What's in Those Public Records Anyway?


Some of the records the PDC cited in its Report of Investigation
regarding Spokane Public Schools and bond/levy and other elective campaigns

Some of the other records sent to the PDC regarding
Spokane Public Schools and bond and levy campaigns.

PDF of March 1, 2014, article:
Legislature should look into PDC's investigation of Spokane Public Schools


Wednesday, May 25, 2011

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/  

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Why I quit teaching math at SFCC

[Note from Laurie Rogers: School is almost out. Many high school graduates will be eager to begin college. Most graduates will test into remedial math, however, and they will have to take one or more non-credit-bearing remedial math classes BEFORE they begin college-level math classes.

Knowledge is power, so I'm republishing with permission an article about remedial math at Spokane Falls Community College. It first appeared (edited) in the Jan. 19, 2011, edition of The Inlander.

The first time I spoke with Clint Thatcher, last fall, he told me that remedial math classes at SFCC had changed -- to something that sounded similar to the failed reform/constructivist approach we see in Spokane Public Schools. I wanted to confirm his story, so I called over to SFCC and talked to a woman in the math department. She seemed surprised that I would be critical of reform math. She said the problem at SFCC wasn't that students hadn't learned math in Spokane Public Schools; it was that they had forgotten it.

I drove to SFCC to look at the new textbook for remedial math. An instructor there loaned me his copy, and after I confirmed Clint's impression of it, that instructor and I chatted about this new approach. The instructor suggested (for example) using a hot air balloon model in place of the number line model. (You put sand in and numbers get bigger, and you take sand out and numbers get smaller.) I asked him where the zero was in his balloon model, where negatives and fractions were. He couldn't say. Why can't students just learn the number line? I asked. He didn't say.

Heads up, folks. Pay attention to what's being taught in any remedial math class -- in K-12 or in college. -- L.R.]


*********************

Why I Quit Teaching Math at SFCC


By Clint Thatcher, retired Air Force bombardier and retired math instructor


The time to quit the best job in the world is right before you get tired of it.

After spending 20 years in the B-52s and retiring from the U.S. Air Force, I spent the last 16 years as a math teacher. I can truly say that teaching mathematics was the greatest and most emotionally gratifying experience of my life. I certainly did not want to quit teaching but I was told to change my traditional approach to teaching math to a group-centered, intuitive and discovery approach. I refused to change my successful method and quit the job I loved so much.

I have been teaching developmental algebra for 12 years at Spokane Falls Community College and have had a 95% success rate with the students. Nine out of ten students that enroll at SFCC are placed into developmental math. It is sad to think that 90% of all entering college students didn’t retain enough algebra skills to pass the math assessment test to be placed into a college-level math class.

By the way, completing the developmental math series does not count toward a degree program and has no bearing on the student’s GPA. Developmental math classes are five-hour courses and cost the same as a college-level class. It takes some students three or four attempts to complete one class.

The dean of Math and Sciences (and a former teacher), stated that only one in three students completed the dev-math series. Failing to complete the series effectively ends the student’s college career. It is apparent that something must be done to change the current outcomes. Money was secured through the Title III program and was used to change the dev-math program at SFCC. The new program replaced the Math 91, 92, 99 series (which implemented the more traditional lecture approach) with Math 93, 94, 98. With a change in numbers also came a change in book and teaching methodology. All teachers had to go through professional training in order to teach the new series.

The new curriculum style is for students to collaborate in groups to find the best way to answer or solve a particular problem. This method reduces -- and for some teachers eliminates -- lecture altogether. It took brilliant men and women decades to formulate the laws of math that we have today. Now they want our students to formulate these same laws in a 50-minute class. This methodology is also the darling of the local and many other school districts, and we wonder why our children are graduating with minimal math skills.

Many of my students would be absolutely lost without a calculator. They have lost the basic skills of adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing real numbers. They have essentially zero skills when it comes to dealing with fractions. We have strayed so far away from learning basic math skills that our college-bound students are entering a world that is totally foreign to them. So what does SFCC do? They change the math world to match what the students had in K-12.

I say we must first teach our students time-honored procedural mathematics that produces step-by-step methodology, and then introduce basic-skill problems that use these procedures. When their skill levels reach a certain proficiency, then introduce real-world problems where group collaboration can be of great benefit. The new method is to reverse the process and it is terribly inefficient. Students will not only become frustrated but will learn very little mathematics when it is all said and done.

I am enormously concerned for the future of our students to have the necessary math skills to fulfill the high-tech positions that have made this nation what it was. Oh, it is still a great nation, but we are importing a large portion of our high-tech workers to maintain our high status. We know there is a problem when we are rated 25th out of the top 30 industrial nations in math skills.

