.9% to pass. That 38.9% pass rate includes Celesta. It also includes students who receive supplementation from outside the district. Take those students out of the data, and where would the pass rates be then? By itself, does the district math program get anyone to actual proficiency in real mathematics?

The complete picture is barely imaginable. Folks, in K-12 mathematics, it’s a smoking wreckage out there. This is a completely preventable tragedy. It’s persistently pushed and pressed on teachers, parents and students by an ineffective, self-interested, obstructive leadership.

How district administrators and board directors can look at themselves in the mirror is beyond me. How they can accept plaques, awards and raises – well, I couldn’t do it. I would feel ill to be rewarded and praised for such abject failure. But the people who built this failing program are still employed at the district, most received raises last summer, and the superintendent’s contract was extended last night to July 31, approved unanimously by the four board directors present. (Approval of a new contract was delayed until July.)

The school board can fire just one person – the superintendent. Nancy Stowell received nearly a quarter-of-a-million taxpayer dollars last year as she stubbornly maintained a failing academic program and did not fire these incompetent administrators.

Meanwhile, various people in the district have accused parents and community members of blaming the district while refusing to help it. That’s hilarious. I've tried to help; they keep saying no.

The third best way to help these students:

The community can step in and tutor these students in basic arithmetic. I have asked the district repeatedly to work with me on developing such programs. On May 11, 2011, I again asked Nancy Stowell, our superintendent, if community members could work with the district on developing a free tutoring program. This is her reply (quoted verbatim – just cut and pasted):


"Good Morning Laurie,

"I have looked into your request, but I don't believe we have a structure in place to support community designed tutoring proggram. The only way we have for working with volunteers in through our Volunteer Program. That program, as you know, operates thruough our individual schools, but it really isn't set up to host specific tutoring programs designed by community members. In our Volunteer Program it is up to principals to idenfity the work of the volunteers. If volunteers do work on academic progjects in the schools it is under the supervision of a certificated staff member. If community members want to set up a tutoring program, they might be able to work through the community centers or perhaps the libraries.

"Thank you for your interest. I do understand that you have a huge commitment to our students and their academic success.

"Nancy"
I asked Dr. Stowell if she would build a “structure” for offering free tutoring to the students. I received no reply. On June 13, I asked her again, noting that school was almost out. I received no reply.
 
Dr. Stowell’s response isn’t the first “no” I’ve gotten. A few years ago, I asked an elementary principal about helping students in math skills. I was told I would have to use the district curriculum, I would have to include all types of learners, and I would have to include language arts along with math. Well, that sounds like the failing district program to me.
 
I took my request to the school board. I was told it’s an issue with collective bargaining, and that, to get around it, I would have to rent the school.
 
In January 2011, I tried again. I wrote to a new principal to say this:


"As you probably recall, I asked you a few days after school began last September about beginning a free tutoring program in basic math skills for students in the … program. You said you would think it over. I have reminded you about it a few times since then, in September, October, and November.

"Each time I met with you, I explained the situation with Spokane's K-8 math program, about Spokane's high remedial rates, high dropout rates, and weak passing scores on state math tests. I noted that the tutoring would take time and dedication to fill in the large number of gaps in the students' math knowledge. I said it doesn't have to be me who does it, that the point is to get the students the basic skills they need if they are to succeed in algebra and geometry.

"I am following up with you to find out what is happening on this.

"Thanks very much,

"Laurie Rogers"
This was the principal’s response (quoted verbatim – just cut and pasted):


"Laurie

"Thanks for your email. Like we talked about in December, I am working with our teachers on identifying what our specific students' needs are how to best address them.

"Hope you have a great weekend."
Oh, sure. Have a great weekend. I hope they all have a great weekend. I hope Celesta and her classmates are having a great weekend. Want to bet that the next time we turn around, the district will again blame us for all problems in math?

