Betrayed - Why Public Education Is Failing

Leadership seems filled with predators and sheep. Where are the sheepdogs?

2012-02-15T14:05:00.000-08:00

[Edited Feb. 18, 2011, to include language regarding SB 5062, which also would negatively affect the Public Records Act.]

By Laurie H. Rogers

"Truth is isolating."
- according to a community member who would know

"It's easy to win when you cheat."
- according to a child who cares about fairness

A good friend of mine, whose perspective I value, said there are three kinds of people in the world: Sheep, sheepdogs and predators. It’s an immediately clarifying way to view oneself and the world. I argued that there are more kinds of people than that. There are:

sheep pretending to be sheepdogs,
sheep pretending to be predators,
predators pretending to be sheep,
predators pretending to be sheepdogs.

(True sheepdogs don’t pretend to be other than what they are, unless operating undercover. Some need a significant emotional event before finding their inner sheepdog. Some need a break from sheepdoggery, thus making them appear to be sheep. But once awoken to a threat, I think all true sheepdogs begin sheepdogging. Look at what happened after 9-11.)

My friend shook his head. He accepted my premise, but he said leopards don’t change their spots, thus mixing his metaphors yet nevertheless making his point. The pretense doesn’t change the nature of the beast, he said. A predator pretending to be a sheep still is a predator. A sheep pretending to be a sheepdog still is a sheep. The question is: How much damage does the pretense do, beyond the damage done by the inherent nature of the beast?

I thought about this analogy, while pondering the public-education mess. And make no mistake about it: It’s a mess.

The mission of sufficient academics is not being accomplished;
Taxpayers pay through the nose while continually hearing how stingy they are;
Legislators attempt to undermine the people’s right to make decisions for their children, while also attempting to raise taxes and place more burdens on schools;
The federal government (via the U.S. Department of Education) is staging what many see as an illegal coup;
Vendors hover like vultures, waiting to pick at the taxpayer carcass;
Children struggle, fail, dropout or test into remedial classes that about half cannot pass;
School districts claim that student data have gone up and budgets have gone down, when the truth for most of us is that student knowledge has gone down and budgets have gone up;
(Allegedly grass-roots) citizen groups beat voters over the head demanding that we “vote yes” – allegedly for the kids;
Unions have excessive power with insufficient accountability;
Media sycophantically suck up to districts while blaming dissenters.

It’s bleak out there, and I wonder, “Where are the sheepdogs?” Everyone in education claims to look out for the people, yet the mess keeps getting worse and more expensive. At one time, we had leaders who fought for the right thing, stood up vocally against the wrong thing, and worked on the people’s behalf rather than for their own interests. Where the heck are they?

Many sheepdogs work in military installations around the country and world. I’ve been lucky to have known several. Quiet sheepdogs in the general population make a living and raise their family. But in leadership, and especially in education leadership, outspoken sheepdogs are hard to find.

No one said being a sheepdog is easy or popular. Standing up to a mob isn’t for sissies. The only people who love sheepdogs are other sheepdogs and a very few sheep. (The predators certainly don’t love them.)

Sheepdogs need courage – not an absence of fear, but a determination to persevere in the face of fear. They must find courage when they don’t feel it. In addition, sheepdogs need knowledge. They have to be able to see the threat in order to fight it. Knowledge is power, which is why the predators work so hard to keep knowledge from them.

Although I have multiple character flaws (just ask my teenager), I really do care – about right and wrong, about the vulnerable, about serving my honor, and about doing my best. We’re all responsible for making wrong things right, even when the going gets tough or we just don't feel like it. But I have run up against a mob, and I believe my values aren’t widely shared there.

From 2007-2012, I came to see that many state and district administrators and superintendents, governors, government appointees, edu-wonks, board directors, union leaders, members of the media, businesspeople who feed off of the public trough, and a disturbing number of elected officials show little sign of knowing or caring what other people’s children are learning -- or about what students know when (or if) they graduate. They don't appear to see their role as providing absolute truth to the people. Instead, their priorities, it seems, are money, ego, power and allies; getting along with the powerful; proving they’re right; pushing their political/social agenda; and squishing out the dissenters.

Some would go so far as to rip the Public Records Act right out of the people’s hands.

See Spokane Public Schools’ 2012 Legislative Priorities, Item 3B, which was to push for a law that would allow school districts to charge the public for the cost of providing public records.
See Sen. Lisa Brown’s bill SB 6576, which would require all school districts to charge the public for the cost of providing public records.
See SB 6351, which would allow public agencies to limit responses to public records requests. The bill leads with a discussion of inmates, but the new language is written generally, so as to encompass everyone. It allows public agencies (the government) to threaten citizens (the people) with legal action over public records requests, to file for injunctions, and to reject future requests from repeat requesters.
See SB 5062, which would place the onus on requesters to know what's missing from public records, and to somehow itemize missing records before taking legal action. It would allow all agencies to take 30 extra days to produce missing records if someone notices their absence, thus avoiding penalties for a willful failure to provide them initially.

SB 6576 and SB 6351 would effectively eliminate the Public Records Act -- a people's initiative -- for 99% of the citizens. SB 5062 would take the teeth out of the Act. These bills don’t reflect concern for the public’s will, needs or best interests. They don’t reflect concern for truth, transparency or full disclosure. And why would a school district work for a bill that would remove the public's ability to know what it's doing?

In 2011, I asked a board director who remained silent in a public meeting about math, “Why didn’t you tell the people the truth?” His answer: “It wouldn’t be good for me.” I asked a principal who remained silent why he didn’t speak up. “I just came to watch.” I asked a teacher who remained silent why she didn’t speak up. “I was scared.” Later, I asked a legislative aide why his boss didn't help me with my efforts. “He’s staying out of it,” was the answer.

K-12 education isn’t supposed to be about the adults. (Naturally, the adults don't appear to see it that way.) The schools’ mission is to impart sufficient academics. If they don’t do that, they have failed. Clearly, children aren’t being adequately prepared, yet we keep hearing that things are improving and they just need a tighter grip on our wallet. Do we even have any sheepdogs in district leadership?

Some teachers appear to be sheepdogs, although being a teacher and a sheepdog in Spokane certainly is fraught with peril. When a local teacher put on an excellent candidate forum last election season, she faced harsh union/district/media pushback, as if she had done something wrong. More to the point, district employees again got the message: Do NOT speak up. At all. (And they don't.)

But those who care about the children must find a way to speak up … or risk being complicit.

Meanwhile, parents have been called "sheep" by various so-called leaders. The 1% in charge gives parents a warped view of the school district and its outcomes, then blames them and calls them sheep. Parents and teachers don’t realize how their views have been shaped by hidden agendas, little real accountability or transparency, pots of money, barrels of ink, and/or few apparent scruples. They don’t know that most high-school graduates and college hopefuls leave the K-12 system with few usable skills in math or grammar. And they don't know that many in leadership and the media chose to not leave their kids to founder in a failing public system.

It’s time we reconsidered who’s in the 1%. We’ve been well-trained to think of the 1% as Wall Street “fat cats” and execs in large companies who care more about profits than people. But the 1% isn’t just about money. It’s also about political influence, opportunities and social position.

The 1% includes district superintendents, board directors and administrators who seem more interested in ego, money, power and pet education theories than in the children. The 1% includes union leadership – accountable to almost no one – which uses its clout to heavily influence elections and ballot propositions. The 1% includes influential, allegedly “grass-roots” groups such as the League of Education Voters, Stand for Children, and Citizens for Spokane Schools (CFSS).

CFSS spread its well-heeled influence around Spokane with daily ads in the newspaper (“vote yes”), huge billboards (“vote yes”), signs everywhere (“vote yes,”) and an embarrassing amount of media assistance (“vote yes”). How much money was that, anyway? A more accurate name for CFSS might be: “Citizens – Using Pots of Money from Somebody to Get More of Your Tax Dollars.”

The 1% includes a huge number of legislators who seem unaware of the real problems in public education. “I know a lot about it,” a representative assured me. Yet, they push tax increases, useless mandates and counterproductive programs on all of us. How many have actually examined district budgets, claims, curricula, outcomes, election activity, threats or expenditures?

The 1% encompasses most of Congress, along with certain people in the White House.

The 1% includes Bill Gates, who carries a perplexing amount of influence over public education, despite the fact that he and other corporatists aren’t accountable to the public for this influence in any real way. When you have pockets as deep as his, everyone listens, whether or not a) you know what you’re talking about, b) you’re effective, or c) it’s appropriate for you to interfere. Math advocates can’t get a sliver of respect anywhere, whereas Gates can get it while still in his jammies.

The 1% includes the U.S. Department of Education, the NGA, CCSSO, Achieve, the WEA, NEA, AFT, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Broad Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Texas Instruments, Pearson Education, OSPI, Educational Service Districts, most of the media, and many other people and groups who work with the districts, make money off the districts, hope to make money off the districts, or just prefer to hang out with the 1%.

I wonder: How many sheepdogs are in that 1%? Sheepdogs wouldn’t stand by while children are harmed by loopy edu-fads. Sheepdogs wouldn’t allow taxpayers to be ripped off, voters to be obstructed, and parents to be deceived (then blamed). Sheepdogs wouldn’t dream of saving their own children and then staying silent as other people’s children are betrayed.

True sheepdogs know the job is tough, there are barriers, others will obstruct – perhaps even be dangerous –and that there are consequences to being a sheepdog, but they accept that the job is the job, what’s right is right, and it’s their job to protect the flock. Education sheepdogs are knowledgeable and experienced, with solid research and data. The predators and sheep have little more than, “We want it this way.” Yet, despite our solid arguments, public education doesn’t change – other than to cost us more as it continues to deteriorate.

And so I wonder: How many of the “sheep” and how many of the “sheepdogs” in government and leadership actually are the predators, just engaging in pretense? Or, perhaps, and this is generous, living in denial.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted.
The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (February 2012). “Leadership seems filled with predators and sheep. Where are the sheepdogs?" Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Media, district levy advocacy not appropriate, not leadership

2012-01-31T13:11:00.000-08:00

[Edited Feb. 9. Addition noted below.]

By Laurie H. Rogers

"And I tell you this: you do not lead by hitting people over the head. Any damn fool can do that, but it's usually called 'assault' – not 'leadership'.”

-- Dwight D. Eisenhower, as told to Emmet John Hughes, for “Re-Viewing the Cold War: Domestic Factors and Foreign Policy in the East-West Confrontation”

Last year, someone said to me: “Laurie, I heard you’re a nut job. So tell me, who are you, really?” I said: “You’ve heard me talk. What do you think?” The person chuckled and said: “I kind of like you. I think you care.”

I do care. I have a fierce protective instinct toward the community, the country, and the children. I’m a patriot, but no politician. I’m not interested in making money or gaining political allies through District 81, the union or the media. I was trained as an old-style reporter, with an eye to supportable facts and a determination to know and report the truth. I’m not a natural extrovert, but five years of dealing with administrators and board directors have turned me into a fighter. I’m not a liar, and I’m no quitter, and I don’t know how to do just the bare minimum of anything (except dusting).

In my mind, the truth is the truth, and I’m not inclined to sugar-coat truth so as to avoid aggravating little feelings or interfering with grasping for dollars. People can call that polarizing or extremist. I think those people don’t want to be sidelined by the truth.

I was thinking about the face in the mirror Jan. 30, as I was blown off yet again by a local reporter who wanted me to fit into her agenda. She called because she wanted to talk with local businessman Duane Alton about his opposition to local levies. She couldn’t find Alton, and she heard I might be part of his group. I told the reporter I’m not part of Alton’s group, and not necessarily “anti-levy” but rather “pro-disclosure.” I said the districts were not giving voters full information (or even truthful information, I could have said), and they were not engaging in full disclosure.

After exactly two minutes, having determined that I wasn’t going to fit into the story the way she wanted, the reporter asked if she could call back. I smiled, knowing she wouldn’t. Her TV report and subsequent article painted the levy discussion as polarized, with the poor, allegedly underfunded district on one side, and the evil “mysterious” anti-levy folks on the other. There was no mention of the solid and supportable information I have put together on the Spokane levy. The reporter offered no questioning of the districts’ claims, and no contrary information. Other local TV stations have reported in a similar fashion.

[Added Feb. 9: Another reporter called recently, also wanting to know if I was working with the anti-levy group (whatever "working with" means). I told him that my associations and leanings have nothing to do with the issues, and that he should do some real investigating of the school district, its budget, its claims, and its presentation of information to the public. I offered him my entire blog for quoting. After a lengthy off-the-record conversation, this is his report.
... sigh ...

Note to self: The words "No" and "comment" are your friends, especially when stated together.]

Local media are complicit in their willful failure to properly inform the public about education issues that affect our children and community. Have you seen Spokane lately? I mean, really looked around? Empty buildings, “for lease” signs everywhere. This city is suffocating, slowly choking on an undereducated, unmotivated, frightened populace. And rather than inform us about those who perpetuate this failure, the media are “hitting us over the head” with fake information and fake district claims.

Despite the possibly illegal, certainly inappropriate and arguably false activity all around them, the media instead polarize the conversation in favor of the districts, and they hound people who are doing something they believe in and who are breaking no election laws. It’s pitiful.

Notice the daily “vote for the levy” drumbeat in the local newspapers. An article here, an editorial there, pro-levy advertisements strategically placed every single day. In this ad, see all of the people who advocate for the levy -- while they work for the district, make money off the district, or align politically with the district. There are “vote yes” signs everywhere in the city. Flyers are sent home with the kids. There is open advocating in the schools, with “pro-levy” commentary to children and “Vote for the kids” buttons. The districts’ supposedly “factual” information often is actually promotional, highly subjective, and designed to frighten us, make us feel guilty, and, most of all, push us to vote “yes.” They are leading by hitting us over the head, and it’s all done at an extra cost to us.

In Spokane, the district pounds the pavement in support of the levy, using numbers they cannot or will not support.
In East Valley, the superintendent compares dissenters to “noise” and misbehaving children.
In other districts, such as Monroe, administrators or board directors have openly advocated via a pro-levy Web site.
In Central Valley, a flyer threatens to cut teachers and programs if the levy doesn’t pass (page 1 and page 2).
In Mead, the school district Web site also threatens cuts.

Keep this in mind: These talks of possible "cuts" in programs and teaching positions qualify as threats, not facts. As long as districts have school directors, multiple assistant principals, expenditures for a new data system (and new administrators to go with it) and a new, unproved national program, they have places to cut. As long as districts keep torturing teachers with "professional development" and interfering instructional coaches, and as long as districts keep flipping inadequate curricula and supplementary materials in and out, they have places to cut. As long as ineffective administrators make more than $100,000 per year just in base salary, districts have places to cut.

Many of the people making these threats about cutting teaching positions and programs have no compunction about using the children, either, sending home flyers with them, pulling them out of class to talk about campaigning, and showing them pro-levy material on a daily basis.

A parent in Central Valley wrote to me Jan. 30: “I was so heartbroken for my son, when this morning he said to me and his mother: ‘Vote for the levy.’ I responded, ‘I will not be voting for the levy.’ He then began to cry and said 60 teachers will be losing their jobs…. I asked him who told him (that). He answered his teacher. I responded understandingly, but in the negative, and he asked, ‘Why would my teacher lie to me’? Then, ‘She wouldn't lie to me.’ I said, ‘I wouldn't lie to you. You know that, right?’ I asked him who he believes, and he responded after several seconds, ‘I guess you.’ He was genuinely perplexed.”

The father expressed a desire to sue the district over the emotional distress on his son. “Good thing for them I am not a sue-happy American,” he wrote.

Meanwhile, our children are being raised academically feral. Left on their own to figure things out – and not provided sufficient guidance, discipline, academics or individual work – they are incapable of following their dreams when they leave high school.

Carol Landa-McVicar, trustee of Community Colleges of Spokane, told The Spokesman-Review recently: “We are not graduating enough kids from high school, and when we do, they are coming to college unprepared, delaying their progression to a higher education degree. … how do we address the high number of students that are coming into the college who need remedial math?”

A local politician told me, “You have to work with somebody,” as he refused to lift a finger to help me. I can’t work with people who lie, who want me to lie, or who don’t care about what matters to the children. And I do work with others. When I show parents and grandparents what’s being taught and not taught, they see it right away. They don’t call me names, accuse me of lying or suggest that I’m the problem. They see me for what I am: Just the messenger, delivering to them a critically important message that they need to hear.

So, I work with We, the People. I work for the children. I help teachers where I can. I work for academics. I work for math. I work for this country. I work for the future, and I work for what’s right.

My efforts, my insistence on solid, provable information, and my refusal to play purposefully polarizing games aren’t respected by the district, the school board, the media, or various “players” in the city. But my family respects it, and the people respect it. I suspect the folks on the “anti-levy” side also respect it.

I'm trying to help parents and grandparents learn enough to step in and save their children from these grasping, self-interested school districts and the sycophantic media. And that’s what matters.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted.
The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (January 2012). "Media, district levy advocacy not appropriate, not leadership." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was reposted on Education Views Feb. 3, 2012 at: http://educationviews.org/2012/02/03/media-district-levy-advocacy-not-appropriate-not-leadership/

Hold district accountable for deceit, academic failure and questionable activity

2012-01-23T14:42:00.000-08:00

“Where ignorance is bliss, ignorance of ignorance is sublime.” – Paul Dunham

By Laurie H. Rogers

Last week, I went to a Spokane Public Schools math presentation at Indian Trail Elementary School. It was billed as a forum in the school newsletter and on the reader board outside of the school. It was not, in any way, a forum. It was a tightly controlled 20-minute presentation that offered no data, little information, allowed for no parent input and was patronizing in tone.

At one point, parents were asked to define math to the person next to us. (The principal said he would not offer his definition.) We also were told to describe to our neighbor a math experience we’d had. These conversations ended right there, thus being pointless. We watched a video of several small children talking about the importance of math. The kids were cute, but the video was long. It was made clear to us that math is hard, parents don’t get it (see slide 7 of the presentation), “traditional math” is no longer useful, and math is intimidating to all. Printed materials reinforced the idea of parent incompetence, with students supposedly “taking the lead” and teaching their parents.

Parents were warned to stay positive about math, however, despite our supposed fear and lack of skill, and we also were told what a “balanced” program looks like – as if that’s what Spokane actually has.

What a ridiculous, condescending mess. The person who put this presentation together should be fired immediately.

Initially, the principal told us that questions could be asked, but when a parent raised her hand to do that (before the end of the presentation), she was told to write her question on a piece of paper. Another parent’s hand was in the air for a while until I called out, “Excuse me! This parent would like to ask you a question.” That parent said she wanted to hear the first parent’s question. The principal said there was no time. Voice inflection is a subjective thing, but I’m not the only one who was shocked at the principal’s snippy tone.

Hovering around the “forum” were three central-office administrators – elementary math coordinator Kim Dennis, and executive directors Irene Gonzales and Lorna Spear. Dennis and Gonzales did not answer questions, disappearing immediately after the presentation. A few parents waited to ask questions of the principal. He had to be called back into the gym, and he appeared reluctant to come back or to stay. Spear showed up briefly to herd the principal back out of the gym. Almost $400,000 in base salary for these four individuals, and not one wanted to answer a question from a parent. Clearly, the district doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “forum.”

Dear District: At “forums,” attendees are supposed to be allowed to get a word in.

After my five years of math advocacy; after the “Betrayed” blog and the “Betrayed” book; after several math forums last year; and after the people’s complaints in school board meetings, emails, and letters to the editor – you would think the district would change course on reform math. District staff still talk about how basic math has “changed,” (no, it hasn’t), and still wax poetic about how students learn better when they struggle through it, get things wrong initially, work constantly in groups, and learn inefficient methods first. The district remains willfully, sublimely ignorant.

Last week’s non-forum at Indian Trail is just one of several in the district. Their goal isn’t to learn something – it’s to prove something. Unfortunately, that “something” isn’t true, which is why the presentations tend to be weak, pitiful and patronizing, with wrong information, leaps of logic, lots of dead space, multiple appeals to parent emotion, and zero actual data. The district knows the community is increasingly concerned about math. These “forums” appear to be their response to those concerns – and to my forums from last year. It seems they want to convince us that we’re wrong.