A Dec. 4, 2010, article by John Barber in The Spokesman-Review titled “Math ‘reform’ fails our kids” has spurred me to write this article, not only as a concerned teacher, but also to open up the eyes of parents who realize the system is failing their children. Where better, than in Spokane, to start a movement of parents and teachers to change back to the traditional and proven way of teaching mathematics?



Note from Laurie Rogers: If you would like to submit a guest column on public education, please write to me at wlroge@comcast.net. Please limit columns to not more than 1,000 words. Columns might be edited for length, content or grammar. You may remain anonymous to the public, however I must know who you are. All decisions on guest columns are the sole right and responsibility of Laurie Rogers.


This material is copyrighted.
For permission to republish or quote from this article, please write to Clint Thatcher at clint_christhatcher@comcast.net .

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Tutoring desperately needed; please help us

[Updated May 14 to add a reply from the superintendent and a comment from a math teacher]


By Laurie H. Rogers


People have said to me: “Laurie, you sure seem upset about education. Your articles are angry.”

Well, yes, some of them are. My anger springs from a deep well. When you see the deceit in the education establishment, the lies, the arrogance, the selfishness and self-serving behavior, when you realize how our children are being betrayed, when you hear sad and shocking stories from parents, students and teachers, and you fully understand how lacking our children are in math and grammar, when you realize that our children are “graduating” without the skills they need to be successful in their postsecondary lives, when you realize that good teachers are at risk of being fired for “ineffectiveness,” when you go to meetings and hear well-paid administrators dismiss the relevance of a 38.9% student pass rate as they ask taxpayers for more money …

One does get angry.

Yesterday afternoon, I sat with a high school junior – a bright, articulate young lady. A friend of mine suggested I meet with her. On Monday, she and I talked for an hour before she went to work. This student has a dream. She wants to someday own her own business and be her own boss. Listening to her talk, you can see her doing that. You can see her running things, making a difference, being a voice of concern and compassion in her community. As I listened to her, my heart went out to her, and yes, I became angry on her behalf.

This student is having trouble in her pre-calculus class, and she didn’t understand why. She’s always gotten As in her math classes. She carries a 3.6 overall average. She passed all of the math tests given to her and always felt confident about her abilities in math. Up until this year.

This year, the pedal has hit the metal, and she must actually use her math skills for this pre-calc math class. She was startled to discover that she doesn’t have much in the way of procedural skill.

“You should know all of this,” her pre-calc teacher tells the class. His comments confuse her. She always learned what she was told to learn. All indications to her through grades and testing were that she was successfully learning it. Somehow, she got to her pre-calc class without proficiency in skills like long division, multiplication facts, radicals, fractions, negative exponents, the number line, algebra, or proper math vocabulary.

Hearing her teacher say, “You should know all of this,” makes her feel stupid, the student says. It makes her feel unmotivated, and it worries her. The teacher is trying to stuff K-10 math skills into his students while he also tries to get through the pre-calc material. The class struggles to manage. They depend heavily on their counselors, nearly all of whom recently received layoff notices from the district.

The student told me how much her counselor means to her. “[The counselor] keeps me motivated,” she said, adding that she and her classmates were devastated to hear of the layoffs. Meanwhile, they struggle to pass a math class that demands they have skills no one has taught them.

The student fretted about the impact this math class will have on her GPA, which she has fought hard to maintain. She’s a good student, she says, and she hates not doing well. “I don’t care whether they’re right or wrong [about math],” she said. “I just want to go to college. Why wouldn’t they teach us these things?”

Although this student is thoughtful and articulate, she also knows next to nothing in terms of grammar. She couldn’t define for me a preposition, participle or adverb. When she applies to go to college in just more than a year, she will almost certainly test into a low level of remedial math AND into remedial English. These will all be non-credit-bearing classes, and she will have to pay for them.

Two hours after talking with the student, I went to the last meeting for the year for Spokane Public Schools’ Citizens Advisory Committee, where I listened to the superintendent and various administrators talk about cutting money from district programs. One potential source of cuts, they said, are the counselors – those people that the student and her classmates depend on for support and motivation. Another potential area is curriculum improvements.

The administrators talked about various kinds of expenditures. They talked about cutting $54 million since 2002. And yet, the budget has increased substantially over that time. What’s up with that, I asked them. As it was explained to me last night, it’s a money shift. They “cut” programs in one bucket of expenditures, shifting the money elsewhere to a different bucket of expenditures. Therefore, the budget isn’t really “cut” in terms of overall dollars – the money is just spent differently. That’s why the district can cut teachers and counselors, while adding legislated distractions (and giving themselves raises and better benefits, apparently).