The fourth best way to help the students:

The community can build its own program for helping the students. This takes organization, money, student maturity, an iron will, and careful scheduling. It isn’t easy. We must find a building and supplies. We must track down students and convince them to come in on their own time to work on the subject that drove them half crazy during the school year. We must get permissions, background checks, and supervisors.

I’ve found that it takes about two months, an hour per day, five days per week, to move a student one grade level in elementary math. High school students would need to find an extra five hours a week for an entire year. What are the odds this would work? These are children. They have other responsibilities and interests. And many have given up on math.

Spokane’s central-office administrators are accomplished at deflecting blame – onto teachers, principals, students, a fake lack of money, societal issues, and poverty. They’re good at giving themselves raises. They’re good at protecting their administrative turf, and they’re good at staying employed in this district in the face of absolute failure. They are NOT good at doing what they’re paid to do: Build an effective academic program. For that, they should be fired. But who will do that?

When it’s time for you to vote for a replacement for board directors, please keep this in mind: A vote for the status quo will be a vote for failure – for the children, for the community, for you, the taxpayer, and for this country. When you vote, please vote for someone who will hold the superintendent accountable, who understands the math problem, who will push for real math instruction and for real transparency in decision-making and finances. Vote for someone who has the will, the integrity, and the backbone to stand up for the children, who will vote "nay" to wrong things, and who won’t just "go along to get along."

And please also have a great weekend.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is

Rogers, L. (June 2011). "District rejects community efforts to help Celesta - (part 3)." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was posted on educationviews.org at http://educationviews.org/2011/06/23/district-rejects-community-efforts-to-help-celesta-%e2%80%93-part-3/

Help students by rejecting the self-interested

By Laurie H. Rogers

[Updated June 8, 2011]

With few exceptions, Americans spend more on public education than anyone else in the world, but we get some of the worst results. The reason is that most of our public education systems do not properly teach students what they need to know.

That's it. There is no magic. And the federal takeovers, the jazzy new technology, Bill Gates’ money, the data-gathering, reform, transformation, national initiatives, removal of teacher seniority, blaming of parents, hand-wringing in the media, and budget shifting won’t change that simple fact.

In all of the local, state and federal plans for reforming and transforming public education, I see the bureaucracy growing, the taxpayer bill exploding, the people’s voice being eliminated, good teachers being threatened with firing or public humiliation, and students not being taught what they need to know.

A May 25 Wall Street Journal article says some schools now charge parents fees for basic academics, as well as for extracurricular activities, graded electives and advanced classes. Those are private-school fees for a public-school education, and that’s just wrong.

At some point, one comes to think it’s hopeless, that the current system is too far gone – too corrupt, too self-serving, and too shamelessly ignorant to live, that it must collapse. Excuse me while I duck – but that’s actually a reasonable thought. In systems theory, it’s expected that systems will work for a time, then become corrupt, fail to be productive, and be allowed to collapse. New ones are then built in their place. It’s how systems evolve or progress.

That doesn’t happen in government, or in sprawling bureaucracies. And especially not in sprawling government bureaucracies like public education, which are hideously corrupt but which are not allowed to die. Instead, they’re hoisted around the dance floor like some macabre corpse, propped up with self-interest, ego, loopy ideology, and some 700 billion taxpayer and corporate dollars.

How does this help children academically? That question should drive everything, but it doesn’t. So many policy makers and administrators are completely self-interested. They cherry-pick data, withhold information, and misrepresent results and intent. They argue using innuendo and personal attacks. Everything begins with their money, their pet programs, and their certainty that they’re right.

We talk about academics; they talk about money. We talk about outcomes; they talk about process. We talk about freedom of choice and the free market; they want everyone to be the same. We talk about tutoring; they talk about rules. We say, “Stand against this.” They say, as a Spokane board director did in February, “It wouldn’t be good for me.”