A year ago, from January through March, two STEM professionals and I put on several public forums, designed to talk about Spokane’s execrable math curricula. These reform curricula, used in Spokane now for a few decades, have been criticized across the country since their inception. In spite of concerns from parents and mathematicians, Washington State followed along with reform math, as most states did. Millions of taxpayer dollars in Spokane, and billions across the country, have been wasted and continue to be wasted on these inadequate materials. Our children’s futures – and the country’s future – have been devastated by how math is approached in our public schools.

Here is one example I’ve seen. In this instance, a 4th-grade teacher was teaching the adding of fractions by connecting the fractions to money. Each denominator had to fit into 100 so it could be part of a dollar. The children were to change numerators correspondingly. The numerators were brought down to the next line, but the denominators weren't brought down, so the fractions suddenly became whole numbers (although they were actually parts of a dollar). The numerators were added, and the result was turned into a decimal, by mentally dividing it by 100. (This was a separate step, which leads one to think the 50 cents and 25 cents were thought of as whole numbers.) At any rate, the decimal was changed back into a fraction, the fraction was reduced, and it was plunked back at the top as the answer. I saw no actual work done on the white board. Like this:

½ + ¼ = ?
50 cents plus 25 cents = 75 cents
50 cents plus 25 cents = .75
½ + ¼ = ¾

This is just ignorant. The children seemed lost. This is a poor method, using poor process, and it won’t work well for problems like 1/8 + 1/3. There is no excuse for this. It was painful to watch. I looked sadly at those little kids, aware that most of them are probably doomed, mathematically speaking.

So, last year, my colleagues and I wanted to talk with the public about reform math, about the history of these materials and about how the efficient math algorithms have been purposefully perverted, undermined and dismantled. We wanted to hear parent experiences, to offer a look at real student data, and to suggest avenues for how parents can save their children. For maximum public access, we made the forums free and held them at public libraries. This meant we had to let in whoever came.

Parents and grandparents came to the forums and expressed concerns. The district also came – a large, intimidating block of people whose presence scared potential allies into silence. At the time, I didn’t know this block of people had been purposefully gathered.

District administrators spent working time and public resources building a schedule of people to come to our forums. They pushed repeatedly for staff attendance and wrote “talking points” for them. Clearly, they did NOT want us to talk about the math curriculum. At our Feb. 7, 2011, forum, administrators tolerated and encouraged abysmal behavior from their staff. We three volunteers – who brought solid data, noble intentions, and concern for the children – were mocked and interrupted, and told that student outcomes were “irrelevant.” District staff continually pushed us off our topic of choice, interrupting us to do so. When we tried to quiet them, we were accused of interrupting. District personnel who might have spoken up in our defense were silent.

Never in my years of advocacy had I ever seen such rudeness. Far from reining it in, district leadership initiated it and kept it going. Could we have handled the Feb. 7 forum better? Sure. We learned from that experience, and it would not go that way again. In my view, however, the district administrators responsible should have been fired on the spot.

On Feb. 7, administrator Tammy Campbell interrupted me three times in the first 18 minutes of my presentation. Asked to be quiet, she talked over top of us and other community members. Associate Superintendent Karin Short interrupted me to tell parents I was misrepresenting student outcomes. (It was district data I was writing on the white board.) A district staff member twice said I might be the reason student scores had dropped. When I tried to get Campbell to answer a question about student outcomes, she refused. The next day, The Spokesman-Review criticized us and called us district “antagonists” – without ever speaking with us or offering any helpful information to the public.

Instead of disciplining Campbell and Short, the district leadership, and Board Director Bob Douthitt were filled with sympathy. Immediate plans were made to hold district math forums (to present “our message,” as Douthitt put it, where, supposedly, “some truth” would be provided).

And there you have it: math “forums” like the one last week at Indian Trail, where cute kids replaced real information, where parents weren’t allowed to ask questions in public, and where $100,000+ administrators wouldn’t answer questions or even stick around.

Do you feel respected now? Do you believe your taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely?

Over the last few months, the district has been promoting its $73 million levy, up for a vote Feb. 14. The Public Disclosure Commission has launched a formal investigation of Spokane Public Schools’ election activity in 2009 and 2011. The PDC probably could investigate 2012 activity as well.

Do you trust the district? Do you believe them? Do you think they have the best interests of your children and grandchildren at heart? See the remedial rates (and the success rates in those remedial classes) of recent Spokane graduates who attended Spokane Community Colleges. Do you think the students are leaving Spokane Public Schools well educated and ready for post-secondary life? Do you think the quality of education in Spokane is fueling the local economy, providing job-ready, innovation-ready graduates? Do you think it’s OK that the district threatens the public and teachers over an alleged 800 education jobs and various enrichment programs, while they spend our tax dollars on more administration, bigger salaries, an unnecessary, unproved data system and an unproved, arguably illegal federal plan? Do you think the district is listening to you, to me, to the community or to the law?

If you say yes to all, then by all means, vote for the levy. But if you see the district as wasteful, deceitful, manipulative, bullying, law-breaking, and/or clueless about math, grammar and other necessary academic skills, then please take a hard look at your levy ballot when it comes out in a few days.

I believe the district does listen to money. Maybe that’s the only thing.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (January 2012). "Hold districts accountable for deceit, academic failures and questionable activity." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was republished Jan. 25, 2012, on Education News at: http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/laurie-rogers-hold-districts-accountable-for-deceit-academic-failure/

Yes, vote for kids by asking the adult questions about school levies

2012-01-15T12:36:00.000-08:00

By Laurie H. Rogers

In Eastern Washington, voters are being asked to approve school district levies in a Feb. 14 election. Spokane residents might have seen one or two or 10 billion signs about it strategically placed around the city. I saw a “vote yes for kids” sign at City Hall, tacked to the incoming side of the city bulletin board. I mentioned it to a woman at the counter, and she took it down.

Twice on its front page, The Spokesman-Review published pro-levy material that (to a journalist), can only be seen as full-page advertisements. First was “Anatomy of a Levy.” Then there was “Faces of a Levy.” Where can it go from there? Ears of a Levy? Elbows of a Levy? Butt-cheeks of a Levy?

Meanwhile, the union president published a pro-levy article in the KIDS Newspaper, and the school district helpfully delivered that pro-levy article to elementary schools and students across the city.

Clearly, the district, union and newspaper want us to support the levy. Some local advocates would rather we not. Whatever you decide, please don’t just stay home. If just three people vote on the levy, it will pass or fail based on the three votes. As you’re bombarded with a heavy emotional campaign to “vote yes for the kids,” however, here are a few things to consider.

The district says: Education funding has been cut/gutted/slashed.

The education machine complains that education funding has been cut. This is a government definition of “cut,” where “cutting” doesn’t make the thing smaller. Local, state and federal education dollars keep going up.

Look at financial reports for your district. For Washington State districts, view the F-195 reports. (On the drop-down menu, choose your school district. Scroll down to each F-195 report.) You might be surprised at what you find. For example, Spokane Public Schools has repeatedly said that, over 10 years, its budget was cut by – pick a number they’ve used -- $64 million, $54 million, $45 million… But its operating budget actually has grown from 2002 to this year – the budgeted amount by $60 million, and the actual expenditures by $80 million.

Calculate costs per full-time-enrolled (FTE) student. In Spokane schools:

2001-2002 actual operating costs: $7,857 per student ($236.9 million / 30,151 FTE students).
2001-2002 actual costs for all expenses (operating, transportation, capital projects, debt service and student fund): $8,944 per student ($269.7 million / 30,151 FTE students).
2011-2012 operating costs: more than $11,000 per student ($313.3 million / 28,093 FTE students).
2011-2012 costs for all expenses: more than $17,000 per student ($495.7 million / 28,093 FTE students).

Are you shocked? Well, of course you are. Education money has NOT been cut; it’s been shifted. We can thank legislators for some of the shift, but districts also were allowed to shift dollars away from actual learning, and so they did. Now, they want more dollars.

Examine the budgets and see where the money went. Not all certificated positions are classroom teachers, and not all dollars for “teaching” are classroom expenditures. Included are a flood of useless curricula and supplementary material, plus school directors, executive directors, associate superintendents, assistant superintendents, instructional coaches, assistant principals and layers of administrators who aren’t held responsible for the results of their policies and curriculum choices.

Where in the budget do we find legal expenses? Where are the expenses for promotions of levies and bonds; for special elections for levies and bonds; and for the unproved multi-million-dollar federal vision? Where are the expenses for remediation, drop-out programs, counseling, professional development, curriculum supplements, and other supports – much of which wouldn’t be necessary if the district would allow teachers to directly teach good-quality material? It’s all in there somewhere, and we’re paying for it.

The district says: Budget increases are due to inflation.

As districts say budgets have been cut, they also say inflation explains budget increases (thus trying to have it both ways). The point about inflation is valid, however, so I did a calculation for Spokane using the CPI calculator. (Disclaimer: Not all costs have grown similarly. My calculation is a rough estimate which anyone could refute as being too high or too low.)

If the CPI is any indication, inflation’s impact on the bottom line was greater than I expected. The result was still an increase over 10 years, beyond the rate of inflation, and even as full-time student enrollment dropped by thousands, and classified and certificated staff also decreased. Do the calculation for your own district. The result might surprise you.

The district says: The levy pays for a huge chunk of the budget.

Spokane Public Schools says its levy pays for about 23.4% of its $313.3 million budget. Well, sure it does. Small levies pay for a smaller percentage; big levies pay for a greater percentage. If you want people to vote for the levy, you have to motivate them, and panic can be highly motivational.

Consider that in 2001-2002, the levy paid for just 14% of the district’s $236.9 million operating budget. The fact that the levy now pays for a greater percentage of an exponentially larger operating budget should make it clear how much the levy itself has increased. Not including the state Levy Equalization Assistance – Spokane’s levy has grown by 74% over 10 years, from $35 million in 2001-2002 to $61 million (net) in 2011-2012. All of this is for fewer students.

Forcing the levy to take on a bigger role in the budget makes it harder for voters to reject it. But where does the money go? Is ALL of this money necessary? How much does it cost to educate a child? Obviously, big money doesn’t automatically equate to a sufficient education; most of our public-school graduates are not academically ready for college.

The district says: Levies are restricted to 28% of state and federal funds.

You’ll love this one. By law, district levies are restricted to a percentage of the tax money received from state and federal governments (known as the levy base). The original limit was 10% of the levy base, set in 1977. The limit was increased over the years, to the current limit of 28%. Ninety districts, however, can raise more than 28%. Spokane’s limit is 28.18% (so not actually 28%).

Because of this percentage limit, if state and federal dollars go down, the allowable levy dollars also should go down. That isn’t what happened. School districts do say that state and federal dollars have been cut (again, it depends on which year, which dollars, and which expenses are chosen for comparison), but levy dollars have not dropped. I asked local administrators about this seeming contradiction, and they indicated that levy dollars are now based partially on pretend money. Here’s how that works.

Legislators decided to “protect” districts’ levy base from negative “changes in state and federal revenue sources.” (See RCW 84.52.0531, 4ii) Districts are allowed to base levies on dollars that would have been received had there been more revenue. The Spokane superintendent called it “ghost money.” I asked her what the levy limit for Spokane is, then, since it isn’t 28%. She hastened to say that it is 28%: “It’s 28% of what it would have been.”

You can’t make up this stuff.

The district says: We’ve cut all that we can from the budget.

As the Spokane district complains about budget shortages, it’s spending money in new ways such as the Common Core initiatives – the federal vision for public education. The district is budgeting $4 million for a new data system and new administrators to manage the data system. It socked away $2 million for the K-8 portion of a national math curriculum it hadn’t even seen. That’s $6 million, for just this small piece of the Common Core initiatives.

Extrapolate these costs to the state. Washington has 295 districts. If they spend what Spokane is spending, it will cost taxpayers across the state $1.77 billion (295 districts x $6 million). Extrapolate the costs to the country. America has about 14,000 districts. If they spend what Spokane is spending, it will cost taxpayers across the country $84 billion (14,000 x $6 million).

And that's just a small piece of the Common Core. There is more to come – high school math, English, science … The Secretary of Education has said he wants national (i.e. federal) standards in all subjects. It will cost this country trillions of dollars, for an untested, unproved federal plan.

Meanwhile, Spokane continues to flip curricula. In 2006, it spent a half a million for the execrable Core-Plus program, now junked. In 2010, it adopted the better Holt Mathematics textbooks for a half a million, now ignored. Administrators have since pushed a deeply flawed in-house math program on teachers … while also paying for supplementary materials for the middle schools … on top of the 40 pages of titles of other materials for all subjects … And now, they're apparently willing to toss much of it to adopt the unproved federal vision.

On Jan. 4, I asked Associate Superintendent Mark Anderson why the district is adopting the unproved Common Core when it’s supposedly strapped for funds. He said they have to do it, which is not true. He said the district has cut elsewhere to pay for the initiatives. Apparently, the cuts include instructional assistants, special education specialists, and summer school.

The district says: The levy helps keep class sizes “reasonable.”

In its levy presentations, Spokane Public Schools has repeatedly claimed that the levy helps keep class sizes at “reasonable” levels. But class sizes in Spokane are pretty much maxed out, limited by the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The district says: 800 jobs are at risk.

Spokane administrators said 800 jobs are at risk if the levy doesn’t pass. Three years ago, when SPS was promoting its 2009 bond and levy, supposedly 300 jobs were at risk. The district said this 500-job difference is because state funding was cut. Let’s look at some numbers, per the state education agency:

One year ago: State funds (general purpose) are less today than one year ago, by about $2 million, which doesn’t seem like enough to pay for 500 jobs. However, special purpose funds are slightly more today than one year ago.
Two years ago: State funds (general purpose and special purpose) are more today than they were two years ago, by about $5 million altogether.
Three years ago: State funds (general purpose) are more today by about $3 million. Special purpose funds are about $9 million less today than they were in 2008-2009, due to the $10 million cut in Student Achievement funds (I-728). Otherwise, state funds are more today than three years ago, and fairly close to what they were four years ago.

Three years ago, 300 jobs supposedly were at risk. This year, supposedly one-quarter of the district’s 3,226-member workforce is in peril. Do you believe that? In a Jan. 9 presentation to City Council, the district acknowledged that the figure of 3,226 represents full-time employees only, whereas the 800 at-risk jobs include full-time and part-time employees. Assuming that 800 jobs actually are at risk – that’s closer to one-sixth of all positions, and not all are full-time.

The district says: Programs are at risk if the levy doesn’t pass.

The district continually threatens cuts in music, sports, the gifted program and others if the levy doesn’t pass. These threats effectively hold those programs hostage. If we pay up, our programs will supposedly continue to live. Would the district really cut the gifted program? Odyssey brings in money, is utilized by board directors and administrators for their own children, and is such a useful manipulative tool. Taxpayers have yet to call the district’s bluff on the levy; most taxpayers don’t know they probably should question whether these threats are appropriate, factual or even legal.

The district says: Its levy presentations are “factual” and “strictly adhere” to the law.

I don’t think so. I believe certain district employees violated RCW 42.17.130 in 2009 in campaigning for the bond and levy, and in 2011 while campaigning or assisting in campaigning for board candidate Deana Brower. The Public Disclosure Commission is investigating.

Why vote for the levy?

Why would we vote for the levy? Why do we buy any product? Let's remove the emotion, the "it's for the kids," and the threats -- Let's ask the mature questions of those people doing their best to frighten us, persuade us, make us feel guilty, and tug on our heartstrings. Ask them:

Compared with ten years ago, how much of the 2012 levy would go to the actual classrooms and to actual classroom teachers? How much to "enrichment" activities?
Compared with ten years ago, how much of the 2012 levy would go to central-office administrators? How much to building administrators? How much to certificated staff members who aren’t actually working this year as classroom teachers?
Why is the district spending millions of tax dollars on new items, such as the unproved Common Core initiatives, even as it complains to the public about how short it is on dollars?

I do believe taxpayers should vote for school levies IF the dollars are critical to student outcomes, and IF the district is efficient, academically sufficient, thrifty, accountable, truthful, honorable and law-abiding. Does your district fit these parameters? What if the “vote yes for kids” signs instead said:

Vote yes for administrator salary increases and benefits
Vote yes for an unproved, unfunded, arguably illegal federal takeover of public education
Vote yes for union political activity that goes by its own rules
Vote yes for wasted dollars, on things that don’t help children learn
Vote yes for deceitful presentations of student outcomes and manipulative district behavior
Vote yes for substantial remediation for your child at the local community college

Levy dollars definitely drive the district trains. Those trains are going in a happy little direction for the adults, but – for the kids – they are seriously, woefully off the tracks. This year, for the kids, please ask questions, please weigh the veracity of the answers you get, and then please vote by Feb. 14.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (January 2012). "Yes, vote for kids by asking the adult questions about school levies." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published Jan. 16, 2012 on EducationViews at: http://educationviews.org/2012/01/16/yes-vote-for-kids-by-asking-the-adult-questions-about-school-levies/

This article also was published Jan. 17, 2012 on EducationNews at:
http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/laurie-rogers-vote-for-kids-by-asking-adult-questions-about-school-levies/

Print media display political agenda and poor skills in attacking Spokane teacher

2012-01-06T16:49:00.000-08:00

By Laurie H. Rogers

This article is third in a series of articles regarding media coverage of public education. This article and its predecessors in the series articulate part of the reason we need a new and better news source.

Instead of discussing the myriad legal and academic issues currently surrounding Spokane Public Schools, the editors for the daily newspaper The Spokesman-Review and the weekly publication The Inlander seem determined to drum up stray rumors and unsupported accusations against AP English teacher Jennifer Walther, who perhaps was caught TWC (Teaching While Conservative).

In October 2011, Walther’s Leadership Class at Ferris High School put on the annual political forum “Face-Off at Ferris.” Writers for The Spokesman-Review (SR) and The Inlander have since accused Walther of allowing her political views to sway the Ferris forum in favor of mayoral and school board candidates who are thought to be politically conservative.

The accusers have not been able to support their claim by pointing at actual questions that were asked. Sitting at the Ferris forum last October, I heard people all around me saying, “Those are great questions.” What does a conservative question even look like? Are only conservatives concerned about accountability, transparency, outcomes, Otto Zehm’s death, water rates, union clout and misspent finances? I know plenty of Democrats and progressives who are concerned about these issues.

Real education issues defy political labels, and yet, our local print media persist in labeling. Is it now shocking, illegal, immoral, unethical, or inappropriate to be a conservative thinker? Can a teacher not freely ask questions of people she knows? Can her acquaintances not offer ideas to her when asked? Can students not freely choose questions they believe to be pertinent?

Oh my, please read this condescending, sanctimonious, hypocritical, unintentionally hilarious Dec. 16 piece on Walther by the SR’s Shawn Vestal. Vestal claims Walther and I were “vigorously bashing” one candidate and promoting another in an exchange of emails. Despite never once having spoken with me prior to writing his article, he calls me a “conservative math curriculum critic.” Vestal doesn’t know my politics – no one does – and why do they matter? Does Vestal go around calling administrators “progressive math curriculum supporters”? The person showing political bias here is Vestal, whereas I advocate for accountability, transparency, fiscal responsibility, academics and the truth.

I asked Vestal for support for his description of me. You'll love his response. Without any salutation, such as, oh, I don't know, perhaps "Dear Mrs. Rogers," he begins with this:

"Well, I'll do this once, but it's my last homework assignment: I see the following as essentially conservative positions: opposing the 'explosion' of school spending in recent years; arguing that there is no money shortage in the public schools; working to discredit unions and seeking bits of incriminating evidence against them; supporting the conservative candidate in the school board race; advocating a return to more traditional curriculums (sic); an alliance -- at least a glancing online one -- with the Alton anti-levy and bond group. Let me say this: I don't intend conservative as a perjorative (sic), though I don't agree with most of your views. But it seems to me a fair characterization. You may not have spoken with me personally, but you've made a lot of public statements."It was Vestal's responsibility to give me a fair chance to comment, prior to publishing his Dec. 16 column. He declined to honor that responsibility. He has zero support for his claims that I've worked to discredit unions, or that I've sought bits of incriminating evidence against unions, or that I have an "alliance" with any anti-levy and bond group.