At the bottom of this shell game, are the students who don’t have the curriculum or the instruction they need. Why are they in this position? How is it that the community must fight district administrators on behalf of academics? Why do administrators keep getting raises as our students keep failing? How is it that we’ve handed over our wallets to people who obstinately refuse to provide our children with the academic skills they need? How did we get to this ridiculous place? More important, how do we get out of here?

[Added May 14: A math teacher who is a friend of mine told me that, of 60 pre-calculus students in his district (another large district that does reform math), NONE could pass an 8th-grade algebra assessment that was purely basic algebra procedures. Most had 3.6 and above GPAs. The story is equally sad in reform districts across the state.]

It seems that we’re going to have to help these students ourselves. They’re staring at a bleak future. They need help now, right now. There isn’t a moment to lose. The junior I spoke with must pick up at least six years of math skills in just over a year. It isn’t good enough to help her and her classmates with homework. It isn’t enough to sit down with them a day a week or even two days a week. It isn’t enough to just show them the math skills – they must learn them to mastery. They must go back to somewhere around fourth grade and pick up the skills the district administration refused to give them.

Despite all of its bleating for community help, the district appears disinclined to accommodate this tutoring in basic math and basic grammar. I’ve asked repeatedly to be allowed to begin free tutoring programs in math at various schools, including the school my daughter's at now. I’ve been turned down repeatedly, or had impossible restrictions placed on me. Now, I’m not even getting the courtesy of a reply from the superintendent. [Updated May 14: The superintendent replied today. She said no.]

We will have to find a different way to get this done.

I’m looking for a few good people to help get these kids the math and grammar skills they need. If you’re interested in tutoring, or in financially or practically supporting this tutoring, please write to me at wlroge@comcast.net . Provide your name, contact information, and what you’re willing to do. You can help anonymously, if need be.

We’ll need textbooks (I can buy them secondhand locally and online), paper, pencils, erasers, and most of all, a place to tutor (church, community center, etc.).

Folks, please get angry about where these students are. Then, turn that anger into action. We can’t save 28,000 students. But, working together, we can help save some of them. We also can work on systemic change and on properly informing the community. Together, we can turn things around for our children and grandchildren and help them earn the future they envision.

Thank you all for caring, and while you’re up, perhaps you could ask the Spokane school board to stop the district superintendent’s contract from automatically rolling over this month.


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

Rogers, L. (May 2011). "Tutoring desperately needed; please help us." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Monday, May 2, 2011

Good golly, our schools desperately need new leadership

[Updated May 10, 2011, to clarify language regarding the board vote.]


By Laurie H. Rogers

When our school administrators speak to the public, we often hear one or more of the following:
  • Blaming of others – Typical targets include teachers, parents, students, poverty, and a (fake) lack of money.
  • Deceitful presentation of student outcomes – They’ll speak glowingly of some stray statistic that supposedly shows them in a slightly more positive light, but which also depends on the public not knowing the entire truth of it.
  • Astonishing ignorance or accidental honesty. Sometimes the truth comes out of them – in shocking or comical ways.
  • Requests for more money, on the heels of low student achievement. As pass rates go down, the expense per student continues to increase.
  • New policy that will serve their ulterior purpose, but which will make life more difficult for students, parents and teachers.
And so it went, at two recent gatherings for Spokane Public Schools. Teachers were blamed. Administrators praised themselves. The superintendent’s comments caused a stir. And the school board voted to have the option to increase class sizes and cut 90 teachers.

Blaming of Others

Spokane Public Schools' Citizens Advisory Committee is a parent group that is actually run by the district. At the monthly CAC meetings, administrators do most of the talking, and an administrator writes a summary.

(No one takes actual minutes, which would have to include parent questions and concerns.)
At the April 11 CAC meeting, district administrators were enthused over new, “prescriptive” evaluations for teachers and principals. These evaluations will entail four tiers - like standards-based grading - and will be based partly on student outcomes. Such assessments would be valuable tools if:
  • Teachers had the freedom to teach and supplement as they deem necessary
  • Teachers weren’t constantly pulled out of classrooms for non-academic activities
  • Teachers’ professional development contained real content
  • The district’s choice of instructional materials were sufficient and dependable
  • Principals had the freedom to allot money, modify curriculum, and hire and fire as they see fit.
Alas, this is Spokane Public Schools, and teachers and principals will be assessed on student outcomes over which they have little control.
At the CAC meeting, I asked: Do these new evaluations mean that teachers will gain academic freedom? I received three different answers from the same administrator.
  • Staci Vesneske said teachers might be awarded that freedom if they hit the top tier of the evaluation system. (Answer #1)
  • I asked, What if they need that freedom in order to hit the top tier? She said teachers already have academic freedom. (Answer #2)
  • I persisted: Will teachers gain academic freedom? She said it will all come down to collective bargaining. (Answer #3)
Later, I asked: Will principals gain the freedom to allot money, hire and fire, and modify the curriculum? Dr. Vesneske didn’t fully answer this question, saying only that the board makes all decisions on curriculum and supplementary materials.