At the May 23 Spokane Public Schools forum, administrators talked about cutting several million dollars from the budget. This definition of “cut” is used with impunity by number-crunchers everywhere. Here’s how it works. The district says it has cut $54 million from the district budget since 2002. But the district budget has GROWN by $60 million since 2002. What they did was “cut” from programs we want and add to things that are mandated or desired by others. It’s a money shift. On May 23, the district presentation didn’t mention budget totals, which would have clearly shown the public this phenomenon.

How will their proposed cuts or proposed programs help the children academically? Most won’t.

On May 23, a board director talked about the local levy, which grew from $36 million in 2002 to $59 million in 2010. He asked the public whether the levy should be spent on enrichment (which is how it's generally sold to taxpayers) or on regular programs that allegedly are "underfunded."

The assumption there -- not proved -- is that the regular programs are necessary as constructed. Much of the levy already is diverted to pay for them. The director didn't mention that some of last year’s levy paid for administrative enrichment via raises -- an expense that the board approved unanimously.

At its May 11 regular board meeting, a new math resolution also was approved unanimously. On May 23, the district presentation mentioned this resolution, but not in detail. So, here's some detail.

The new math resolution delays replacing the district's core K-8 math curriculum, currently two of the worst math programs in the country, while locking the district to the national Common Core State Standards/tests/curriculum initiatives. These CCSS initiatives represent a de facto federalization of public education. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan claims these initiatives are "state-led," but the truth is all there in the federal funding for these initiatives, the federal punishments for states that don’t kowtow, and in the federal pushing of these initiatives as the answer. Sec. Duncan says there should be a national curriculum in all subjects, “including literacy, arts, foreign languages, and the STEM disciplines.”

Sec. Duncan also is funding common testing (to be done online, thus requiring hardware and software), and a national database on our children that will span “cradle through career,” that will connect various government agencies, and that will share information without parental consent. Don’t believe me? I don’t blame you. It isn’t pleasant reading, but you can see all of this on the Department of Education Web site and in Sec. Duncan’s speeches.

This de facto federal takeover will probably cost each school district $100 million before it’s all said and done, in materials, hardware, software, training, travel, and “professional development.” Multiply that by the number of school districts in this country (more than 14,000). In its May 11 resolution, the Spokane board estimated up to $3 million just for the adoption of the unwritten, untested, unpiloted, unfunded, and completely unsupported national K-8 math curriculum. It’s a mere drop in Duncan's federal-mandate-bucket.

Spokane’s board also neglected to mention that its new emphasis on “data-driven decision-making” apparently doesn’t apply to the CCSS. The board has agreed to adopt a national curriculum for math that isn’t even finished, much less tested. There is no data behind it. As administrators and board directors complain that federal mandates steal budget dollars, they all agreed on May 11 to spend millions of dollars on Duncan’s unfunded federal mandate. How will this new and massive mandate help our children academically, driven as it is by Bill Gates, Pearson Education, and other institutional and corporate interests?

Moving directly from the problem (students aren’t being taught what they need to know) to the solution (students need to be taught what they need to know), you immediately see that fixing the problem doesn’t require - and is unlikely to benefit from - massive infusions of money, nationwide transformations, expensive data systems, software, new buildings, Bill Gates or – good lord, a federal takeover of public education. It requires only that schools teach students the academic skills they need for postsecondary life. And that requires four things – which I call the “Square of Effective Learning.” This holds true for students living in million-dollar homes as well as for students living in the dirt. These are the four corners of the square:

1. An effective and motivated teacher.
2. An efficient, effective, and sufficient curriculum.
3. A prepared and motivated student.
4. An efficient and effective learning environment.

Our schools already have many good teachers. They are prevented from doing what they need to do. They're also constantly pulled out of the classroom for the inaptly named “professional development.” Administrators complain that students aren’t motivated, which becomes true as students struggle and fail because of the awful curriculum, missing teachers, and distracted learning environment.