I asked Vestal to support the phrase "vigorous bashing," with respect to communications between Walther and me. This is what he said: “Bashing seems to me to be a conversational equivalent to criticizing or attacking rhetorically. … my intent was not to suggest that it's improper, necessarily to have an opinion about Brower, but that in fact the key debate organizer had expressed clear support for one candidate and clear opposition to the other, in strong terms.”

So what? So the forum's main organizer privately expressed a preference for one candidate over another. The SR also preferred one candidate over another, expressing that preference publicly and repeatedly. Did their preference influence the outcome? The SR has not proved that Walther's preference swayed the Ferris forum. In the SR's case, the paper's editorial preference clearly has affected -- and continues to affect -- its news and editorial coverage.

As for the word "bashing," does anyone believe it to be synonymous with “criticizing” – especially when paired with “vigorous”? Vestal refused to provide me with more proof of this supposed "vigorous bashing," saying, "I quoted one line of Walthers' (sic) in the column, and am not going to hunt down other examples in the e-mails again."

Well, how handy. I know what's in those emails. Vestal has nothing else of substance to report. Near the end of his Dec. 16 column, Vestal – a veritable prince of irony – writes, “Maybe next year part of the lesson can include something about conflicts of interest and impartiality and not stacking the deck.”

Ha, ha, ha. He cracks me up. If ever there is a class on impartiality, he should definitely attend.

As for The Inlander, in a Jan. 4, 2012, column, associate professor Robert Herold also proves to be politically biased as he accuses Walther of being politically biased. He provides no sources other than the SR as he accuses Walther of not citing her sources. He provides no data as he questions the data in the Ferris forum questions. He provides no proof at all for his accusation that Walther condoned and promoted plagiarism. And Herold -- in an ultimate hypocrisy -- did not speak with Walther before publishing his column.

Herold's column is an argumentation and journalistic mess, but if I were his editor, I would have rejected it as being potentially libelous to Walther and/or the Ferris Leadership Class.

These media charges of political bias in the Ferris forum are hypocritical and disingenuous. Spokane-area residents get the media’s political agenda with their breakfast. Public-school children are force-fed the district’s political agenda EVERY DAY – in their classes and in curricular materials, including in math. The district’s K-6 families get an extra dose of political agenda in the union president’s column, which is published in the KIDS Newspaper, and which the district helpfully distributes regularly to elementary students at the schools and to the public in elementary schools and in the downtown office.

What do Vestal and Herold say about the district and union’s political activism that permeates, saturates, and drowns out academics? What do they say about the media’s conflicts of interest, lack of impartiality or stacking of the deck? What do they say about the district, the union and the local media having displayed persistent favoritism toward board candidate Deana Brower? What do they say about letters to the editor and newspaper columns that verge on libel toward Walther and board candidate Sally Fullmer?

Of course Walther has opinions. Everyone does. Editorial staff for The Inlander and the SR obviously had strong opinions about the 2011 candidates, and their election coverage generally appeared to favor those opinions. The issue with the Ferris forum – the one valid question – is whether Walther’s opinions unfairly influenced the forum in favor of particular candidates. No one has shown that to be the case. Meanwhile, during the forum, newspaper-endorsed board candidate Brower kept saying things like, “That’s a good question; I’m glad you asked me that.” The straw poll after the debate favored Brower, and Brower narrowly won the election.

The real stories here are the legal issues surrounding the school district and the clear and persistent political bias in Spokane's daily and weekly newspapers.

As these two papers unfairly criticize Jennifer Walther, they decline to report on the district’s meetings with this teacher. They haven’t told you that, as a certificated employee, Walther is covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (see Section 1, page 6), and as such, is entitled to all rights and protections afforded under the Agreement, including the noteworthy sections on Nondiscrimination (see Section 2, page 6), and on Progressive Discipline (see Section 22, page 61). Walther pays dues to the union, but is refunded the part of the dues that would pay for union political activity. This makes her an “agency fee payer” (which the union noted in its snippy criticism of Walther in October on the SEA Facebook page).

The papers haven't explained that Walther also is entitled to all protections and rights under the school district’s own policies, including those in the First Amendment policy, in the Unlawful Discrimination and Harassment policy, in the Disciplinary Action policy, in the Civility policy (especially items IV and VI), and in the Settlement of Grievances policy. They haven't told you that Walther is allowed freedom from harassment or bullying, and freedom from discrimination for her political viewpoints. She’s allowed representation; to know the accusations made against her; to see the complaint against her; and to not be ambushed by people with an axe to grind.

In addition, America has a Constitution and Bill of Rights. (The disturbing National Defense Authorization Act notwithstanding), citizens cannot be plucked from their lives and grilled without due process or legal representation. (I doubt even the union would try to call Walther a terrorist sympathizer.)

The SR and The Inlander haven't explained that the district and union appear to have violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement, multiple district policies, and/or the law as they campaigned for ballot propositions, campaigned or assisted with campaigning for board candidate Brower, and pursued some perceived issue with Jennifer Walther. The papers haven't questioned why the superintendent unexpectedly announced her retirement just five months after her contract was renewed.

If the SR and The Inlander are believed, there is nothing to talk about in this district other than 1) an alleged need for more money, and 2) this one teacher, whose forum was well-run and whose students asked excellent questions of candidates who were campaigning to be stewards of the future.

Spokane desperately needs a print news source that will tell the whole story – about education and about other issues of interest to this community. It needs a news source that will stand up for accountability, transparency, truth and the law; that will give all sides the opportunity to explain their position; and that will stand up for We, the People, regardless of our political affiliation.

What a fair and helpful change that would be.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (January 2012). "Print media display political agenda and poor skills in attacking Spokane teacher." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was republished Jan. 8, 2012, on EducationViews.org at: http://educationviews.org/2012/01/08/print-media-display-political-agenda-and-poor-skills-in-attacking-spokane-teacher/

This article was republished Jan. 11, 2012, on EducationNews at: http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/laurie-rogers-media-show-agenda-poor-skills-in-attacking-spokane-teacher/

Paper declines to inform voters about critical school-district election issues

2011-12-28T08:37:00.000-08:00

By Laurie H. Rogers

This article is second in a series of articles regarding media coverage of public education. This article and its predecessor in the series show that Spokesman-Review coverage of the 2011 school-board election in Spokane was biased in favor of a particular candidate and a particular agenda.

On Sept. 28, I filed a Public Disclosure Commission complaint regarding election activity in 2009 and 2011 by Spokane Public Schools administrators, board directors, (new school board director) Deana Brower, and bond and levy advocacy organization Citizens for Spokane Schools (CFSS).

According to Washington State law, articulated in RCW 42.17.130, school district employees and school board directors are prohibited from using public resources to promote – directly or indirectly – elective candidates or ballot propositions such as bonds and levies. This is what RCW 42.17.130 says, in part:

“No elective official nor any employee of his [or her] office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of a public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency.”Public records show that Spokane Public Schools appears to have used public resources to campaign for the 2009 bond and levy (in schools and elsewhere); worked with CFSS on the promotion of ballot propositions; and allowed the use of public resources to promote Deana Brower’s board candidacy.

On Oct. 11, I sent The Spokesman-Review (SR) a Letter to the Editor that described the PDC complaint. Opinion page editor Bert Caldwell acknowledged receipt of my letter, and I later also received a confirmation phone call from a newspaper staff member. Caldwell never printed my letter, but he did forward the letter to education reporter Jody Lawrence-Turner.

The SR sat on the PDC complaint. On Oct. 19, the ballots for the general election were mailed. It wasn’t until Oct. 25, two weeks after I sent the SR my letter and nearly a week after the ballots were mailed, that the SR finally published a single passing comment about the PDC complaint. In this comment, the SR declined to credit me or my letter for the information, gave the district and Brower a free pass, declined to explain the issues surrounding the law in question, and again used much of the space to make an unsupported insinuation against board candidate Sally Fullmer.

Asked in public about his … uh … redirecting of my letter, Caldwell said it “became news” once he sent it to Lawrence-Turner. I’m sure my jaw dropped. At other newspapers, this kind of activity would have led to disciplinary action or firings. Proper attribution of a source is a must-do for any writer. Reputable media do not mix opinion pages and news pages.

The PDC called Nov. 8 to say that, after reviewing the complaint, it was launching a formal investigation of the district’s activity during the 2009 and 2011 elections. This is a big deal. Spokane Public Schools spends a half-a-billion dollars a year and employs more than 3,200 people. Board candidate Brower and city council candidate Ben Stuckart likely benefited from what appears to be illegal district activity on their behalf during the 2011 election. Following is a brief description of some of the 2011 activity.

During the 2011 election, the president of the teachers union wrote columns endorsing Brower, Stuckart and city council candidate Joy Jones. The columns were published in September and October in a local publication called KIDS Newspaper. The district distributed the KIDS Newspaper to each elementary school, where copies were handed out to each elementary school student. The district also provided copies to the public in school offices and at the downtown office.

Facing criticism of these actions, the union president and a district representative acknowledged that the distributions shouldn’t have happened, but by then, the newspapers were delivered and the damage was done. Final results of the Brower/Fullmer and Stuckart/Hession races were so close (a difference of 1.09% and .60% respectively), the district’s distributions of the union endorsements could well have pushed Brower and Stuckart into the win.

What has the SR said about the PDC’s decision to formally investigate these and other district election activities? To the best of my knowledge, nothing.

At a Nov. 10 Breakfast for Community Leaders, Superintendent Nancy Stowell praised the SR’s Lawrence-Turner. Holding up a newspaper, Stowell said, “This is the wonderful work of Jody Lawrence-Turner, who really keeps looking for the good stories, the wonderful things that are happening with our young people.”

Meanwhile, the SR continues to promote the school district. On Nov. 29, it promoted the district’s proposed 2012 levy in a full-page display called “Anatomy of a Levy.” This display looks and reads like an advertisement – on the front page, no less. There was no accompanying article, no questioning and no alternate view.

On Dec. 15, the SR said Stowell had announced she would retire, effective June 2012. The SR didn’t explain why her announcement came just five months after board directors unanimously renewed her contract. It didn’t mention the PDC investigation or any benefits Stowell might receive in retirement.

Stowell walked away from a freshly inked contract and a near quarter-of-a-million-dollar salary because, according to the SR, she wants to cook, speak French and play the piano. There was no real reporting on a superintendent who unexpectedly announced her retirement in the midst of an investigation by the Public Disclosure Commission.

Note from Laurie Rogers: This is Part 2 of a series of articles on local education coverage. The third article in this series will discuss district and union political agendas, and district employee rights. This series articulates part of the reason Spokane needs a new print news source. –

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

Rogers, L. (December 2011). "Paper declines to inform voters about critical school-district election issues." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Paper pursues a political agenda as it accuses teacher of pursuing a political agenda

2011-12-25T22:51:00.000-08:00

By Laurie H. Rogers

It’s dangerous to be away. I briefly left the country a few weeks ago, and while I was gone, the district superintendent announced her retirement and The Spokesman-Review (SR) launched what I see as a media “lynching” of a local high school teacher.

Did you read about the attack on Jennifer Walther, an Advanced Placement English teacher at Ferris High School in Spokane, WA? Are you shocked by the newspaper’s biased coverage? I’m not shocked. Nowadays, the SR doesn’t bear much resemblance to the newspapers I’ve enjoyed reading. Smaller, thinner and nastier, it contains less content, less local news and more ads. Often biased, incomplete or hypocritical, the paper tolerates questionable material that fits an editorial agenda.

I'm an avid newspaper reader, but I canceled the SR in 2008 when it kept quoting unsubstantiated rumors from the ex-boyfriend of the daughter of vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Things have not improved since then.

Now, the SR is using its bully pulpit to accuse Walther of doing something the SR appears to do nearly every day of the week – pursue a biased political agenda. Evidence suggests that, rather than stand up for this teacher, the school district and teachers union initiated or are assisting with the pile-on.

At no point has anyone proved that Walther’s political views led to a biased debate at Ferris High School. Keep that in mind. The SR is accusing Walther of deliberately favoring conservative candidates during the October “Face-Off at Ferris.” This accusation is not supported. View the questions for the school board candidates. They’re good questions. What does a progressive question even look like? Are only conservatives concerned with accountability, transparency, student outcomes, union clout and misspent finances? What a silly notion.

For my Oct. 18 article on the Ferris forum, I painstakingly transcribed the questions from a recording I made. Compare the way I wrote them with the way the SR published them - unattributed - on Dec. 16. The hyphenation, punctuation, parentheses, wording and spelling are the same. Not similar; they are the same. (I didn’t stay for the mayoral debate, so I don’t have the questions for the mayoral candidates. Interestingly, the SR doesn't appear to have published those questions either.)

The SR has refused to discuss or investigate real education issues and refused to report on community complaints or views. Education reporter Jody Lawrence-Turner has provided little real coverage of the district’s failure to provide sufficient instruction in math or grammar; of the district’s parsed data; or of alleged district violations of law, district policy and the Collective Bargaining Agreement. She has failed to adequately report on the decades of complaints nationally about the math curricula that are still used in Spokane; about local college remedial rates in math; the students’ lack of academic skills; the real reasons for the high rates of youth unemployment; the wasted taxpayer dollars in Spokane Public Schools; the burgeoning district budget; or the fears harbored by many teachers.

Instead, the SR complains mildly about district salaries. It suggests that “math is hard,” that everything is good, that more money is required, and that struggling kids probably have dyscalculia.

During the 2011 school board campaign, the SR could have stepped up its game. Instead, while refusing to engage in the slightest bit of reflection, criticism or investigation of the school district, the SR editorial board joined the teachers union in endorsing Deana Brower, co-chair of bond and levy advocacy organization Citizens for Spokane Schools. In its articles and editorials, the SR continually gave Brower glowing coverage while portraying candidate Sally Fullmer in a false and unfavorable light. The SR made unsupported insinuations about Fullmer without giving her the opportunity to defend herself.

On Oct. 28 (online) and Oct. 30 (in print and online), the SR published and republished a Letter to the Editor that made an unsupported accusation against Fullmer, using language that should have been rejected as potentially libelous. “That one got by us,” editor Bert Caldwell later told an audience when I asked about it. Fullmer, who was sitting next to me that day, received no apology from Caldwell, nor barely a glance. Caldwell rejected any idea of a retraction or clarification.

As of Dec. 26, the letter still sits on the SR Web site, still “getting by them.”

Meanwhile, the SR also has refused to properly inform the public about the Public Disclosure Commission’s decision to formally investigate the school district regarding election activity in 2009 and 2011. At issue in my PDC complaint is activity involving Superintendent Nancy Stowell, certain district administrators and board directors, Citizens for Spokane Schools, and (then board candidate) Deana Brower.

Note from Laurie Rogers: This is Part 1 of a series of articles on local education coverage. The next article in this series will discuss the PDC complaint and the superintendent’s recently announced retirement. This series articulates part of the reason Spokane needs a new print news source. –

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (December 2011). "Paper pursues a political agenda as it accuses teacher of pursuing a political agenda." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Spokane Public Schools is a "tale of two cities" - and I live in the other one

2011-11-13T07:19:00.000-08:00

[Updated Nov. 30 to specify proposed 2012 levy amount.]

By Laurie H. Rogers

On Nov. 10, Spokane Public Schools hosted a lovely “Breakfast for Community Leaders.” The district’s goal was to assure well-connected and like-minded folks in the city that – as the district put it – it’s “better preparing all students for success after graduation.” A few students also were brought in to “share their stories about the effectiveness of that preparation and what high school is like today.”

Superintendent Nancy Stowell began the breakfast by saying she wanted to “put to rest” the “fingerpointing and blame” the district faced during the 2011 board election. Here are a few examples of how she put things to rest.

Stowell praised the district for higher graduation rates, saying the next challenge is college readiness. Wasn't college readiness always the goal? Most parents think so. So, the district is letting more of the kids leave, and at some point, they'll start getting them ready for postsecondary life? How does that work?
Stowell showed us how enrollment is increasing in Advanced Placement classes. Had she shown AP pass rates -- we also would have seen a precipitous drop in the percentage passing, and an alarming drop in the average AP grade.

Stowell spent several minutes discussing the upcoming ballot proposition for the district levy. She said, “We do have a citizen’s group that works to support that levy,” and she introduced Mike Livingston (Kiemle & Hagood), chair of bond/levy advocacy group Citizens for Spokane Schools (CFSS).

In 2009, CFSS and the district lobbied taxpayers to vote for a $288 million bond and a $60 million levy. Stowell said the 2012 levy campaign would begin this week, but actually, it appears as though the district/CFSS talks on the 2012 levy began in 2010, and that district presentations on the 2012 levy began Sept. 1, 2011. Some of the district’s 2009 and 2011 campaign activities have prompted the launching of a formal investigation by the Public Disclosure Commission.

That issue definitely has not been put to rest.

If approved by voters Feb. 14, the 2012 levy will bring in $73.3 million. At the Nov. 10 breakfast, Stowell didn’t mention that in 2011, the levy was $60 million, that in 2002, the levy was just $36.4 million, or that the district budget has exploded since 2002. You might think from her comments that the district has to light fires and tape up shoes just to stay warm.

Stowell said the “community thinks the levy should be going for” extracurricular programs, but that, instead, “primarily, it funds educational programs” such as special education, transportation and English Language Learners. “A little bit of it goes to extracurricular,” Stowell said on Thursday, “but not very much anymore.” She didn’t tell us how much of it pays for administrative overhead, nor did she mention that last year’s levy paid for administrative raises and instructional coaches. She also didn't discuss the district's plans to adopt an untested, unproved, unnecessary, multi-million-dollar federal vision for education.

Folks – there is no money shortage in education. Taxpayers still pay all of the federal, state, and local taxes we’ve always paid. Why are so few education dollars going to the classroom?

For 2011-2012, Spokane Public Schools budgeted $493 million for operating costs, capital projects and debt service. This is an increase of $210 million since 2001-2002, and it doesn’t include all of the district’s costs.
For 2011-2012, Washington State was budgeting $10.5 billion for school districts and educational service districts (ESDs). This is an increase of about $3 billion since 2001-2002, and it doesn’t include all of the state’s education costs.
America now spends $700 billion a year on K-12 education. The federal portion has ballooned to $68 billion, an increase of $12 billion since 2001-2002. This doesn't include the extra $100 billion for ARRA in 2009.

Despite this obscene taxpayer expense, the public system largely fails. There appears to be an inverse relationship:

between how much public education costs taxpayers, and how effective it is;
between how much it costs us and how much we know about it; and
between how much it costs us and how much control we have over how our dollars are spent.

I was interested to hear how all of this money is “preparing students for success,” but I wasn’t invited to the Nov. 10 breakfast in Spokane, nor was I welcome. Eventually, I was allowed to attend, but I was told to behave. The admonishment I received is ironic, considering the district’s behavior at my Feb. 7 math forum.

Shortly after arriving on Nov. 10, I was directed to sit in a chair against the wall – banished to a district Siberia. That put me next to the invited students and their electronics, and away from the tables for the invited “leaders” and district staff. The students and I sat against the wall, watching the others be feted.

It made me laugh. I generally prefer the company of students and robots to that of district staff. The students attending the breakfast are funny, curious, pleasant, and interesting. They’ve achieved good things, and they deserve praise. I liked talking with them. None of this can be said about district leadership.

In my Siberia Against the Wall (SAW), I had a panoramic view of the directors, superintendent, community leaders and district staff. I observed the handshaking, back slapping, the hugs and thumbs up for (board candidate) Deana Brower, and the well-practiced politicking. I heard the superintendent’s parsed statistics, I noted the missing data, and I cringed at the blatant self-stroking and obsequious stroking of others. Other adults noshed on the taxpayer-funded feast, applauded Stowell, and many appeared to leave the room happy, well-fed, and generally convinced.