All school employees should be assessed based on achievable, measurable goals. Considering the heavy boot our administrators place on district employees, it seems fair that upper-level administrators be assessed partly on student outcomes. (If they were, most would be fired.) Our superintendent's own evaluation is done by the school board. Our board directors use a “summative evaluation” form for her that is so general and vague, their evaluation must be based largely on opinion.

Self-serving statistics

Nancy Stowell, Spokane superintendent, seems happy about the district’s “improved” graduation rates. But here are missing pieces she neglects to mention.

Students don't have to pass a state math test to graduate from high school. They don't need to know much grammar, pass a state science test or know how to write in cursive. Sure, they’re allowed to leave, but college remedial rates consistently indicate serious and widespread gaps in knowledge – particularly in basic mathematics and grammar.

Additionally, her “improved” numbers don’t include families that chose to transfer out. Full-time enrollment in SPS dropped by about 2,650 (net) from 2003 to May 2010. A 2008 district survey indicated that about 33% of those who left did it mostly because of the curriculum. (The survey excludes students who went to a private school.) The district didn’t publicly release the survey; I heard about it and asked for a copy.

Increased expense for unproved programs

Taxpayers pay for scads of district and community programs devoted to reducing dropout rates and increasing on-time graduation rates. As district expenditures skyrocket, parents are still staring at students’ low pass rates, high dropout rates, high rates of college remediation, and low levels of basic skills.
Dr. Stowell praised the district for obtaining a multi-million-dollar grant for Rogers High School, which suffers from particularly low graduation rates. (Please note the illogic of awarding grants to failing programs because they are failing. Failure thus results in more money.) Dr. Stowell said the grant will pay for longer school days, extra teacher pay, a homework center, and – you knew it was coming – a pilot evaluation for teachers.
Astonishing comments
Dr. Stowell said the federal Race to the Top initiative “required” that 50% of a teacher’s evaluation be “based on student growth.”
  • Weird. The state always said the percentage of teachers' evaluation that would be based on student outcomes would be just a small part of the total assessment. Fifty percent doesn’t seem small.
  • But Dr. Stowell said Washington State isn’t “going in that direction,” anyway, so she’s trying to work in the 50% herself, by bargaining with the teachers union.
Here’s an April 11 quotation from Dr. Stowell on removing teachers:


“First of all, we do get out lots of teachers. We do it very quietly because the litigation is so expensive. So, we don’t litigate. We try to talk to teachers. We give them the data that we have. We look at the information our principals have collected. We look at that person over time, and then Staci works to move them out. You know, the conversation that, “You know, things aren’t going very well here for you.” (Laughter from the group.) “This might not be the profession that you want for the rest of your life.” (Continued chuckling from the group.) Over the years, we have lost not only teachers through that process, removed them, but we’ve also removed principals through that same process.”
Dr. Stowell then asked CAC members to push legislators for help in removing people.
Unhelpful district policy

At its April 27 meeting, the Spokane school board voted 4-1 to have the option to increase district class sizes by up to three students. Along with adjustments for declines in enrollment, this vote reportedly also could result in the elimination of 90 full-time teaching positions. How would this help students, parents and teachers? Well, it wouldn’t.

On the district Web site, Dr. Stowell explains the need for cuts: “Over the past 10 years, facing enrollment decline and state funding challenges, our district has already made tens of millions of dollars in cuts to programs and support staff, leaving us with no easy ‘fixes’ outside of the classroom to solve this budget challenge.”
The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) Web site says:
  • Overall expenditures for Spokane Public Schools increased, from $252 million in 2004-2005 to $298 million in 2009-2010.
  • Per-student expenditures increased, from $8,158 in 2004-2005 to $10,406 in 2009-2010.
  • Enrollment decreased, from 30,923 in 2004-2005 to 28,712 in 2009-2010.
  • The district’s on-time graduation rate decreased, from 85.1% in 2004-2005 to 62.1% in 2009-2010.
Regardless of how the Spokane superintendent is assessed, the student data cannot be seen as “success.” Her contract will roll over in June unless the school board says “No.” Dear parents and teachers: Please ask the school board to say “No.”

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

Rogers, L. (April 2011). "Good golly, our schools desperately need new leadership." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/  

A version of this article was published May 2, 2011, on EducationNews.org at: http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/opinions_on_education/155271.html