Alas, public education is a massive and unresponsive bureaucracy. With the coming (and arguably illegal) federal takeover of public education – it's about to become more so. Bureaucracies don’t exist to run programs or teach children – they exist to:

• Grow the bureaucracy
• Defend all gained territory and gain more territory
• Obtain more funding, and develop and implement programs that require more funding
• Satisfy people who are higher on the food chain
• Report good results regardless of what the data actually say
• Show perpetual motion (because rolling stones can’t be held accountable)
• Gain community allies who can smooth over bureaucratic problems and help with bureaucratic goals
• Smash down all dissent before it threatens the bureaucracy

Does any of this look familiar? If it is ever to be fixed, public education must repair itself or collapse – pushed from without or from within. Meanwhile, students MUST be taught what they need to know. As you know, but the bureaucrats don’t, academic skills are the point of public education.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is

Rogers, L. (May 2011). "Help students by rejecting the self-interested." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/  

District not replacing math materials for two more years

By Laurie H. Rogers


After more than 20 years of absolute commitment to a “reform” approach to K-12 mathematics, our nation has a serious math problem. Students suffer from high remediation rates in math in college, low pass rates on state math tests, low levels of math skills, high student anxiety toward mathematics, and high dropout rates.

Properly conducted research clearly indicates serious problems with the K-8 math programs used in Spokane Public Schools (Investigations in Number, Data, and Space and Connected Mathematics Project (CMP). Public feedback at our community forums indicates widespread discontent with the district’s approach to math. You’d think all of that would be enough to convince Spokane administrators and board directors to replace the district’s much-criticized K-8 math programs.

Think again.

For four years and seven weeks, I’ve been asking administrators to replace these awful math materials. Since Nov. 8, 2010, I’ve been asking if they plan to do it. I want their answer “on the record” – delivered in public or in writing. Longtime district administrator Karin Short has repeatedly refused to deliver an answer in writing. And, rather than direct the superintendent to have her staff comply with this citizen request, board president Sue Chapin appears to find fault with my request for a written answer.

That’s where things stood for 153 days, until March 14. On that day, I finally got my answer in public. The answer is no. They don't plan to replace these materials – not for at least two years and not because the public asked them to. What they're waiting for is the "common" curriculum.

On March 14, at a Spokane Public Schools Citizens Advisory Committee meeting, district administrators discussed how they plan to fix the middle schools. Administrative “solutions” to the middle-school problem include adopting new methods for assessing teachers, and hiring an unnamed “expert.” The math materials weren’t mentioned.

So, at that meeting, I again asked Tammy Campbell, executive director of instructional programs, if the district planned to replace Connected Mathematics (CMP). She said CMP wouldn’t be replaced for at least two more years. Two years from now, she said, the national initiatives for the Common Core State Standards, common tests, and common curricula will necessitate changes and the district doesn’t want to spend money now or drag teachers through multiple changes.

Thus, we can already see how federal control results in local paralysis. I’ll also note here that it’s questionable whether the Common Core initiatives ultimately will bring the changes in math that the children actually require.

Meanwhile, I noted to Campbell on March 14 that research indicates that CMP is a weak program. She said other districts (Lake Washington, Bellevue, Issaquah, and Federal Way) use CMP and do well with it. This argument is weak. Statistically, these district comparisons are neither valid nor reliable.

• Comparison districts should have similar types of student populations. The four districts Campbell chose are not similar to Spokane in this way.
• Students in comparison districts should have a similar background in mathematics. Spokane uses Investigations in Number, Data, and Space to prepare its K-5 students for middle-school math. Bellevue, however, uses Math Expressions, and Lake Washington uses enVisionMATH -- both have a more-traditional structure. Federal Way uses a mix of traditional and reform programs.
• We don’t know much about these other districts’ students or math programs.
• When did the districts adopt their math programs? How were those programs implemented, used, modified or supplemented? We don’t know.
• How many students in those districts received outside supplementation or tutoring in math? How many came from other districts, programs, states or countries? We don’t know.
• Campbell said these four other districts are “doing well” with CMP.
• Federal Way no longer uses CMP. It finally replaced CMP with programs that use a more-traditional structure.
• In 2010, Bellevue's 10th-grade pass rate in math was 67.7%. Issaquah's was 70.6%. Lake Washington had a 61.3% pass rate in 8th grade and a 66% pass rate in 10th grade. Next to Spokane's 48.5% pass rate in 8th grade and 38.9% pass rate in 10th grade, the other districts looked better, but let's not get carried away. The math tests were on "basic skills." Students needed just 56.9% to pass the 10th-grade test, and just 55% to pass the 8th-grade test.