But over there in the chilly SAW, Stowell’s presentation sounded like this:

"Aren’t we wonderful? You’re wonderful, too. You love us, and we love you, you well-heeled, well-connected people. Despite the unfair criticisms of us, the barriers put in our way, and the hard life we must endure, we’re still fabulously successful. Three students and some robots prove our wonderfulness. Yes, yes, thank you – it is hard, but it’s so rewarding trying to lift up the little people. They’re poor. They don’t speak English. They don’t understand how hard we work for them, but that’s the challenge, isn’t it? We’ve done amazing work by allowing them to graduate. Someday, we’ll have to start preparing them for something. Meanwhile, we need more money."

I’m used to the district’s arrogance, condescension and persistent self-praise. I’m used to the lack of accountability, transparency or apologies from them for having failed thousands of students over the years. I’m used to being treated like dreck on the bottom of their shoe. On Nov. 10, however, I drove away with a deep and abiding anger. Yes, I did enjoy the students and their amazing robotics. There are good things being done somewhere in the district. But I know that those students – those outcomes and programs – are not the norm. That breakfast spread is not the norm. The attendees are not representative of the city. A good number of those attendees don’t appear to see the differences between them and others. Perhaps they’ve justified those differences, or they’ve decided to ignore them.

Dozens of well-known people walked around that room, smiling, shaking hands, seemingly happy and content – and I know some of them don’t have children in school, some tutor their children or supplement the program, and some send their children to a private school.

As I drove home, the issues crystallized for me. This district is a tale of two cities. One city is in that room, filled with upper-crust folks who have options, alternatives, connections, nice offices and nice homes. Many don’t get the issue, refuse to get it – and some will manipulate the system in whichever fashion it suits them so that they don’t have to get it… as they save their own children and grandchildren.

The other city is the one in which the rest of us live. We aren’t invited to those breakfasts. We don’t hobnob at Clinkerdaggers or work out at The Spokane Club. Far from having "pull" in the district, we can’t even get them to listen. Most of us don’t have access to options and alternatives. As we try to express our concerns, the district leadership typically discounts our fears and worries, and treats us with ill-concealed disdain. To them, our children have “challenges.” We supposedly aren’t raising them properly. We supposedly aren’t involved enough, and consequently, our children supposedly are difficult, unmotivated and troublesome.

The three students who spoke Nov. 10 are the students Stowell notices. Even those students – and it made me angry to see it – were being used. After one of the students spoke (exceptionally well), Stowell said to the room: “Well, I tell ya. When we hear from students like that, it reminds us all of the very important work that we’re doing… With students like (her) graduating from our high schools, I think we can all feel a little more relieved and relaxed about our future.”

It was like being in a castle, with a queen, a court, attendants and sycophants. I – a commoner – was grudgingly allowed in but not welcomed. Barely tolerated but not respected. The court attended to the queen, and the queen is good, I’ll give her that – brilliant even – at stroking her court. They oohed and awed, chuckled and clapped. We in the other city – we and our children, our concerns, our worries, and our efforts to make things better – aren’t relevant there. Our children are excuses or a way to get more taxpayer dollars. We parents are viewed as a joke or as an annoying obstruction.

It was a moment of awakening. I’ve had so many of those over five years, but this moment was life-changing. I have fought for five years for arithmetic (and now for grammar) for 28,000 children, interviewed dozens of people, written a blog and a book, held community forums, and communicated with people around the world. This fall, I campaigned for a school board candidate who actually wants to tell voters the truth. She faced off against the nearly solid wall of the Not Accountable: The district leadership, the union leadership, the newspapers, and many in the "upper crust." Even so, she garnered nearly half the vote.

On Nov. 10, I watched the district shamelessly use the children to work the system, feed off the system, and stroke the system... and the system rolled over and purred. It made me want to gag.

I wanted a fulcrum that would move this city, and I found it. I did manage to move much of the city I live in. What I didn't move -- what I can't move, given my current definitions -- is the city that runs the school district. It has its own arguments, research and data. Over five years, I've given that city suitcases of real evidence, and they stuck me in a chair against the wall. Clearly, my definitions have to change.

Please stay tuned. There’s more to say and more to do. Your input -- from the city where you live -- is always welcome and appreciated. I still think we can turn things around for the children, but it's going to take a different approach.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (November 2011). "Spokane Public Schools is a 'tale of two cities' - and I live in the other one." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site:http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published Nov. 14, 2011, on Education Views at: http://educationviews.org/2011/11/14/spokane-public-schools-is-a-tale-of-two-cities-and-i-live-in-the-other-one/

PDC launching a formal investigation regarding Spokane Public Schools

2011-11-08T16:13:00.000-08:00

By Laurie H. Rogers

The Public Disclosure Commission notified me today that, pursuant to my filing of a complaint Sept. 28 with respect to Spokane Public Schools, the Commission is launching a formal investigation.

My complaint focuses on two issues: the district's dealings with school board candidate Deana Brower, and the district's activities with respect to the 2009 bond and levy ballot propositions.

For more on the complaint, please see this page: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/p/public-records-public-disclosure.html

Please stay tuned. There will be more to come.

Vote for those whose allegiance is to the people

2011-10-31T17:35:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-25T14:30:00.000-07:00

[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

2011-10-21T20:01:00.000-07:00

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/

Your choice is Accountability with Fullmer --- or more of the same with Brower

2011-10-18T18:49:00.000-07:00

By Laurie H. Rogers

Do you think the school district is being run well? Do you want it to remain as is? When a board candidate says "we" -- should that refer to "we, the people," or "we, the district leadership"? Your answers to these questions will bear on how you'll vote this week for the District 81 school director position. I hope a majority of voters clearly sees that serious change is needed and that the candidate who will work for that change is Sally Fullmer. Her commitment to the voters was apparent beyond a shadow of a doubt last night in Spokane at "Face Off at Ferris."

The Leadership Class at Ferris High School has much to be proud of today. That class again gave city residents a good look at how journalism could be done in Spokane. The first half of the "Face Off" dealt with the school director race, and the questions chosen by the Leadership Class were relevant, hard-hitting, and fair. I said - and I heard people around me saying - "Those are great questions!" If we had print reporters in this town asking similar questions, we might actually get somewhere.

Well done, folks. I'm immensely proud of all of you.

Immediately below is a table indicating the topics of last night's questions, and whether the candidate's answers appeared to me to align with the district and/or union leadership's positions. If you doubt my interpretation of the candidates' comments, following the table is a transcript of the school director portion of "Face Off" - minus the candidates' opening and closing statements.

Candidate's Comments Align with the Interests, Positions or Plans of the District Leadership and/or Union Leadership?

	Comments align with district/union	Comments align with district/union
	Brower	Fullmer
1. Where is the district money going?	yes
2. How is mathematics being taught?	yes
3. What is the state/federal role in education?	yes
4. Why were no Spokane schools graded as exemplary?	yes
5. What is your top priority?	yes
6. Explain your approach to transparency.	yes
7. Is Sally Fullmer a one-issue candidate?	yes
8. What do you think about the Tacoma teacher strike?	yes
9. Do you support assessing teachers on other than seniority?	yes
10. How will you assure taxpayers you answer to them?	yes
11. What's your view of federal mandates?	yes
12. What's your view of "green" schools?	yes
13. Do you think the superintendent is paid too much?	yes
14. Why do private schools cost less and achieve more?	yes
15. Who benefits from unions?	yes

Transcript of questions asked of school-director candidates at the Oct. 17, 2011, "Face Off at Ferris"

Question 1: Spokane Public Schools is spending more than it ever has, and yet, since the year 2000, the number of students has decreased by nearly 3,000. If the money is not going to the students, where is it going?

Sally Fullmer: That is an excellent question, and that’s one of the things I think needs to be looked into. No administrator is left behind when it comes to pay in the Spokane Public Schools. We have 110 administrators who make more than $100,000. These are people that are not directly teaching the children. So I think we need fewer administrators. We need to look at what they’re doing and if that’s necessary. Our teachers are professionals; they don’t need to be micromanaged by instructional coaches. We also don’t need to be paying our superintendent more than the governor. The administrator salaries would be a good place to start. We need to spend the money as close to the classroom as possible so that the money is going to education of the students. The money per student is around $12,000 per student; that’s if you don’t include capital projects and debt service. I think we need to demand results for the money we’re putting into the public schools.

Deana Brower: I agree we need to have high expectations and look for results for our students. The cost structures in education are very interesting right now. I think we have to look at where the money goes, education, certainly goes towards teacher salaries and books and things of that nature. But we also have buildings to maintain, heat and light, and these expenses have gone up significantly in the last couple years. I know I’m paying more for gasoline and food in my family’s budget and I know the school district is doing the same. This topic has come up and I wanted to get some concrete numbers. One of the areas I find interesting is insurance. In 2005, our district paid on average per employee, paid about $650 per employee. And it’s gone up to $1,100, almost double.

Question 2: Is it true that District 81’s math program fails to adequately prepare a majority of students for college-level math? An example of this is that 98% of the Running Start students must take remedial math at the college level. What is the problem, and what specifically would you do to alleviate this math crisis?

Deana Brower: I think math is an interesting topic and one that we – our district is taking a very close look at. I was fortunate enough to attend a math summit late last spring where the math curriculum was discussed in great detail, and I was encouraged by what I was hearing. There is a call, definitely an interest in a return to procedural proficiency, and I appreciate that as a parent and as a volunteer in our school district. But then I also heard that we need balance, we need good solid practice in our math classes, we need application that gives students an opportunity to apply what they’ve learned in more abstract situations. So I appreciated that. What you have shared, goes against a little bit of some data my opponent and I received (at the) Citizens Advisory Committee last Monday, a week ago. We have some information to share. Those numbers for community college students going into math were much lower. So I would like to know where those numbers are coming from. We saw with our dropout rate not long ago that there was some discrepancy between how things were calculated. I’d like to know how they were calculated so that we can make sure we’re directing the proper services where they need to go, and not giving them to a number that’s more, maybe, “inflated or exaggerated.” All that aside, we need solid curriculum, we need our students to be college and career ready, and I feel that we’re moving in that direction. I’m very pleased with the direction we’re going.

Sally Fullmer: I think we need some major changes in our math program. It’s very important for people to understand statistics, and how studies are done, and how statistics can be used to say whatever a person wants to have them say. Right now, our board has refused to put a better math curriculum in place, especially in junior high. They started to put it in place in the high schools, and yet they’re micromanaging the teachers and not allowing them to teach from the book. Our kids have got to be taught the basics in math and given the tools with which to move forward in math. So, basics in arithmetic, then they can be given the problem solving and taught the concepts. This has become a big issue for all of you parents who have ever tried to help your kids with their math homework or have been shocked when your kids go to college after getting As in honors classes and have to go take remedial classes that you have to pay for. To me, this is a very core issue that must be addressed immediately. We can’t wait.

Question 3: Do you believe state and federal government has too much input in our schools? Critics say we should reduce the role of government and return control of our schools to our elected school boards. What do you say?

Sally Fullmer: I believe it is certainly moving in the wrong direction. Our governor and state superintendent of public instruction, as well as our state legislature, have already signed us over to national core curriculum, standards, where basically the federal government will have more control. Corporations will get in on the act. Pearson Corporation and others [couldn’t hear] a curriculum to the whole country. We need to retain local control so that our elected officials can choose from a variety of curriculum and choices, and not have one mandated by the federal government to rule them all – one way that things have to be done, because I think choice is what is best. It is part of our state duty to fund education, and so I believe the state has a definite role in that, but I think anything the federal government takes over and becomes a monopoly – creates more problems than it solves. I did not want to see us move in that direction. However, our school board has already set aside $500,000 for the nationalized math curriculum, and that is going to cost about 4 times that amount – even though they haven’t seen it yet and don’t know totally what’s in it. Instead of fixing it now and putting the books into place that will help the kids now, they’re waiting for this curriculum. That’s not great if you’re one of those kids that’s losing this year of math instruction.

Deana Brower: Because my opponent brought up [can’t hear] in that example, I would like to point out that my son Joshua in 7th grade uses Holt Math textbooks. I’ve yet to see him use a calculator. He may have lost it for all I know. But our kids use a solid math curriculum. The curriculum that my opponent referred to – the common core – our district has – these are not coming down from the federal government. These are programs that as a school board, as a school district you can opt into. Forty states nationally have opted into this curriculum, and I think that at times there, it can be very beneficial in the world of education to not recreate the wheel, but rather come together, combine resources and put together a solid program from which everyone can benefit. We see all too often kids going out-of-state to colleges, and it’s very nice to see children competing nationally.

Question 4: The state board of education recently graded all of the schools in the state. Not one Spokane public school received the highest ranking of exemplary. What are some of the reasons for this, and what would you do to fix it?

Deana Brower: I think we’re doing a lot of things really well in our district, but we still have much more [can’t hear]. And I can say that with [six?] years of experience working on our Middle School Advisory Committee. I think that’s a great example where a group of folks were brought together to say, “All right. We have a problem. We have concerns over our dropout. How are we going to solve those issues?” Well, Priority Spokane came together and met, and said let’s look at .. They did a study. They said, “You can immediately identify - very quickly identify - your at-risk students while they’re in junior high.” And they listed the factors. So, as a school district, we can get right on those factors. And we’re in that process of momentum and change right now. It’s a very exciting time. It’s a time that I’m excited to be involved in our schools. We‘ve got great programs in place like the ICan program in middle schools, and programs like Avid in science, uh academy. All sorts of great programs to help our students achieve opportunities for themselves. We have more students here in Spokane going off to four-year colleges than the state-wide average. We know the direction that we’re headed, and we need to look at the programs that are working well, and support them, and encourage those programs [can’t hear].

Sally Fullmer: If you’re going to solve a problem or look at an issue, the first thing is to be willing to admit that there is a problem. That is something I think sometimes our district has trouble doing. They’re very good at public relations, and that’s great, putting the best foot forward, and that’s important. But you also have to be willing to look at where you do have problems, figure out the best methods, [can’t hear], and then have the courage to implement that, rather than just trying to cover them up. So, it goes back to making sure we have strong curriculum. We already have great teachers, but many of them are being micromanaged by the administrators - the instructional coaches - who are telling them how they want things to be taught and when they want things to be taught. We need to give our teachers the freedom to teach.

Question 5: If you could implement one school reform within existing resources by reprioritizing funds and staff time, what would you push for?

Sally Fullmer: I’m going to go back to the math again because I think math is the new reading. To get a good job in many fields, you have to understand your math. We need to have kids be ready. I’ve been talking to business owners who say, "I can’t find employees that can make change or handle customers – or the basic things in math." We have industries that can’t find the employee base they need in Spokane because the kids don’t have the level of math they need. This is not the kids’ fault. This has not been offered to them. And I don’t blame the teachers, because they had to work with great constraints with the curriculum and constant experimentation. Teacher-directed learning to get the basic tools is where it starts [can’t hear]. So I would change the math curriculum and let the teachers loose to teach.

Deana Brower: I would be very interested in seeing a continuation of our improvement in our graduation rate. I think we need to make sure that every student who graduates from any of our schools are college and career ready for a path of success when they leave our schools. And it doesn’t just come from the math. Math is important. I agree, wholeheartedly. But we have a spectrum of subject areas that we teach to and that we’re dedicated to, and we need to make sure we’re meeting all the students. Direct instruction works very well for many students, but for some students, they need alternative programs. We need to make sure that their needs are being met and that we are taking them through their educational experience with what their opportunities [can’t hear] their potential. I’d like to see programs that have had great success be encouraged and grown [can’t hear].

Question 6: Would you support putting the detailed budget and union contract agreements online for everyone to see, and is it true that people have to file a public disclosure petition to get full details of Spokane School board meeting minutes?

Deana Brower: I absolutely support full disclosure. I think it’s a contract agreement between elected officials and the public. I think a good example of that is that I worked very hard just three years ago on our last bond and levy election. I was the speaker’s bureau chair, and I was out in the community asking for money for this very remodel at Ferris High School, levy funds to pay for that music program that you heard as you came in. We worked very hard for that. I went out in the public and asked for support for these programs. Therefore, I am a steward of that [can’t hear], and I look forward to being a good steward of those dollars on the school board. In terms of requesting public records, I would be all for having records more easily accessible. Absolutely. I think there are times in contract negotiations where there are issues of sensitivity and I think we have to respect that. We’re dealing with the second largest employer in the City Spokane, and there can be very difficult contract negotiations from time to time in discussions. I have to trust that those who have gone before me know - were giving guidance on that. But I absolutely agree with full disclosure on school board meetings.

Sally Fullmer: As I said in my opening, that’s one of the things I really want to see improve: full disclosure. I recently wanted to look more at the budget. The 185-page budget is available online, but this 40-page document that has [explanatory figures] that you can’t get without putting in a public records request. So I had to put a public records request to get that. And then to get the code for that, you have to go to some other Web site. I’ll go to read the minutes of the meetings – Quite often, they’ll talk about we’re going to change this policy or that policy, and just have a number, and then you are left to go find that policy. Quite often, you can’t find that anywhere without filing another records request. So, we definitely need to improve on that. Transparency when we’re asking the public for money is crucial. If we’re going to say, collect levy money from people, then we need to know where that’s going [can’t hear].

Question 7: (To Sally Fullmer) Some people think you are a one-issue candidate, concerned with the location of Jefferson school. True or false, and if not, please explain.

Sally Fullmer: False. I’m not a one-issue candidate. I think I’ve made that clear from my opening. You can go to my Web site http://www.seewhatsallysays.com/ and read a lot about all of the issues I’m concerned about. It is true that I don’t want Jefferson School to be moved. And I am a member of an organization that filed a lawsuit to hold the district accountable for what they put on their bonds and levies. On the 2009 bond, they said they were going to modernize four schools, and Jefferson was one of them. And instead, they decided to move the school six blocks away onto Lewis & Clark High School athletic fields. The court will simply clarify whether they can actually use that money to move something and build new buildings instead of modernize it. Everyone is excited about a new Jefferson – either a remodel or a new building – It’s a question of, was it transparency in the bond to use that language. So that is my involvement in that. Because of that involvement, I’ve also found what it’s like to go before the school board when you’re on the other side of an issue. You get a little bit different reception than when you have the same viewpoint as the board does. That is why I’m so keen on respect for students, parents, teachers, and taxpayers. The board is elected officials, so when the people come to talk to you, they should be respected. We have this problem in our city council – we need people to be respected when they come down to speak to elected officials. So that’s a thing that I would really like to see improve.

Deana Brower: As far as I know, my opponent has not been involved in our schools in a voluntary capacity beyond our neighborhood school and the discussion of this move. If you look at the effort to make broad progress in our schools, you see individuals who put themselves out to volunteer on committees, and work with our educators and our parents to bring improvement to our schools. I haven’t seen this. I’ve seen a candidate come forth out of anger, with one particular situation, and I don’t think that that’s broad enough for the leadership we need of our entire school district. I also find, when you talk about transparency, that we have one individual funding my opponent with $3,850. I think that’s very, very significant in this race. So in terms of independence and transparency, we have to take that into consideration.

Question 8: Recently, teachers in Tacoma went on strike, defying state law and a judge’s order to return to work. Documents now show it was part of a larger plan by the teachers union. Did the WEA want to send a painful message to parents and lawmakers? Do you see the same thing happening in Spokane? And if so, what would be your reaction?

Deana Brower: I don’t know what WEA – I’m not privy to their discussions, but what I do know is that I have the endorsement of our education association. I’m very proud of that. I have a good working relationship with our educators in Spokane. I’m very proud of that. I also have a good working relationship with administrators, and former superintendents and former school board members. And what that allows us to do in situations, unlike Tacoma … in most school districts across America, the breakdown happens between management and labor. That’s where the lockout happens. That’s where the problems arise. When you have school board members who have good working relationships, and strong collaborative, problem-solving history with our educators and our administrators and our parent community, I think that allows those situations to be worked out long before they turn into the situation like we saw in Tacoma. I’m very, very proud of the working relationships that I’ve established, and I look forward to bringing that to our school board, and I think we need those relationships now more than ever.

Sally Fullmer: I have a hard time with people who have a great-paying job, paid for by the public, who refuse to go to work and do their job. They need to work out their problems some other way. I’m opposed to public employees striking. So that’s where I am with that.
As far as the other volunteering in the public schools – Deana’s only been here for six years and was in California previous to that. So she doesn’t realize what I’ve been doing since 1999 – volunteering in the classrooms with my kids, being involved in the music programs at LC, in the sports programs. I was involved [can’t hear] and working in the classrooms there also. So that’s just a lack of information on her part.
I also would like to talk about support and endorsements. I’m pleased to have many private citizens endorsing me, and some of them have given large sums of money to counteract and allow me to get my message out, because I don’t have the backing of the union and their money and all of the other ways that they support Deana, which I’ll talk about later.

Question 9: Would you support strengthening District 81’s ability to retain or place teachers based on criteria rather than seniority?

Sally Fullmer: Yes, I would. I think it’s really important that we have the best teachers that we can for our students. I think teachers are professionals, and we need to make sure that when we hire teachers, that they’re trained and ready to go. I know though, that as you teach and gain experience, you improve, and you learn more about what works and what doesn’t work. And teachers are supportive of each other and helping them that way. So we can’t always tell when we hire someone. So there has to be a process in place. [Can’t hear]. It is very difficult to let go of a teacher who’s not being successful in the classroom. There needs to be additional ways to work on that issue. I wish the unions would come along and say “Hey, we recognize that this is a problem and we want to work on that.” I don’t see that. [Can’t hear] We have to step up and say, “We demand something different now."
(I'll also talk about how) other than money, the union also supports Deana and also the administrators. For one thing, they have brought her into the public schools to speak to teachers during the school day about her candidacy. They have also done a lot of funding through small contributions through individuals and then you don’t have to say who they’re from. So that doesn’t show as a large contribution. There is this newspaper called Kids that’s sent home in every elementary child’s backpack across the city. In September and October, the union put an article in there. It’s actually an ad endorsing Deana and several other Democratic candidates. So to me, that’s the kind of support you can’t pay for. What would that cost be?

Deana Brower: I’ve been an educator for 12 years in the classroom. I taught high school, social studies for 8 years and middle school, social studies and English for four years. I know firsthand the challenges of teaching a classroom, particularly when budgets are in flux like we see right now. We have teachers who are coming on to the job with some of the largest class sizes that we’ve seen in many, many years, and with resources diminishing right before their very eyes. When they were student teaching, they’re coming into their classrooms the first year with conditions unlike anything that they’ve ever seen before. We need to provide support for our education professionals so that they can do the best job that they can. In terms of hiring and retaining, I think we need to support our educators and make sure we’ve got the best teachers working in our district that we can provide our students.

Question 10: (For Deana Brower) You have been endorsed by the teachers unions, received union campaign contributions, and attended union candidate schools. If elected, how will the voters know that you will act in the interests of the community and not the proxy of the unions?

Deana Brower: I’m glad to be able to address that. I’d love to address the financial question. $800. Two $400 checks from the education association, representing 3,000 members, that’s about $.25 per employee. I don’t feel I owe anybody anything for $.25 per person, not that I could be bought that easily anyway. I’ve been criticized for having the support of the education association, and I’m criticized for having the support of the administration. Again, that’s labor, that’s management. If I can work with those two groups successfully, I feel that that is a winning combination for our students in Spokane. My greatest loyalty is to my children and to their generation, and to the legacy of education here in Spokane. That’s where my priorities will be as a school board director. I think that’s significantly different than taking a chunk of money -- Most campaigns you cannot take that kind of money from one candidate. There are campaign contribution limits in most campaigns. $3,850 from one individual who is on record as voting against our levies time and time again is significant in terms of [can’t hear] what would be represented on the school board, and that’s not the voice that I would bring.

Sally Fullmer: Like I said in my opening, 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.

Question 11: School administrators have asserted that local tax dollars are going to Washington, DC, but they’re only getting a fraction of those dollars back. Meanwhile, many federal mandates are unfunded. As a school board member, what would you do to change that?

Sally Fullmer: First of all, I think right now we do have local control over many things, so it is our board’s choice to chase after those federal dollars. They did not have to apply for Race to the Top or any federal grant. We need to look at those monies, and say, “What do you have to do to get that money? Will that benefit our students? Is that going to improve their education? Or is that going to take us down another rabbit trail, and leave us with things we have to do and pay for after the federal money runs out?” When I’ve gone to board meetings, I sometimes felt like all they’re about is where can we get more money? How much money would ever be enough? When are we going to concentrate on making sure we’re getting the best education for the money that we have available to us? So, we do not have to follow the federal mandates. You can challenge federal mandates. School districts across the country are doing that. They’re not accepting that money. They’re not being controlled by that. It usually is a very miniscule amount, that asks you to do a lot more than what we’re getting for that money. So I would challenge that involvement.

Deana Brower: We have to make sure that our mandates are funded. First and foremost. And we have to make sure that the state is honoring its paramount duty in making sure education is a top priority. And that includes fully funding state programs as well. We have had some interesting state financing as of recently. Education finance is very interesting, insofar as, the state kicks the money into school districts that have lower-income rates than other parts of the state. Say, compare Spokane to Bellevue for example. Our property rates are lower here than they are in Bellevue. It’s easy for Bellevue to pull in levy money and support their schools. We have something called levy equalization that the state kicks in. The state is looking to cut levy equalization in the upcoming budget session they’re going into. We have to make sure that money is protected so our schools are fully funded.

Question 12: Studies show that so-called green schools are not as efficient or cost-effective as widely promoted. Please define green schools, and also, should we be spending substantially more of taxpayers’ money to build them?

Deana Brower: Green schools obviously are those that are energy efficient and using energy and environmentally friendly products or materials. It’s funny – just today I saw a news release awarding Shadle High School for their architectural plan. I find it interesting what appeals to say, one group in a population might not appeal to another group. I think when we’re building schools, we have an obligation to our community to make sure that they are friendly to our environment. We owe it to the educating future of our community and our students. We also need to take care of our community and our environment. I’ve heard funding reports both ways, that say it’s right in line with any other spending, and then there’s criticisms that say it’s exorbitant and costs too much. We need to look at that. I’ve not examined the budget of every school built, however, I do feel that our district in general has been good stewards of the bond money. In fact we have the highest rating a school district can have in their bond ratings. And that comes from a review of how that money is being spent, and in maintaining integrity and trust with citizens. So we’ve demonstrated – the district has demonstrated responsibility with [can’t hear] funds, according to this group that evaluates how bond dollars are collected and spent, and a higher financial rating [can’t hear].

Sally Fullmer: When we’re going to build new buildings and modernize schools, I know that at times, there has been extra funding available if the school is built to a certain green standard. One of the things that they found, though, in studies, is sometimes it costs more to build them to that standard and then it costs more to operate them when they’re built that way. I think we have to take a look at those as more of that information is coming in. Of course we want to do the best that we can for our environment at all times. Sometimes the latest trendy green thing in the end doesn’t turn out to be quite as sustainable as it looked in the beginning. So we need to again stick with [can’t hear] proven things and not go off on every new fad that comes along.

Question 13: The amount of money paid to public school superintendents in the state of Washington is a hot topic. Superintendent Dr. Nancy Stowell is paid much more than the state schools chief, and even the governor. Are public school administrators paid too much money?

Sally Fullmer. Yes. And I also believe that their pay in their contracts isn’t tied to the results that they’re getting in the district. Administrators are very keen to tie teachers’ pay and results to what results they get out of the students. But who’s telling the teachers what curriculum to use and what to do? It’s the administrators and the board. So let’s tie the administrative pay to the results of the students, and I think suddenly, they would be much more interested in how the students are doing.

Deana Brower: I think sometimes when we look at things isolated in Spokane, it makes us scratch our head a little bit. Take a step back and look at it state wide, and you start to get perspective. We have the second largest district in the State of Washington, and our superintendent Dr. Stowell doesn’t make the second largest salary, or the third or the fourth or the 8th or the 10th. Her salary is the 12th, and I think that’s a competitive place to be to maintain quality professionals here in our school district. If statewide, that number is too high, and we as a community and we as a state don’t value that level of service for our students, then put it all in check. But we cannot take our one superintendent and look at her out of context. We are, we have, most figures, if you look at district administration is in line, and salaries are in line with what we’re seeing statewide.

Question 14: Deana Brower, you have called for more state taxpayer money for schools. Yet Spokane Catholic schools pay significantly less than the $11-12,000 per student that District 81 spends, and with better measurable results. Is more money really the problem, or is there another issue?

Deana Brower: I would argue the measurable results. I think we do a fine job in our public schools. I’m proud to have my children in our public schools. We are a large, urban school district. 28,000 plus students in our school district. We have 60% of our students on free and reduced lunch, and with that comes responsibility and an obligation to fully serve our students in a way unlike our private schools in our community. We have 24% of our student population are from minority groups. There are challenges. You don’t see that exact population breakdown in our private schools. We have 55 languages being spoken in our public schools. I think all of that provides a very rich culture and diversity in our public schools, but it’s completely different to those challenges faced by private schools in our community. We’re still very fortunate to have strong schools in general – public and private – and I really believe the more investment our community makes into our education – be it public or private or otherwise – it supports our entire system. And I’m very proud just recently of Spokane being named one of the 100 best communities for youth in America. In large part, it’s because of that. We are one of those communities that traditionally supports our levies. We are one of those communities where folks come out and support our education consistently. And that’s where a sense of pride in education comes in our community. I hope to continue that tradition for a good long time.

Sally Fullmer: I don’t believe that a lack of money is the problem. I believe we can educate a student very well for $12,000 a year, and possibly even less. I don’t think there’s any amount of money that would satisfy the ever-growing bureaucracy that is the government school industry. It’s a case of not really looking at what the problem is, and just saying everything’s great. We need to make sure we’re not taking property taxes from people who have an average salary of $32,000-45,000 a year here in Spokane, and using that money to give raises to administrators who are making over $200,000 per year. I think the people of Spokane want their money to be used efficiently and productively.

Question 15: The controversy over teachers unions. Who benefits most from teachers unions – the students or the teachers – and why?

Sally Fullmer: The purpose of teachers unions is to bargain for better conditions for the teachers as workers. I think they’re doing a great job at that. However, their purpose is not to bargain for what’s in the best interests of the students. It’s very important to be clear about that difference. I’m not saying that everything they bargain for couldn’t be in the best interests of the students, for example, class size is obviously in the best interests of the students, so there are times those things overlap, but the primary purpose of the union is to bargain for teachers.

Deana Brower: The union is the teachers. There is no separation. They are educators. They come into this profession to serve our children. And they do a very good job of it. There’s quality of intent, and quality produced. Quality delivered. There are financial situations that enter into the picture. I think that is the business side of education that management and labor have. The more collaborative that relationship is, the better that situation is for everyone.

Hire board director who's accountable to you, not beholden to district and union

2011-10-13T07:33:00.000-07:00

[Edited Oct. 14 regarding the laws on "mandated dues."]
[Edited Nov. 12 to update FTE based on information provided at the Sept. 28 board meeting.]

By Laurie H. Rogers

What a month. I’ve learned so much in the past 30 days, I need a new brain in which to put it. This old brain of mine feels full. And tired. Public education is a rolling stone run amok. Who can keep up?

This is why we parents and advocates tend to hedge our comments. We never know how things really are, and the minute we figure it out, they change it – without telling us. When we ask for updates, we have to drag it out of them, kicking and screaming through public records requests. And when we get the information, by golly – they change it again.

They do that because a) rolling stones can’t be held accountable, and b) they get to say, “You just don’t get it.” And we don’t. That’s one reason why few parents will discuss education in any depth. They know they don’t get it. Real knowledge is held over our head like a favorite toy, just out of reach. “Jump for it!” But most parents won’t jump for it; we just leave. Since 2002, full-time student enrollment in District 81 dropped by about 3,400 students, even as operating costs grew by about $60 million.

Public records requests are an effective way of clearing up the fog. After I found out that RCW 42.17.130 prohibits using public resources (directly or indirectly) to campaign for an elective candidate or a ballot proposition (such as a bond or levy), I noticed how close the ties were between District 81 and bond/levy advocacy organization Citizens for Spokane Schools (CFSS).

In an inexplicably redacted Dec. 17, 2008, email, “Mark” worked with CFSS finance chair Mike Livingston on a brochure for the 2009 bond/levy.
In January 2009, the CFSS invited board directors and administrators to attend one of its community presentations on the 2009 bond and levy. Superintendent Nancy Stowell said, “At this point, I think that both Rocky and Sue plan to attend.”
That January, a CFSS representative was granted permission to hand out information at a school district music concert.
Also that January, Associate Superintendent Mark Anderson appeared to facilitate a CFSS payroll request to find out who in the district was donating to the bond and levy effort through a payroll deduction.
In a September 2009 presentation (that I didn’t receive through my January 2011 public records request on the levy), Anderson talked about working with CFSS. Please do read this presentation, paying particular attention to the second-to-last slide.
In October 2010, Stowell and Anderson made plans to meet with Deana Brower, co-chair with Citizens for Spokane Public Schools, to discuss strategy for an upcoming levy.

Also from public records requests, I learned this September that Deana Brower, now a school board candidate, was invited into district schools in June to campaign with teachers and staff. On Oct. 12, I learned that she’s allowed to do that. Prohibitions articulated in RCW 42.17.130 don’t apply to private citizens. (District employees and elected officials, however, are prohibited from using district resources to campaign for her.) But here’s what you should know about that.

The prohibitions also don’t apply to unions, which – by a quirk of creative accounting – aren’t considered to be “public.” ** In Spokane, teachers must hand over some of their publicly funded paycheck to the union (or to a selected charity). The teachers’ brief hold on that taxpayer money somehow launders it and turns it into a due. Therefore, the union gets “mandated dues,” not taxpayer dollars. Thus, the union is free from prohibitions on campaigning for candidates, free from public records requests, and free from most of the requirements on transparency and accountability that public agencies must meet. It’s a sweet deal for the union and its political choices.

When the union meets on school property, it also gets a spot in the school that’s free from RCW 42.17.130. And when its candidate steps into that protected spot, by golly, she’s protected too. But candidates can’t just waltz in and be protected; they have to be invited. In Spokane this year, candidates other than Brower were not invited. Brower took district employees up on their invitations to her, gaining the preferential treatment, opportunity to campaign, and face time with district teachers and staff that come with being the union pick.

(This isn’t the end of RCW 42.17.130, however. Some district employees did send out notices of the Brower meetings using district resources. In addition, Brower was invited to other district meetings to which the other candidates weren’t invited and that aren’t covered by union protection. And then, of course, there’s the whole question of the district’s 2009 bond/levy campaign.)

It does appear that Brower – union choice, progressive choice, and seeming district golden girl – was willing to sacrifice credibility as the taxpayer’s representative by campaigning at school meetings, attending school functions like “Doughnuts with Deana,” and accepting invitations to myriad district meetings and gatherings, all the while knowing that other candidates weren’t offered those opportunities. Is that really the board director we want? Brower says she’s proud of her union and district connections.

Hmm. Proud enough to tell the public about meeting with district administration while she was co-chair of CFSS? I’ve pointedly asked Brower four times if she ever worked with the district on bonds and levies. The first time, in September, she answered only the other question I asked. The second time, she wrote that she’d stepped down from a leadership position with CFSS. The third time, she didn’t answer. On Tuesday, at a Neighborhood Council meeting, I asked a fourth time. Brower said:

“I am very proud to have been the speaker’s bureau (unintelligible). Just a couple of years back when we passed our last levy and bond, and I spoke to this area’s neighborhood council as the chair person of the speakers bureau of Citizens for Spokane Schools. And that’s work that I’m proud to have done. And I think demonstrates our commitment to our schools and to the strength of our schools in Spokane, and it demonstrates the commitment that I will continue to have during the course of this six-year term (unintelligible).”This still isn’t an answer to a very simple question. In addition, the timing of this “stepping down” from that CFSS leadership position is in question. Throughout the campaign, various sources (including the CFSS Web site, media, and the Progressive Voters Guide) listed Brower as a CFSS chair or co-chair. At the district’s Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting last Monday, however, Brower told parents she stepped down from CFSS leadership when the campaign “began,” which would have been in June. This doesn’t bode well for transparency and accountability from a Board Director Brower.

Brower has repeatedly said – without hesitation or explanation – that District 81 needs more money. I haven’t seen it proved – or even defended well. The district appears to waste a lot of money. Last June, I asked Brower how much money would be enough for District 81. She said:

“I do not know the figures to fully fund mandated programs without sacrificing other programs. I think we are so used to looking at what we can get by without, because we are looking at cuts here and there. If we were to come at this saying in a dream world where there are no cuts, how much money would that take? I can’t even answer that at this point because I am so wrapped up in what we are going to cut that it is hard to open up and look at it.”Note Brower’s constant use of the word “we.” It’s one reason I asked for that July 12 public records request from the district, using her name as a search term.

Asked on Monday at the CAC meeting if they would vote for the levy, the two District 81 board candidates had answers that were diametrically opposed.

Sally Fullmer said she would want to know what the money was to be used for, whether it was necessary, and whether it would be used for administrative raises (as last year’s levy was).
Deana Brower promptly said that of course she would vote for the levy.

What’s the takeaway here? Records requests often are depressing to read, yet enlightening. Deana Brower is the union pick, and, it appears, the district pick and perhaps a Bob Douthitt pick. Brower has said she doesn’t know how much money is enough for the district, but she knows the district needs more. She also has said the district needs effective teachers. (As if we don’t have them now.) She sounds just like the superintendent.

If you want to elect an administrator as a board director, I think Brower’s your girl. So far, however, that strategy hasn’t worked out well for teachers or the children. It’s worked out very well for the union, the administration, certain board directors and Brower.

But if you want a real board director in Spokane Public Schools, one who intends to work for accountability and transparency for you, please vote for Sally Fullmer. Give her a chance to advocate for your children, grandchildren, and for you.

** This sentence was edited Oct. 14. Initially, I said "state law" says the dues are mandated -- I read the information too quickly. It actually appears that this is part of collective bargaining. Therefore, if Spokane teachers want to be free of mandated dues, they'll have to convince their local union leaders. Good luck with that. - LR

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (October 2011). "Hire board director who's accountable to you, not beholden to district and union." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Accountability, transparency desperately needed for education expenditures

2011-10-09T00:38:00.000-07:00

[Edited Nov. 12 to update FTE enrollment based on information provided at the Sept. 28 board meeting, and Nov. 30 to update the proposed levy figure for 2012.]

By Laurie H. Rogers

The British are coming! The British are coming!
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Public education needs more money! Public education needs more money!

One of these statements (had Paul Revere actually said it) was true. One of these statements is obviously false. And the third, well, skies don’t fall, silly.

Taxpayers keep hearing how the funding for public education has been cut. We’re constantly barraged with: “Money is tight.” “We’ve cut the budget to the bone.” “We’re running out of options.” “We’ve done all we can; now we have to cut programs and teachers.” These claims defy explanation. They aren’t true in Spokane. They aren’t true in Washington State. They aren’t true in most other states, and they aren’t true at the federal level. Unfortunately, many people believe them.

A city council candidate insisted recently: “We can’t gut education!” Last week, a Spokane reporter wrote: “Since 2002, Spokane Public Schools has cut $45 million from its budget…” In its budget forums last spring, district administrators and board directors told the public that since 2002, the district has cut $54 million from its budget. Spokane school board candidate Deana Brower has repeatedly said that the district needs more money.

Let’s look at some numbers. Follow the links to the budget documents. See how enrollment has dropped, the budget has grown, and see the district’s tendency to budget for greater expenditures than it has in revenues.

Spokane Public Schools expenditures
	2001-2002	2010-2011	2011-2012
FTE (Full-time enrollment) ** On Nov. 12, this figure was updated based on information provided at a board meeting. Costs per students were recalculated based on this number.	31,518	29,050	28,093
Operating budget	$254.2 million	$316.8 million	$313.3 million
Capital Projects	$14.8 million	$124 million	$142.9 million
Debt Service	$14.2 million	$35.4 million	$37.1 million
Total	$283.2 million	$476.1 million	$493.2 million
Local levy for district, after rollback. Update: The district has indicated an increase in the 2012 levy to $73.3 million.	$36.4 million	$59.5 million	$60.6 million
District expenditures per student (based on operating expenses only).	$8,065	$10,905	$11,152
District expenditures per student (based on operating/capital projects/debt service). There are other expenses not noted here.	$8,985	$16,389	$17,556

This is for just one district, in just one state – a district in which full-time enrollment (FTE) drops nearly every year and the outcomes are dismal. Look at the remedial rates in math for recent graduates from Spokane high schools (put together for me by Spokane Community Colleges). Look at the low rates of success in those remedial math classes.