Here’s what I take away from Campbell’s March 14 answer. Our district administrators:

• Are OK with allowing our children and grandchildren to suffer for at least two more years with obviously failing math programs – quite possibly the two worst programs in the country. In a child’s math life, this is a massive, devastating amount of time.
• Are willing to let our children and grandchildren flounder and fail while they continue to chug down our tax money and wait for other people to tell them what to do.
• Appear to not understand what good research looks like.
• Appear to not understand logic. If CMP and Investigations are as good as Campbell claimed on March 14, why is the district talking about replacing them in two years? And, if they aren’t as good as she claimed, why would she not change them now in order to help the students?
• Cling to the idea that reform math programs are better than traditional programs, and that if the teachers would just DO the reform programs properly, everything would be fine.
• Really want the Common Core State Standards, tests and curriculum. What does that tell you about where these federal initiatives are likely to take us?

In the end – despite weak student outcomes, high remediation rates in math, low pass rates on state math tests, high dropout rates, research indicating problems with these reform programs, 20 years of criticism from STEM professionals, and much local feedback from students, parents, and community members asking for a more-structured approach to mathematics – Spokane administrators refuse to budge.

I get a clear sense that in Spokane, as in many districts across the country, public education is all about the adults – about what they like, about what they want to do, about what kind of money they want to spend or not spend, and about where they want to go with things.

It isn’t about the students’ academic needs at all.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is

Rogers, L. (March 2011). "District not replacing math materials for two more years." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published March 27, 2011, on educationnews.org at this address: http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/152347.html

Parents Can't Get Answers to Questions

Every few months, Spokane Public Schools hosts an online “chat” where parents can “Ask the Superintendent” some questions. The questions and replies are posted on the district’s Web site. In October, a parent sent me his question and the district’s response (which actually came from the district’s secondary mathematics coordinator). His question and the emailed reply were not posted on the district’s Web site.

The parent wrote that his son was getting As in math “without even trying.” He was worried that the program wouldn’t get his son to college. He had spoken with math professors and other concerned parents, he said, and he asked the district to survey parents.

The mathematics coordinator, Rick Biggerstaff, didn’t address the request for a survey. The bolded comments below are drawn from his response; the comments in parentheses are mine:

Enrollment in Advanced Placement classes is increasing, and Spokane “statistically performs very well on the AP exam.”
(AP enrollment statewide is increasing, but lower percentages of students pass AP exams.)

“We do not see our high-achieving students leaving with ‘less’ math than before.”
(What does “before” mean? The current incarnation of reform mathematics was spawned in the 1980s.)

The math standards have “changed 3 times in 5 years.” Spokane’s current math curricula are still aligned with old state learning standards.
(Trying to align reform curricula with constantly changing reform-based standards is like pinning an expensive inadequate tail on a moving inadequate donkey. Who cares if they’re aligned?)

A review of whether current curricula align with the new math standards must wait until January.
(Translation: Don’t hold your breath waiting for better curricula.)

The “level of cognitive engagement in our classrooms” is more important than whether mathematics is presented with a traditional or reform method.
(How math is presented is critically important. Forcing children to reinvent math – as opposed to just teaching it to them – is illogical, time-consuming and ineffective. The children end up “cognitively engaging” about incorrect ideas.)