Spokane Public Schools isn’t alone in its seemingly insatiable appetite for the taxpayer dollar. Taxpayers across the country pay exponentially more dollars – for generally weaker outcomes. Expenses per student have risen dramatically. It seems the districts have plenty of money – perhaps enough to fund a private education for every child. Where is the money going?

Public school administrators argue that they have expenses private schools don’t. That’s a huge generalization. Some private schools do take special education students, for example. Some do have transportation costs. It's true that public schools are subject to legislative mandates; on the other hand, many public schools have expenses like these:

Flipping curricular materials in and out at dizzying rates, along with a veritable cornucopia of untested curricular supplements;
Adopting an unproved federal "vision" for public education, including unproved standards, unproved curricula, unproved testing, and an unproved multi-million-dollar data system;
Buying SMART Boards for each classroom, computers or laptops for every student, calculators for children in all grades (including graphing calculators);
Paying for endless teacher substitutes because classroom teachers are constantly pulled out of their classrooms for conferences, committees, mentoring, “lab classrooms,” collaboration, and never-ending “professional development”;
Paying for administrative conferences, studies, social-services programs and other activities that have little or nothing to do with actual academics;
Designing expensive new school buildings in which insufficient academics are provided;
Retaining a thick, impermeable layer of redundant, over-paid, micro-managing, spirit-crushing, can’t-get-rid-of-them-no-matter-how-useless-they-are decision-makers;
Paying stipends to board directors who seem more interested in getting along with administrators than in being transparent and accountable to the people.

See how the percentage of education dollars that go to actual instruction has decreased. In 2007-2008, it was barely above 50%. It’s almost certainly less than that today. It all depends on how one counts it. Consider the U.S. Department of Education’s spirited education handouts:

$97.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA);
$10 billion in Education Jobs money (Gov. Gregoire took Washington’s “share” of the Ed Jobs money for the General Fund.);
Approx. $6 billion in three phases of the federal Race to the Top “grant” initiatives;
All of the ED’s other taxpayer-funded “carrots” (and sticks), as Sec. Arne Duncan works to implement a “federal vision” for public education.

American public education has become Audrey, the monster plant from “Little Shop of Horrors.” “FEED ME!” it bellows in our ears while bleeding us dry. All for the kids, of course.

As I read through emails obtained through public records requests, I can see how much those taxpayer dollars mean to everyone in the school system. No doubt it’s that deep caring that produced nearly 900 emails on Spokane's 2009 bond and levy. In 2009, “Yes for kids!” was the district-wide refrain.

Supposedly, there isn’t enough money to pay for solid math materials or remedial programs, but there’s enough money to pay for more administration, an unproved data system, an unproved nationalized math curriculum, administrator raises (paid from the levy), and the latest techno-toys. The kids aren’t learning enough math or grammar, but Spokane administrator Mark Anderson said he was OK with giving them a pamphlet to take home in their backpack encouraging their mommy and daddy to vote on the bond and levy. Administrator Michael Syron appeared OK with pulling students out of class to talk about the bond and levy. Administrator Steve Fisk appeared OK with using district resources to get 100 students to pass out leaflets on the bond and levy.

Those tykes are darned useful. Maybe next time, administrators can tattoo “Yes for kids” on the children’s forehead. It could save on paper.

On Sept. 28, 2011, I filed a Public Disclosure Commission complaint regarding the district’s efforts regarding the 2009 bond and levy. The PDC complaint also has to do with Deana Brower’s 2011 campaign for the school board.

Brower was a co-chair for Citizens for Spokane Schools, which campaigns for district bonds and levies. She was endorsed by Stand for Children, which campaigned for the Children’s Investment Fund, a ballot initiative. She has hosted a representative from the League of Education Voters, which campaigns for more money for education. She also tends to parrot district administrators’ contention that they desperately need more taxpayer dollars.

In 2010, Mark Anderson and Superintendent Nancy Stowell appeared OK with meeting with Deana Brower and the rest of the leadership team of bond/levy advocacy group Citizens for Spokane Schools. Stowell emailed Brower: “Thanks so much for organizing us!” Stowell later wrote to Brower that she was looking forward to the meeting: “Time to start strategicing.” (sic)

On May 25, 2011, Brower was endorsed by the teachers union as a school board candidate. On June 6, 2011, she filed as a candidate. In June 2011, according to public records, Brower was invited (via district resources) to meet with teachers and staff on school district property. Is anyone out there actually expecting Brower to hold the district and union accountable?

Some people see it as anti-education, anti-schools, even anti-kid to question the education establishment's constant bleating for more money. I think most people have no idea of how much money it really is – or of just how focused on the money the establishment is. It’s time for some tough love.

We’re paying through the nose for a failing public system. Most of us will pay again for multiple remedial classes when our children try to go to college or begin a trade. If the district leadership spent as much time and effort on real academics as it does on trying to get more money, they might actually begin turning out entire classes of college-ready graduates.

This October, when the ballots come out, consider whether you want a board director who’s been working closely with the district and the union, or a board director who knows that school boards should be accountable to the voters and taxpayers.

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

Rogers, L. (October 2011). "Accountability, transparency desperately needed for education expenditures." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published Oct. 10, 2011, on Education Views at: http://educationviews.org/2011/10/10/accountability-transparency-desperately-needed-for-education-expenditures/

This article was published Oct. 10, 2011, on EducationNews at: http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/laurie-rogers-transparency-needed-for-ed-expenditures/

Public records prompt PDC complaint re: Spokane Public Schools

2011-10-01T17:00:00.000-07:00

By Laurie H. Rogers

Since January 2007, I’ve attempted repeatedly and in myriad ways to persuade Spokane Public Schools’ leadership to provide teachers with good math materials so that our children will gain sufficient basic math skills. It’s an effort you’d think would be welcome, respected, and relatively painless. Alas.

In 2008, after repeated failed efforts to get a conversation going with the district or with the daily newspaper, I decided to take that conversation public. Thus was born my blog, Betrayed. Shortly after that, I began writing my book, Betrayed: How the Education Establishment Has Betrayed America and What You Can Do about it. The book was published in January 2011, and I began working with two professionals to hold public forums in Spokane and talk directly with the people. The district leadership does not appear to appreciate my efforts to inform the people and to try to get the children the mathematics they need.

A school district’s activities should be an open book to the community that pays for them. My blog, book and advocacy all required thorough and accurate information. Therefore, over these nearly five years of effort, I’ve had to file public records requests with the district in order to obtain pertinent information that wasn’t available in any other venue. For records other than internal district communications, my searches usually went like this:

I tried to find the information on my own.
I asked for the information from district employees.
If those efforts failed, I filed a public records request.

Public agencies must, by law, give you the records you ask for unless a record is exempt for some reason. They also must provide you with a record of exemptions and redactions. Public records requests – when fulfilled properly – can be an effective way to see what’s being done with your taxpayer dollars. For me, over nearly five years and 18 or so formal requests, it’s been enlightening.

My interests have always been two-fold: 1. The children need academics, and 2. The people need the truth. Those two things drive everything I do.

In 2010, I filed a public records request with the school district with respect to the math adoption committee I was on. In this May 6, 2010, public record, secondary math coordinator Rick Biggerstaff asked former district employee Bridget Lewis if he should “pad" the budget for the adoption of Holt Mathematics so he could buy other things. Lewis wrote back, “In this particular case it would be better if we wait until next year to ‘pad’ any numbers.” Lewis added that, “with the amount of scrutiny we are facing in this area with a particular community member, not only she but the board may be looking more closely and question if the numbers are too far off.”

On Sept. 28, 2011, I filed a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission relative to Spokane Public Schools. The PDC complaint has to do with RCW 42.17.130. It’s based on public records received through public records requests – including one that used “Deana Brower” (a Spokane school board candidate) as a search term and another using “levy” as a search term.

The January 2011 public records request using “levy” as a search term resulted in more than 800 records. In this Jan. 28, 2009, record, district employees Kevin Morrison, Mark Anderson, and Kristy Mylroie emailed each other using district resources to discuss new ways to “throw additional messaging resources” at the 2009 bond/levy effort. Mylroie wrote, “It might be nice to have the elementary kids bring those (the new bond/levy inserts) home around the time the ballots drop.”

In this Feb. 12, 2009, record, administrator Kevin Morrison used district resources to email his contact list and urge them to “go over the top” in “this critical campaign.” He asked people to write letters to the editor (“They can’t ignore our group forever!”); distribute leaflets (“The high school vice-principals have been given their assignments”); wave signs (“Grab a few signs, a few friends, a cup of coffee and get them honking for kids!”); and make phone calls (“We are working on the details of the final call list and editing the message/script to be short and sweet”).

In July 2011, after hearing school board candidate Deana Brower speak several times, I sensed a relationship of some sort between Brower and the school district administration. Curious to know more about it, I filed a public records request with Spokane Public Schools using “Deana Brower” as a search term. Brower was a co-chair for Citizens for Spokane Schools, which advocates for district bonds and levies, and Jefferson Elementary School PTG president. The results of the public records request are intriguing.

In this March 9, 2011, record, administrator Tammy Campbell emailed Superintendent Nancy Stowell to “loop you in on this meeting that I am helping facilitate with Deana Brower to see if Latisha would be willing to get involved in the work of supporting the Levy.” Stowell replied “Please call me.” It appears that a meeting between Campbell, Brower, district employee Tennille Jeffries-Simmons, and the community member did take place at a local restaurant on Friday, April 1.

In this June 6, 2011, record, district employee Mike Miller used district resources to praise candidate Deana Brower to Spokane Education Association President Jenny Rose. Miller's email included an email he had sent “to our staff” inviting them to meet Brower at an “SEA 10-minute meeting” at 7:15 at Shadle Park High School. Miller said Brower had been asking to “get into the buildings.” He said he would “hype her visit every other day (in true campaign style) until Wednesday.”

In this June 8, 2011, record, school board candidate Deana Brower asked district employees Mike Campbell and Mike Miller if their invitations to meet teachers and staff at Shadle High School and Lewis & Clark High School were within election “rules.” Campbell assured Deana that, “If we can’t distribute envelopes and collect donations” at the school, “we will work it some other way.”

There’s more to tell you about public records requests – and a lot more to show you about what I’ve learned about Spokane Public Schools, about the people who run it, 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, and you deserve to have the truth.

-- Laurie Rogers

How to File a Public Records Request:

Locate the person at the public agency who handles public records. (In Spokane Public Schools, that’s Mark Anderson, at MarkA@spokaneschools.org). Ask for guidance on the process. Pick the search terms and timeframe for which you want information. Terms I’ve searched include “levy,” “math forum,” “math curriculum” and my own name, among others. Provide the terms to the person at the agency. Ask for all materials to be provided to you in an electronic format, and for an estimate of the cost of records that can't be provided electronically.

They have five days to respond to you. Expect to receive a stock reply and a estimated date that you'll receive the records. You’ll be expected to pay for the records. In Spokane Public Schools, the cost is $.15 per page after the first 25 free pages. It’s one reason – but not the only reason –you’ll want the records electronically, whenever possible. If you receive the documents electronically, you’ll pay for the disc but not sheets of paper. If you just go look at the records, it won't cost you anything.

I do recommend you stay on top of them, provide them with more than one way to reach you, and mark a note on your calendar for when you should receive the records. I’ve been told by some district employees that they tried to email me with a response but had an incorrect email address. That happened in January 2011 when “levy” was a search term, and again in September 2011, when “Deana Brower” was a search term.

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

Rogers, L. (October 2011). "Public records prompt PDC complaint re: Spokane Public Schools." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Lies, damn lies and the myth of "standardized" tests

2011-09-11T21:37:00.000-07:00

[Note from Laurie Rogers: Recently, results from the 2011 state standardized test scores were released. The impression given to the public from the state education agency (OSPI) and from media in Seattle and in Spokane was that improvements had been made. Did some of the numbers go up? Assuredly. Did that mean that real improvements in real academic knowledge had been made? It's best to remain skeptical.

Most students in Spokane are as weak in math skills this year as they were last year. Given a proper math test that assesses for basic skills, many high schoolers still test into 4th or 5th-grade math. College remedial rates are still high. Parents are still frantic, and students are still stressed out about math. What do the numbers actually mean?

Calculators were allowed on some of the tests, and not all standards were tested. There also is the matter of the cut scores. (Cut scores are the level at which a grade on the test is a passing grade.) On the math HSPE, students needed less than 60% to pass, but what does that mean? It's hard to say. Some of the questions tested students at a level of "proficiency," and some tested students at a "basic level." Students could pass at a "basic" level while failing to answer all questions that didn't test at that level. A student's grade, therefore, isn't a straight grade. No one can say what a grade means in terms of actual knowledge. What's the point of issuing grades no one can understand? The point should be to engage in accountability and transparency, and to help the children.

There is another problem, however. Guest Marda Kirkwood, from CURE (Citizens United for Responsible Education), argues that Washington's "standardized tests" aren't standardized at all.]

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

Lies, damn lies and the myth of “standardized” tests

By Marda Kirkwood

"The glory which is built upon a lie soon becomes a most unpleasant incumbrance [sic]. How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again!" - Mark Twain in "Eruption"

So here I go, taking on the monumental task of undoing a lie that is repeated so often in the media, by elected officials (who should know better), and educrats (who, I am convinced, do know better) that it has come to be generally accepted as fact.

Here is the lie: The High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE), the Measurements of Student Progress (MSP), and their precursor, the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) are “standardized” tests.

What, logically, are the characteristics that would allow us to legitimately label a test as “standardized”? It doesn’t take much thought to come up with a few guidelines.

A “standardized” test must:

Be completely objective. There can be no judgment involved in determining whether an answer is right or wrong.
Have specific time constraints. We all remember, “Time is up! Put your pencils down now.”
Receive the same score no matter when, how, or by whom it is scored. It should not matter if it is a Monday or a Friday, or if test scorers are having a good or a bad day.
Ask all students of the same grade standardized questions, every year.
Reliably measure what academic knowledge the student knows.
Serve as an accurate guideline for teachers, principals, school board members, parents, and others to evaluate the quality of curricula and instruction.
Be “valid and reliable”. These are terms that are roughly analogous to accuracy and precision in target shooting. Valid means they accurately measure what they are intended to measure. Reliable means they are consistently valid (produce the same score). And just because some government official or entity declares a test “valid and reliable” does not make it so.
Be norm-referenced. That means the scores have been compared, via a bell-curve, with the scores of other students across the nation who also took the same test. The comparison score is shown as a percentile. A student who receives a 70th percentile score performed better than 70% of the other students in the nation who took the same test.

This also gives us a pretty good idea what real standardized tests are not. Here are some characteristics of an assessment that is not a standardized test:

It includes essay or short answer, which have to be subjectively hand-scored and require a fallible human to use judgment to determine a score. Repeat after me, “subjective.”
It has lots of variation in test questions from year to year, changing types and difficulty levels.
Students are allowed to take however long they feel like to complete the test.
A committee votes on a “cut score” (i.e. what level is “passing”) after the tests have been scored.

Guess which list describes the HSPE/MSP/WASL? Yup, these assessments include all the features that characterize what standardized tests are not. These are (theoretically, anyway) standards-based assessments, very different from standardized tests. They are supposedly designed to measure the Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs) – our state learning standards. That is debatable, but food for another topic.

The EALRs are a moving target, able to be changed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), without the consent of the Legislature, as Terry Bergeson did when she was SPI. We have to assume they measure the EALRs because that is what federal law requires under No Child Left Behind. But the results are meaningless when they can be so easily manipulated by the choice of questions, the choice of cut scores, and the directions to the scorers.

The list of standardized tests includes the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS), the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT), and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT – not the college entrance one, which is the Scholastic Aptitude Test). Even these are beginning to become WASL-ized, as some of them have started adding writing sections. Washington eliminated the use of norm-referenced, standardized tests in 2005.

During the few years when Washington used both the WASL and a standardized test, WASL scores steadily increased, while the scores on the standardized test remained flat. Are you now surprised that the use of the standardized tests was eliminated?

Another little fact for your file, in the era of recession and government cutbacks: Standardized tests are very cheap, as they can be scored by a computer in seconds. Standards-based assessments (since they must be scored by armies of humans) cost a bundle. In 2003 the ITBS cost $2.88 per student. The same year, the WASL cost $73 per student. Oh, and that $73 only includes the cost of printing and scoring the assessments. No costs are included in that figure for development, administration of the test to the students, or test security. It also doesn’t include what economists call opportunity costs. All the many hours students are forced to spend on test preparation and practice tests are lost opportunities to learn new things.

So, next time you hear someone refer to Washington’s “standardized” tests, remember what you learned here. And explain it to your neighbors. The only way to combat lies is with the truth.

Marda Kirkwood is active with Citizens United for Responsible Education, the founding chair of CURE, and an advisor to the current board. She has a degree in chemical engineering (with honors) and worked in the field for five years before retiring to be a stay-at-home mom. She homeschooled her children for eight years. This article originally was published Aug. 7, 2011, on the CURE Web site. For permissions for this article, please contact Marda at Marda@curewashington.org

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.

Politics driving math classes - not equity, justice ... or math

2011-09-03T09:09:00.000-07:00

By Laurie H. Rogers

Several days ago, someone sent me an article on “teaching math for social justice.” I actually hit my desk while reading it, narrowly missing the cat. I shouldn't read things like that first thing in the morning. It raises my blood pressure and gets the next 12 hours off to a bad start.

In the article, teaching math for social justice isn’t about math or justice; it’s about pursuing a narrow political agenda in the classroom, through the children. Math is relegated to the wings, used as a vehicle through which the agenda is delivered.

The article was in a 2010 special edition of the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics’ Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME). This issue is dedicated to “equity” in math instruction, “with a focus on power and identity.” After years of advocacy, I shouldn’t be surprised by what comes out of the NCTM, but this special edition still was a cold shock.

The NCTM, you’ll recall, is responsible for the current incarnation of “fuzzy” math, born in the depths of hell in the 1980s. Many NCTM presidents and officers have their name on, and fingers in, today’s “reform” math curricula (including the curricula still sucking the lifeblood out of children in Spokane). Unhappily for this author, some now are involved in federal initiatives related to the Common Core State Standards and assessment consortia.

After decades of abject failure of the fuzzy approach, you’d think the NCTM would reject anything that further detracts from learning math. Instead, this trend to teach math through “equity and social justice” is gathering steam, fostered by social activists, self-interested groups like the NCTM – and well-meaning people who don’t realize the intent. For social activists, the agenda isn’t about “equity of opportunity" or justice under the law. It’s political, sociological activism, designed to move students in a specific political direction based on a particular world view. This activism, masquerading as math, is inappropriate and unhelpful.

Many states have policies or laws prohibiting schools from using public funds, facilities or venues for political purposes. Therefore, this activism is ethically, even legally questionable. It’s also a betrayal of trust for schools and teachers to push a particular political point of view on captive, vulnerable, attentive children (paid for by unaware taxpayers). And, there are practical issues of time and resources. This activist agenda is unlikely to help children academically.

The children need academics in order to be successful in their postsecondary life. It bears repeating: Academics are the schools’ mission. Many in education disagree with that statement, but their disagreement doesn’t change its truth. The time and resources spent on any political agenda takes away from academics. Those who see the agenda as more important won’t mind, but parents would … if they knew about it.

Let’s examine that special edition of the JRME.

In the editorial The sociopolitical turn in mathematics education, Rochelle Gutiérrez says that, over a decade, math education researchers incorporated sociocultural concepts into their work. But now, those with “a long history of addressing anti-racism and social justice issues in mathematics have moved beyond this sociocultural view to espouse sociopolitical concepts and theories, highlighting identity and power at play.”

Gutiérrez warns against “focusing on discourse to the point where mathematics disappears,” but she fails to acknowledge the alarming fact that it’s already largely happened.

The abstract for Margaret Walshaw’s Post-structuralism and ethical practical action: Issues of identity and power says her article explains “how mathematical identifications are tied to the social organization of power. An analysis of 2 everyday instances is provided to capture the oppressive conditions in which ordinary people involved in mathematics are engaged.”

(I’m feeling a bit “oppressed” myself, actually. All of the power to fix the math program in Spokane rests with people who refuse to do it.)

In Learning to teach mathematics for social justice: Negotiating social justice and mathematical goals, the article that caused me to startle the cat, Tonya Gau Bartell says math classes should examine concepts such as prisons vs. education, and institutionalized racism. Students could “use mathematics to expose an injustice, that minimum wage is not a living wage, and would brainstorm possible actions they could take to affect (sic) change.”

(It’s a blending of sociology, activism and math … minus the math.)

The article that does ring true is David W. Stinson’s Negotiating the “‘White Male Math Myth”: African American male students and success in school mathematics. Weighed down by a nearly unintelligible abstract, it nevertheless reaches the heart of the issue. Teachers should find ways to use students’ frame of reference to drive the lessons. It’s how you reach a student. Reaching a student is how you teach the student, and teaching all students what they need to know is how you achieve equity of opportunity, and justice for all. But who believes that?

Activists prefer to frame math lessons around their politics, values and world view. In doing so, they interfere with the very process that helps students succeed. They also place squat, fat barriers between children and their unknowing parents. Already, mathematics has been politicized, socialized and stupefied into near drivel. We don’t have a generation ready to take over the reins of the country. It’s much, much worse out there than you think.

When the agenda is the priority, student outcomes become less important. Public dissent is seen as irrelevant, and it falls on deaf ears. Look at the mission statement and goals for Spokane Public Schools. College readiness isn’t mentioned. It’s all about “aligning,” “developing” and “empowering.” We aren’t talking about the same things. “The children are failing.” Irrelevant. “They need substantial remedial math in college.” Irrelevant. “They have almost no math skills to speak of.” Irrelevant. “Listen to me! I have something to tell you.” Irrelevant. Administrators and board directors actually have told me I have nothing to tell them about what my child needs.

What is relevant to them? They claim without proof that students are gaining “deeper conceptual understanding” in math through “real-world application.” For one thing, their “real world” is largely foreign to the children. For another, you can’t have “deeper conceptual understanding” without academic knowledge. But that, too, is seen as irrelevant. They don’t view math as a useful skill, a field unto itself that requires focus and a logical, linear progression of concepts. To them, math is a prop, grabbed on the fly to frame and illustrate their sociological concerns.

They refuse to give students the academic skills they need to be successful, productive citizens and not stricken with poverty. Who is oppressing whom? Yeah, yeah, I know. Irrelevant.

Google the term “educators for social justice” and see how equity, social justice, anti-oppression, environmentalism, anti-American "imperialism," the disdain and devaluing of military service, pro-“immigrant reform” (i.e. amnesty), selective law obeying, moral relativism and anti-capitalism are increasingly embraced as core education themes and embedded throughout the nation’s K-12 curriculum. Young students must ponder weighty social issues while not being taught enough usable math. Grammar has been replaced with self-absorbed and generally useless exploration. Many history and social studies classes focus on social change and transformation, rather than on names of state capitols or the “rich white men” who signed the U.S. Constitution.

Notice the research focus in the profiles of master’s and doctoral students in the math education program at the University of Washington. “Progressive pedagogy”; how “identity, status, and equity play into success in mathematics”; “equity issues, professional learning communities, and literacy instruction in mathematics classrooms”; “a complex-instruction mathematics classroom through relational pedagogy”; and “examining the Eurocentric nature of mainstream mathematics—its segregated image, content, and pedagogy.” Where is the mathematics?

On the Web site for Teachers 4 Social Justice, the mission is to “provide opportunities for self-transformation, leadership, and community building to educators in order to affect (sic) meaningful change in the classroom, school, community and society.”

Whose definition of “meaningful change” holds sway? (And does no one know the difference between “affect” and “effect”?)

The group Rethinking Schools asks, “How do we bring the fight to protect and transform public schools into our classrooms? How do we connect our classrooms to the struggles in the streets?” An article on the site is titled Teaching budget cuts to third graders. Assisted by editor Bill Bigelow, the group published Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers – a collection of articles showing “how to weave social-justice principles throughout the math curriculum, and how to integrate social-justice math into other curricular areas as well.”

Bigelow also wrote the article Patriotism Makes Kids Stupid for Pledging Allegiance: The Politics of Patriotism in America’s Schools. This 2007 book showcases “educators who refuse to toe the new ‘patriotic’ line.” (Also included is commentary from Bill Ayers, former member of the radical Weather Underground who reportedly told the The New York Times in 2001, “I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough.”)

Rethinking Schools is sponsoring the Oct. 1st 4th Annual Northwest Conference on Teaching for Social Justice in Seattle. Please read the conference agenda. In its Equity Library, Spokane carries five books edited by Bill Bigelow.

Meanwhile, the Teaching for Change Web site says it “provides teachers and parents with the tools to transform schools into centers of justice where students learn to read, write and change the world.” Teaching for Change is affiliated with the Zinn Education Project, in which activist Howard Zinn encouraged students to write about “unsung heroes,” including Elaine Brown, a former leader of the Black Panthers; Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a longtime communist; and Leonard Peltier, who was convicted of murder (and is currently incarcerated).

Zinn provided materials that focus on the “oppressed,” without offering much in counterbalance. He offered a list of like-minded organizations, such as the New York Collective of Radical Educators, which tells teachers to advocate for full amnesty for those who are in the country illegally, and to “proactively” help students avoid military service.

This is just a snippet of the politics flooding K-12 education at the expense of academics. Spokane says “social justice is at the heart of our instructional core.” The Bronx has a school devoted to social justice, as do Brooklyn and Chicago. There are others; more are coming. Project-based learning, reform math and constructivism typically drive the social-activist agenda.

This agenda is not about the children. Few in leadership seem focused on academics or inclined to speak up. Parents get little help or truth from media, districts, principals, school boards, governors, legislators, policy-makers, education service districts, publishers, state or federal education agencies, teachers unions, or many “grass-roots” groups that are well-connected, well-funded supporters of the agenda. Frightened for their job, most teachers also remain silent.

On Aug. 27, in the face of ridiculously high college remedial rates, low levels of skills in math and grammar, and persistent community dissent, former Spokane superintendent Gary Livingston claimed without statistical data or support that local schools are just fine. He said what’s really needed is less criticism and more community involvement … (i.e., more of our money).

But, nationwide, $670 billion from all sources was spent for just one year of K-12 education. Despite their persistent complaints of ongoing budget “cuts,” poor things, it will again be more this year. How much was spent on academics? How much on the agenda?

We don’t have to accept it. Students need schools to focus on content knowledge and skills. Any school that refuses to do that, in the name of equity and social justice, is engaging in neither. Many in leadership supplement the program for their own children, or they remove their own children from public schools. (Not that they’ll tell you.) My family left public education this year because of the political agenda. It disrespects our values and presents incorrect, biased and narrow views of history and society. We left because academics aren’t respected. Children struggle with reform math, whereupon they’re blamed and called “the low group.” We left because the district leadership obstinately refuses to tell the truth, change direction, or be accountable for their failure. We left because their allegiance is not to the people; it’s to themselves, to each other, and to the agenda.

If you want academics in schools rather than politics, you’ll have to find a way to make it happen. They show little sign of caring about what parents want and children need.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (September 2011). "Politics driving math classes - not equity, justice ... or math." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published Sept. 5, 2011, on the Core Knowledge blog at http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2011/09/05/guest-post-politics-driving-math-classes/.

This article also was published Sept. 5, 2011, on the Education Views Web site at http://educationviews.org/2011/09/05/politics-driving-math-classes-not-equity-justice-or-math/

This article also was published Sept. 6, 2011, on the Education News Web site at http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/160526.html

It's good to be the good guy: Teaching in Korea

2011-08-27T23:39:00.000-07:00

By Doug Lasken

For a while now, I've had to get accustomed to the characterization of my 25-year teaching career with the Los Angeles Unified School District as a series of reprehensible acts on my part. As a teacher, I've been the bad guy.

First, over the 16 years I taught elementary, I wanted to teach immigrant children how to speak, read and write in English. Prior to 1997 when the passage of Propostion 227 mandated that immigrant children in California should learn English, my views were considered reactionary and contrary to the best interests of Hispanic children. I was told bluntly that by refusing to teach exclusively in Spanish I was destroying the children's chances of success. One coordinator told me I was perpetuating "English as King." "No," I countered, "English is the common language of most of the world," but this was a non-starter in such circles.

It seemed to me also that I should teach the content of core subjects. In elementary, I thought kids should know their times tables, the decimal system, some rudimentary science, and the fundamentals of reading: phonics, spelling and basic grammar. In my 10 years as a high school English teacher, I believed that students should know grammar and should read some novels. I found I was wrong on all counts. It seemed that memorization of the times tables damaged a child's ability to do critical thinking in math, that, for older kids, concepts like measuring one's distance from a celestial object using parallax should never be taught, rather children should "discover" or "construct" it for themselves (an approach called "constructivism"), again to preserve "critical thinking skills."

With the coming of "Whole Language," I was advised that the teacher should sit back while the children teach themselves to read, which they will do if the stories are engaging and have nice illustrations, and I was directed in no uncertain terms to immediately cease all instruction in phonics, spelling and grammar, as these would -- you guessed it -- destroy all hope of reading with critical thinking skills.

Two years ago, as if to ensure fond memories after my retirement, LA Unified decided that novels were of no use to students. Elitist professors, we were told, had forced novels on the high school curriculum at the turn of the last century, and it was time to recognize that we are an information age now and kids need expository reading. So much for Brave New World. Let's assemble that hammock!

Every one of these pedagogical oddities was endorsed at every level of California's adult administrative empire, from the local school board and superintendent to the state board and state department of education, up to and including the federal Department of Education. Never before has so vast an assortment of adults been so completely in the thrall of critical thinking skills without apparently having any themselves. Test scores tell the story: American high school graduates' proficiency levels have fallen and are falling in all areas. No wonder the Obama administration is suddenly against all current testing (though it wants to spend billions on brand-new testing). Let's shoot the messenger.

In the years leading up to my retirement in June '09, I faced another set of negative characterizations, this one pertaining to the practical aspects of my profession. It seems that the nation's failing economy has been largely my fault because my motive for entering the teaching profession was to enrich myself at the public trough. To help me in this nefarious quest, I joined a teachers union, my partner in crime. The union and I conspired to jack up my salary over 25 years to about $70,000. I must confess further that my union buddies and I saw to it that I will receive a pension of about two-thirds of my highest year's salary for the rest of my life, plus...oh the shame...I will have medical coverage! Have you ever heard of anything like this in any other sector? No wonder the state and federal governments are going bust! You need look no further for an explanation.

Let me hasten to add that I'm no apologist for teachers unions. Clearly my perspective diverges from the current vilification of unions on the financial side, but let's be clear that the unions have been complicit in the destruction of American public school pedagogy. In Californina, the United Teachers of Los Angeles and its parent, the California Teachers Association, as well as the national unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, have been 100% in support of the prohibition of English instruction of immigrant children, and the abandonment of direct instruction of content, via Whole Language and constructivist dogmas in science and math.

Well, as it happens, retirement has opened some interesting doors for me. I've been teaching in Seoul, on my second tour through the UCLA Writing Project, for whom I teach at South Korean private academies. I'm crazy for Korean food -- it really clears the nasal cavities -- but the compelling benefit of this job is that I went from bad guy to good guy. I love when that happens.

First, no one asked me to stay clear of English because the kids don't know it. In fact, it seems that their status as ESL students is considered a reason to teach them English. Who would have thought? I was paid fairly, and no one seemed to begrudge me that. Forget constructivism here: they want information, skills and methods. Here's another bonus: a special bond between teacher and student is prized. I will transliterate it roughly as "cho." I was encouraged to interact with my students in a number of ways, for instance by going out to lunch with them (sometimes the company paid), by staying after class to tutor, and by discussing essays late at night via email. One night, the students, the school director, another teacher and I went out to see the new "Harry Potter" movie. The next morning, my class read David Denby's review of it in The New Yorker.

All of this stands in stark contrast to the morbid fear in the US of going beyond tightly restricted bonds, where the supposition is that teachers (especially males) -- in addition to being lazy and self-serving -- are predatory. In fact it seems that in Korea, the teacher is prized as a key element in enhancing civilization and culture.

Not to say teachers get a free ride in Korea. In the realm of the private academies, the moms see to it that a teacher who does not deliver disappears pronto. But the default position is that teachers are a key element in the human endeavor. Would that not seem to be the rational view for any civilization?

Doug Lasken is an English teacher, debate coach, consultant and freelancer. Reach him through his blog at http://laskenlog.blogspot.com/

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 about 1,000 words, give or take a few. 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.

Barbie and Jim Brady agree: Math is hard

2011-08-21T10:58:00.000-07:00

By Laurie H. Rogers

Omigod! I’m so happy. The mystery is solved. I can finally go back to the peaceful life I left in 2007 when I first realized that Spokane has a serious math problem. Last week, I arrived home from Canada, to multiple emails and phone calls suggesting that I read the Aug. 14 Spokesman-Review article on college math remedial rates. Ever the accommodating advocate, I did, and now I know the truth.

The reason we’re staring at an entire generation of students who lack basic math skills is that math is hard. No, no, it’s true. Jim Brady, from Spokane Falls Community College, reportedly told SR reporter Jody Lawrence-Turner that math is hard, and Lawrence-Turner must not have been able to locate a credible contrary view – anywhere in the country. Plus, Jim Brady is dean of Computing, Math and Science at SFCC. He’s in charge over there, so his opinion must be right.

How easy and obvious. And only three syllables. My world has been magically simplified. I feel a bit silly, though, having completely missed this for four and a half years. I never thought math is hard – certainly not basic math. I thought the district makes math hard – impossible, actually – then turns around and blames everyone else. I’ve argued that for years, to little effect at the central office and school board, and to nearly dead silence at the newspaper. Now I see why they view me with such disdain. I was wrong; why bother talking with someone who’s wrong?

Math is hard. No wonder no one wants to hold the district accountable for the area’s low pass rates on state math tests, high college remedial rates, low levels of math skills in graduates, and high levels of math anxiety across the entire city. If math is hard, that would be totally unfair.

The advocates I know across the country will be relieved to know the problem is solved and we can return to our families. They’ll feel sheepish knowing how wrong we were – about math, about the problem, and about the solution. Indeed, like the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland says, we’ve been “wrong from beginning to end,” and you can’t be more wrong than that.

It turns out that the math problem isn’t the awful curriculum, distracting learning environment, excessive constructivism, or administrative micromanaging, as we advocates have been saying. Those issues – and the scientifically conducted research on those issues – weren’t mentioned in the newspaper’s Aug. 14 article. They weren’t important enough for the newspaper to examine them at all over the last several years.

The problem isn’t ineffective teachers, as the Spokane superintendent is always saying. It isn’t poverty, as instructional coaches shouted out earlier this year in my community forums. It isn’t a lack of patience on the part of parents, as district administrators frequently interrupted us to claim. It isn’t a money issue (so adding more dollars to the budget won’t fix it). It isn’t too much local decision-making (so a federal takeover of public education won’t fix it). It isn’t due to weak standards, unmotivated children or uninvolved parents. And it isn’t a data problem (so a new $2.5 million data system won’t fix it). We advocates always knew all of that.

But now we know that math is too hard. We must therefore stop expecting things from the leadership. It isn’t fair to be angry about a failed K-12 math program or a failed college remedial math program, not fair to hold Jim Brady or the superintendent accountable for failing to accomplish something that’s obviously impossible. Now we can understand why Mr. Brady and his SFCC colleagues chose recently to align the SFCC math program with Spokane’s failed K-12 math program so that everyone can feel great about math. All of SFCC's remedial math students will be able to continue scaffolding their prior knowledge in order to achieve group consensus on reaching an equitable and socially just number and level of advanced skills, self-constructed in a metacognitive and collaborative stream of child-centered, deeper conceptual, problem-solving alignment.

What a relief. We no longer need to wonder about those privately schooled, homeschooled, and tutored students who do achieve in math, who don’t test into remedial math in college, and who don’t believe that math is hard. They must be anomalies. Perhaps they’re gifted, weird, bionic, or maybe not even real. Honestly, we can’t expect all of the children to be bionic or not real.

Besides, there are more important things in life than math. Things like shopping and movies, taking showers, making a perfect soufflé like Gordon Ramsay on TV, and monitoring one’s horoscope. And there are tons of jobs our graduates can get that don’t require math, like answering the phone, sweeping the floor, and cleaning swimming pools. People also could babysit, mix drinks or lifeguard. There are lots and lots of non-math jobs out there. Lots.

I feel like a huge weight has been lifted from my shoulders, like I just ate a cream puff or a sugary confection. There’s a humming in my ears and I feel a bit lightheaded. I hear Barbie in the background, burbling “Math is too hard” each time someone pulls on the string. How funny and cool that she’s back with us. She really was way ahead of her time.

I did – just for a second – see a small dark shadow out there – insignificant really, what looked like hordes of foreign students pouring across the border to nab seats in our colleges, take jobs in our businesses, and drag American jobs overseas, never to be seen again – but that must have been the sugar rush one gets from eating a Twinkie or reading the local newspaper.

At last I get it. Jim Brady says math has been hard for decades, and I believe him. It’s of no consequence that America’s public schools have depended on the current version of reform math for 22 years now, and on other incarnations of reform math off and on for generations before that. Why make this complicated? Why persist in wrong-headed thinking? Why be antagonistic and difficult, or risk being labeled a nutjob, whacko or conspiracy theorist? Why make everyone feel so awful? Let’s be happy.

I’m sure grammar is too hard, too. The district wisely chose to channel its resources away from grammar to more important things like equity and social justice. Cursive writing also is hard, and history is hard (too many numbers) – and civics. Who can even keep straight all of those branches of government? Especially nowadays.

You know what? The whole damn thing is too hard. I mean really. It’s time to face facts. They can’t teach our children because it can’t be done.

And with this simple concept, pioneered by Barbie, confirmed by Jim Brady, voted on by the school board, implemented by the district, and delivered solemnly to us by The Spokesman-Review, we could reform and transform our entire society.

Numbers in general are hard, don’t you think? All of those pointy edges. You have to add them and subtract them and … what’s that other one?… I’m getting a headache already, just thinking about it. And why should we? They’re all on the Internet. We can find them if we need them. Like, there’s a 3 and a 7 and a 5. And another one – I forget it, exactly, but it has a circle on top of another circle, like glasses, except sideways and with no arms. I think that’s all of them.

Now I can go back to more important business, like figuring out why so few graduates can get into college or get a job. It’s a national problem. I think Jim Brady should run the Federal Reserve. Math is hard there, too. It’s also hard in Congress, where they have so many zeroes. Let’s all take a break from math, take a nap and not worry about it. Someone will do it for us. Like WALL-E. He’ll do it. I love that little guy. The space dancing in WALL-E was so cute, and I’m glad he lived.

I’m hoping that Barbie, Jim Brady and the newspaper will confirm that weeding the garden is hard. I could really get behind them on that one. Also cleaning. And driving. And walking. And thinking. I’ve been doing way too much thinking.

Surprise me, Mr. Brady. Your comments have been a true gift. Give me more. I think my birthday is coming up soon.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (August 2011). "Barbie and Jim Brady agree: Math is hard." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article also was posted August 24 at EducationViews: http://educationviews.org/2011/08/24/barbie-and-jim-brady-agree-math-is-hard/

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

2011-07-29T22:13:00.000-07:00

[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/

Sally Fullmer best choice for Spokane school board

2011-07-21T14:02:00.000-07:00

[Edited August 8]

By Laurie H. Rogers

In the Aug. 16 primary election, Spokane voters will choose two candidates out of five possible replacements for outgoing school board director Garret Daggett. I interviewed all six original candidates and gave them two surveys to fill out. I interviewed four for KRTW radio, and listened to four at the League of Women Voters forum and in other settings. In this post, I sum up my findings.