The district doesn’t plan to change its policy of “student-centered” classrooms, “regardless of content strands set in place by the state.”
(Regardless of what anyone says or does, the district will support constructivist “teaching” methods, where students work in groups to teach math to themselves. Apparently, it does matter which teaching method is used.)

Meanwhile, the parent’s concerns were not addressed.

The entire education establishment is adept at dismissing parent and teacher concerns. FrederickEducationReform.com (in Maryland) posted an article called “Tactics Used to Maintain the Status Quo.” They generously allowed me to excerpt:

Tactic #1: Tell parents that “You are the only one who complained.”
Tactic #2: Claim that “The research shows that what we are doing is best.”
Tactic #3: “We are the experts. You should trust us to know better than you.”
Tactic #4: Claim that children will suffer if the budget is not significantly increased.
Tactic #5: Accuse critics and parents who ask too many questions of being “against public education.”
Tactic #6: Claim that (the district) is prevented from making changes by the No Child Left Behind Act.
Tactic #7: Avoid taking actions to change the system by ignoring good ideas.(You can read the entire FrederickEducationReform article on their Web site. The link is noted at the bottom of this article.)

Here Are Other Things I’ve Actually Heard
From the Education Establishment in Spokane and Washington State

• It’s “elitist” to say that children achieve at different levels, to have programs for the highly capable, or to form classes for similar types of learners.
  
• Parents only want a traditional approach because it’s what they had as children. Students find it boring and would rather “discover” thousands of years of math in groups and by inventing their own concepts and methods.
  
• Not all children can learn traditional math. Having everyone learn “alternative” methods first gives them “something to fall back on.”
  
• People who complain about reform math just “don’t get it.” For example:
  
  • Parents aren't math smart. They’re obstructionist and stuck in the past.
    
  • Teachers have their own “issues.” They might not be all that talented.
    
  • Students have lousy upbringings, raging hormones, short attention spans and poor priorities. Math might not be their strongest subject.
    
  • Engineers don’t know how to communicate, and math professors don’t know how to teach to children.
    
  • Advocates are extremist and hypercritical. They have a “hidden” agenda.
• Parents are not qualified to comment on curriculum choices, but curriculum coordinators who have an education degree and a minor in the specific subject are qualified.
  
• Statistics show that things are getting better. We’re upping enrollment in “honors” classes, increasing the “rigor,” “raising the bar” and moving to “the next step.” We’re doing so well, other states look to us for guidance.
  
• We don’t need to worry about the highly capable students because they’ll learn anyway. They can work in groups with the struggling students – not to “teach” them, but just to “show” them how to do things.
  
• No one needs to learn algebra because not everyone will go to college.
• Students can pick up any algebra they need in Grade 11 or 12.
• 60% pass rates might be good depending on where the group began.
  
• Children need “21st-century math.” Calculators and computers help them learn math and can even take the place of long division and other arithmetic.
  
• We can fix everything with billions more dollars for incentives, technology, instructional coaches, teacher development and initiatives for the disadvantaged.
  
• We listen to all feedback. Parents can:
  
  • present questions at board meetings. (The board doesn’t have to answer questions at board meetings.)
    
  • talk to administrators. (Administrators politely say everything is fine.)
    
  • talk with their child’s teacher. (Some teachers are afraid to be frank, or they’re politically careful, or they're too busy to see the whole picture.)
    
  • talk with principals. (Ditto.)

I've been asking questions in this district for 22 months, and I have more questions now than when I began. I'd really like to start getting some answers.

Please note: The information in this post (except for the FrederickEducationReform excerpt) is copyrighted to Laurie H. Rogers. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (October, 2008). "Parents can't get answers to questions." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

A portion of this article has also been posted on ednews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/29997/1/Public-Accountability-Missing-in-Education/Page1.html

(You can enjoy the entire FrederickEducationReform article at: "Tactics Used To Maintain the Status Quo" If you wish to use the information in the excerpt or any other information from that Web site, please direct your permission request to the operators of that site.)