This is a critical election, folks. Please vote in the Aug. 16 primary. Encourage others to vote. We must send two good candidates through to the general election. Based on everything the board candidates have written, and everything I’ve heard them say, my first choice for a replacement for Garret Daggett is Sally Fullmer.

In Spokane Public Schools, we clearly need a change of direction. Our students suffer low pass rates on “basic-skills” state tests, low levels of skills in math and grammar, and high dropout rates. The district has high numbers of transfers, dropping full-time enrollment, and a lack of transparency, or even honesty, about the exploding district budget. Many families have left because of the curriculum. Our graduates suffer unacceptably high remedial rates in college in mathematics and English; nearly half will fail their remedial math classes or withdraw early.

District administrators have an unfortunate tendency to blame teachers, parents, students, and poverty for all problems, as they negotiate themselves into pay raises and are praised by board directors for fake improvements. A change in the school board is a must-do. We desperately need board directors who will question, dissent, and refuse to “go along to get along,” who will hold our well-paid administrators accountable, and stand up for the students’ and taxpayers’ best interests – not just when it’s convenient, but every time.

When I began these interviews, the only candidate I’d met was Paul le Coq. One candidate repeatedly suggested to me that I’d already made up my mind, but that isn’t so. I didn’t settle on a candidate until I’d met all of them, and I met the last one July 16. My support was open to all candidates; it really was theirs to lose.

Deana Brower

My first interviewee was Deana Brower. She ran for the school board in 2009, losing in the primary. Deana told me people talk about the curriculum too much, that people should focus on philosophy instead. She said schools aren’t “social services,” yet her idea for fixing the math problem rested on having better teachers, fixing (unfixable) social problems, and allowing the district to build its own math standards.

But Washington State already has good math standards, upgraded in 2008 to include the long-lost standard algorithms and procedural proficiency. Spokane administrators decided to build their own standards, which they call “Power Standards.” And who in this district is qualified to do that? Deana supports these Power Standards, saying they’re “aligned” with the state standards. But if the two sets of standards are the same, why did the district waste taxpayer money building new ones? And if the two sets of standards are different, then what’s different? Spokane’s current administrators have worked diligently for more than a decade to remove standard algorithms and procedural proficiency from Spokane’s math program.

In the League of Women Voters forum, Deana made unsubstantiated attacks on other board candidates (the only candidate to do so), and she spent much of her talking time defending the school district – to the point where it seemed as though she were a district employee, defending her decisions. If you doubt my impression, please watch the LofWV video.

[Updated July 27: Deana sounds like an administrator -- one who is completely supportive of the district. I saw this the first time I spoke with her, on June 9 at the Spokane Republican Women's luncheon, again during my initial interview with her, again at the LoWV forum, and then again July 26, during the Greater Spokane, Inc. forum. It doesn't sound to me like she intends to hold administrators accountable for their policies, curriculum choices, or student outcomes.]

Deana’s answers to the Where’s the Math? questionnaire and to my longer questionnaire were carefully worded, but they didn’t indicate a real understanding of the root of the math problem. After reviewing her answers, the executive committee of Where’s the Math? decided against approving Deana Brower as a board candidate.

Deana says she could support the district’s adoption of the (unfunded, untested) federal Common Core initiatives. Interestingly, she said she isn’t supportive of federal control over standards, tests and curriculum, which shows her ignorance of what the Common Core initiatives are about. Deana says the school district isn’t properly funded (even though the district budget has grown by more than $60 million since 2002 while student enrollment has dropped by thousands of students). When I interviewed Deana for KRTW radio (which broadcasts to a more conservative audience), she told listeners a more conservative story. I don’t buy it, and here’s why.

Deana received teachers union support months before the campaign filing period had begun. Deana tells conservatives that the union knows her stance and supports her as being the best candidate they have. How could the union have known that, way back in the spring? The union’s support is interesting, considering Deana’s stance that better teachers are the main solution to the math problem.

The teachers union sent Deana to a “joint SEA/WEA program created specifically to train school board candidates.” The union says, “This program was provided to Deana and several other candidates from around the state in an effort to encourage people with education experience to run for school board. The training was developed by WEA in conjunction with two political consultants, Wellstone Action and Progressive Majority.”

This training was NOT provided to other board candidates in Spokane, even to those “with education experience.” Regardless of your political leanings, please read up on Wellstone Action and Progressive Majority. I read their mission, goals, philosophy, and approach to elections with growing alarm. They are all about supporting a progressive political leaning. That Deana Brower and the union would associate with these groups, much less use them and be used by them to help sway a supposedly nonpartisan campaign, speaks volumes about both. [Updated July 29: The Progressive Voters Guide also has chosen Deana Brower as their progressive candidate.]

Regardless of whether you're a conservative voter or a liberal one, you should know that Deana Brower tends to support the status quo. If you're looking for a change in the district, I doubt you will see it with her, except, perhaps, in how much more that lack of change will cost you as a taxpayer.

Deana has teaching experience (in California) and children in the Spokane school district. Deana was involved in the discussion over the placement of Jefferson Elementary School.

Sally Fullmer

Sally is a piano teacher, active in her community, in the neighborhood, and also was involved in the discussion over the placement of Jefferson Elementary School.

Sally is an active questioner. I’ve seen her at more community education-related events over the last few weeks than any other candidate, where she has met with and listened to the public. She also spoke at the League of Women Voters forum, arguing for transparency and accountability. She appears to understand the root of the math problem. Where’s the Math? has approved Sally for her answers to the WTM math questionnaire. One executive committee member for WTM said Sally’s answers sound like something any of us math advocates could have written. I agree with his assessment. This means that supporters of the district’s loopy approach to math likely will not support Sally. The teachers union is not supporting Sally. However, parents who are trying to figure out why their smart children are failing math, and parents whose children are getting As in math and then testing into arithmetic in college, likely will see Sally as a strong ally.

Sally also provided answers to my longer questionnaire. She is not supportive of federal control over standards, tests or curriculum, nor does she support the untested, unfunded federal Common Core initiatives. She takes the problem of the math materials seriously and said that, to fix the math problem, “Good curriculum must be in place.” The adoption of Holt Mathematics should not be delayed just because the district wants to adopt the “unproven nationalized curricula,” she said. Sally believes in more academic freedom for teachers and more accountability for administrative decision-making. Students should be allowed to practice skills to mastery, she said, and calculator use should not take the place of math skills. She said, and I agree: “Significant results should be the norm in school!”

[Edited August 8: Sally has continued to advocate for accountability, transparency, student academics, and fiscal restraint. She said she intends to keep the public informed about board decisions, and she's willing to be the lone voice against policy and decisions that are counterproductive to student learning. This shows me that she -- more than any other candidate -- understands her role as a board director, which is to be accountable to the people.]

Sally has children in the district. She has had to work with her own children in academics to offset gaps in their education. Her Web site is located at http://www.seewhatsallysays.com/.

Paul le Coq

Paul le Coq teaches engineering at Gonzaga University. He decided to run because a change in the school board is desperately needed. I respect and empathize with a person’s willingness to step up on behalf of the community when it isn’t a personal ambition. Paul was approved by Where’s the Math? for his answers to the WTM questionnaire; he filled out my questionnaire; and he spoke at the League of Women Voters forum. On July 21, Paul pulled out of the race, throwing his support behind Sally. [Updated July 27: In its roundup of the board candidates, The Spokesman-Review declined to print Paul's statement, or mention Paul's endorsement of Sally Fullmer.] This is Paul le Coq's statement:

“After listening and speaking to the other candidates extensively, paying close attention to the forums, and much consideration, I have decided to drop out of the race for Spokane Schools (District 81) as of now. I will support Sally Fullmer. Since I am convinced that she is fully committed to improving the quality of education in Spokane, I urge Spokane voters to vote for Sally Fullmer. She deserves the support of Spokane citizens in her race for position 5 of the school board. My supporters can be assured that her objectives are compatible with mine. "My motivation for running was to bring solid math, English and science curricula to the schools and to set objective performance standards to assure that graduates are prepared with adequate skills. We owe it to our kids to develop their work ethic and study skills. I am satisfied that Sally can do the job. It’s more important to me that a competent person sits on the board than for that person to be me. That is why I am redirecting my energies to supporting Sally Fullmer.

"Robert Griffing also shares many of my goals, and would make an excellent board member. However, I see that Sally Fullmer’s determination not to let another three years of students suffer from bad practices, her commitment to excellence, that she will insist on competence, that we agree on the need for objective criteria for success, are more in line with what I stand for. I’m convinced that Sally Fullmer is the best candidate.”

Robert (Bob) Griffing

Bob’s background includes instruction in teaching, history and theology. He works with Fairchild Air Force base in providing support to the airmen.

Bob answered the Where’s the Math? questionnaire, and his answers earned him WTM approval as a board candidate. He is still working on answering my longer questionnaire. I have seen him at a few community functions around town, and also at the League of Women Voters forum, where he argued for better accountability and a renewed focus on the district’s main purpose, which is to produce well-educated students. He advocates strengthening board leadership, sharpening the budget so that expenditures are narrowed to what matters to academics, and decentralizing the decision-making so that teachers have more academic freedom.

[Edited August 7: I don’t care for Bob’s idea of giving the superintendent three years to solve academic problems. The superintendent would be delighted, no doubt, to earn $222,000 per year for three more years. But three years in a child’s life is an academic lifetime. The children need improvement now, and now is possible. Nancy Stowell has been with this district for decades. Under her four-year watch as superintendent, the pass rate on the 10th-grade math test fell from just more than 50% to 38.9%. Bob continues to defend the superintendent's salary and has said that repairing the weak curriculum should wait until other problems are solved.

Additionally, Bob has said he will not be the "lone voice in the wilderness," that directors should work for consensus and support decisions. This, to me, is a misunderstanding of the role of the board director. Directors should be accountable to the public, not to Nancy Stowell or to other board directors. Consensus is what we have now. If the new Spokane board director does the right thing on behalf of students and taxpayers, he/she will have to be the lone voice in the wilderness for at least two more years. If Bob isn't willing to be that voice, then he should not be running.]

Bob’s children have attended both public and private settings. His lengthy experience with German schools provides a stark contrast to the Spokane public system, which his children have attended off and on. He and his wife also have chosen to homeschool at times, in order to provide the academics and learning environment they want for their children. His Facebook page is located at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Griffing-for-Spokane-School-Board/240286892657129

Larry Vandervert

In our conversation, Larry offered friendly, but contradictory commentary, as when he initially questioned whether children need to learn math, then later said students need to learn the basics. His platform is difficult to determine. He refused to answer the Where’s the Math? questionnaire and also my longer questionnaire. I haven’t seen him at functions or community candidate forums. He has not, to my knowledge, made effort to make his views known to the public.

He offered me a single response to my survey (quoted verbatim): “Looking over the survey, the only portion I would want to respond to are the first parts on the role of the board member. That's because, as I see the role (Vandervert on SkyHigh, and the Policy Governance approach) the board decides what the organization is FOR, and, under close board supervision, the MEANS of achieving are carried-out (sic) by the Superintendent and staff. The CEO or Superintendent is evaluated in (sic) by the board as to their (sic) achieving the results desired. If steady progress is not made, the Superintendent goes. End of story.”

Rod Roduner

Rod was my last interview. I wanted to speak with him before summing up my impressions of the candidates or offering support to a particular candidate. It took us some time to get to that interview, as Rod is busy with other community activism.

Rod didn’t answer the Where’s the Math? questionnaire, but on July 20, he did send answers to my longer questionnaire. He didn’t appear at the League of Women Voters forum, nor have I seen him at other forums around town. Rod acknowledged that he doesn’t know much about the math issue. In our friendly conversation, Rod approached the issues from the perspective of a teacher, not surprising considering that his wife is a teacher. I’m relieved he answered my questionnaire because it was difficult to follow his conversation. His commentary was heavily anecdotal, and he tended to digress.

Rod's Web site is located at: http://www.voterodroduner.com/index.html

****

After all of these conversations and interviews, my choice for the next board director is Sally Fullmer. Her attitude is one of empathy and understanding of the challenges and trials of students, parents and teachers. She doesn’t rush to defend administrators who built this school district and who refuse to listen to their publics. Sally’s curiosity, clarity and frankness provide her with a unique platform from which to work for positive change. If you want real improvement in this district, and not the pretend improvement the administrators keep giving us, I encourage you to consider voting for Sally Fullmer.

The Lake Wobegon Effect? Or deceit by omission?

2011-07-16T23:20:00.000-07:00

[Spokane friends: Ask yourself why you don't see ANY of this questioning in local newspapers.]

By Laurie H. Rogers

In Garrison Keillor’s fictional Lake Wobegon, “all of the women are strong, all of the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.” Keillor’s famous phrase encapsulates the cognitive bias known as “illusory superiority” – a fancy name for the natural tendency we all have to overstate our achievements and positive qualities as compared against others. Because Keillor articulated this bias so well, “illusory superiority” is often called the Lake Wobegon Effect.

The term popped into my head last week while reading various press releases and news articles about Spokane Public Schools. In Spokane, apparently there is no bad news, everyone is always doing better, scores are always going up, and management is always excellent.

(Sarcasm alert.) Administrators are especially remarkable when you consider the difficult job they have of working with the poor, the weak, the incapable, the unknowledgeable, the ungrateful, the uneducated, the stupid, the antagonistic, and the misguided. The consistent gist of their message is, “If only everybody else would carry THEIR weight, you’d see just how positively brilliant we are.” (End sarcasm.)

Hey, here's some fun with acronyms: Administrators in Spokane Public Schools are GNOMES, hindered (so they say) by IT, UP and US.

GNOME: Good News Only; Management Excellent.
IT: Ineffective Teachers
UP: Uninvolved Parents
US: Unmotivated Students

Ever your humble servant, I give you actual information that isn’t tarnished by the district’s desire to appear competent. Administrators are touting their new focus on “data-driven” decision-making (as if it were a smart new task and not something they should have always done). I offer "celebrations" from these GNOMES, followed by real data. I encourage all ITs, UPs, and USs to share this with others.

The GNOMES celebrate:

“North Central, Lewis and Clark, Ferris and Rogers were named to the 2011 Washington Post top high schools list for the number of students taking AP tests. Only one other Spokane County school made the list.” (Source: “Points of Pride.”)

Laurie says: About the Washington Post ranking

The Washington Post survey is based on how many students take AP tests. It isn’t based on how many pass the classes or how many pass the tests. Therefore, the more students a district shoves into AP classes (ready or not), the higher its Washington Post ranking – even if every student ultimately flunks the tests. Directors and administrators have said that passing the AP test isn’t as important as being in an AP class – that “students learn just by being there.”

The GNOMES celebrate:

More students are college and career ready, as evidenced by the increased number of AP Placement exams (Source: The superintendent’s June Rotary Club presentation.)

The data say: About Spokane’s AP Classes

	1992	2000	2008	2010
Number of students	193	368	1093	1208
Number of exams	271	636	2028	2270
Number of course areas	13	15	27	27
Number of exams passed	198	515	1099	1251
Percent passing	73%	81%	54%	55%
Percent failing	27%	19%	46%	45%
Average Grade	3.18	3.45	2.72	2.69

Spokane’s high ranking in the Washington Post survey is due to the higher number of AP exams. You can see that, numerically, more tests are being passed, but also that the percentage passing has dropped precipitously. Many more tests also are being failed. Administrators and board directors have brushed this failing off as being immaterial. It is not immaterial to the students who failed.

Additionally, the average grade on AP exams has dropped below a “3,” the point at which students can obtain college credit at state schools. (Gonzaga and Whitworth give credit for AP math classes only if students receive a score of “4” or “5” on the AP exam.)

The GNOMES celebrate:

“A higher percentage of SPS students go to college directly after high school than in the state.” (Source: District publication “Points of Pride.”

The data say: About college and career readiness

The 2010 10th-grade state math test (the HSPE) was a low-level, basic skills math test. Students needed just 56.9% to pass and to be considered by the state as “proficient” on the exam. The pass rates in 2010 for Spokane’s high schools looked like this: Ferris: 54%, Lewis and Clark: 54.2%, North Central, 27.1%, and Shadle: 44.4%.

It’s no surprise, therefore, that high school graduates are testing into remedial math in college. In 2009–2010, according to data from Spokane Community Colleges (SCC and SFCC):

Of all recent high school graduates enrolling in these two colleges, 87.3 percent took remedial math classes. Most tested into elementary algebra or below.
43.9 percent of those 1,112 remedial students withdrew early from their remedial classes or failed to achieve a 2.0 or better. The rates hold true over five years.
Of recent graduates from six high schools in Spokane Public Schools, the remediation rate at SCC and SFCC was 86.8%. Three SPS high schools had a math remediation rate at SCC of 100 percent; the other three ranged from 91.9% to 97% at SCC.

Included in the data are students who enrolled in remedial math at SCC/SFCC within a year of graduation. Not included are students who tested into remedial math but waited to take their classes, graduates who left the area or who went to a four-year, graduates who didn’t want to go to college, students who dropped out, and graduates who tested into remedial math but decided it was too much to do.

The GNOMES celebrate:

In 2009, Spokane Public Schools scored 106.9 on Education Week’s “Cumulative Promotion Index.” In contrast, Seattle is at 78.3, Tacoma is at 69.3, Kent is at 104.1, and Everett is at 74.7. (Source: District presentation on the Superintendent’s Work Plan.)

Laurie says: About Education Week’s Cumulative Promotion Index

According to Education Week, “a score of 100 points on this index indicates that the district's graduation rate is exactly as would be expected, based on its size, student composition, and other characteristics. Districts with scores greater than 100 points are outperforming expectations.”

This index is based on “expectations,” not on an academic standard. If our expectation is zero, and the district achieves at a level of .0001, then it will achieve above 100 on the index.

And, whose expectations are these? My expectation is that Spokane Public Schools prepares the vast majority of its students academically for postsecondary life – for college, a career, a trade, to join the military, to begin a business … And the district is NOT meeting my expectation.

The GNOMES celebrate:

Graduation rates are “improving.” (Source: The superintendent’s June Rotary Club presentation.)

About Spokane’s graduation rates

How much of the “increase” was because of actual academic improvement? The district tracked down some students and removed them from the most recent total, causing the most recent graduation rate to go up. However, previous years' numbers were not recounted. It’s statistically incorrect to compare non-reworked numbers with reworked numbers.

Additionally, the “improved” graduation rate doesn’t indicate whether the students were qualified to begin college or a trade when they left high school. As noted, indications are that most were NOT college or career ready.

Additionally, the graduation rates do not indicate how many disgruntled families left the district before graduation. See below for information on that.

The data say: About enrollment

Full-time enrollment in Spokane dropped by about 2,650 from 2003 to May 2010. This is a net figure, not a gross figure, therefore, incoming students offset the total drop.

A Fall 2008 district survey of families who chose to leave the district showed that about 33% left over the curriculum. (Private schools were not included in the survey. Had they been, I suspect this percentage would be higher.) At any rate, top academically-related reasons chosen for leaving:

33%: Quality of curriculum does not match your expectations
26%: District class sizes too large
21%: Desired coursework is not offered in the district
19%: Student is not on schedule to graduate

The district didn’t release the results of this survey to the general public.

The GNOMES say:

“Our mission is to develop the skills and talents of all students through rigorous learning experiences, supportive relationships, and relevant real-life applications.” (Source: District brochure of "fast facts.")

About the mission of Spokane Public Schools

Spokane Public Schools’ stated mission is useless. Taxpayers do not want to pay $12,000+ per student to develop skills and talents through “learning experiences, supportive relationships and relevant real-life applications.” The district’s mission allows for a heck of a lot of wiggle room, and it holds no one accountable for getting the students ready academically for postsecondary life.

The GNOMES celebrate:

“SPS earned excellence awards in financial reporting seven years in a row and sustains the highest credit ratings possible.” (Source: “Points of Pride.”)

Laurie says: About the district’s finances

Few community members can understand the district budget, as it’s given to the people. Many specific details aren’t available on the district’s Web site.

The levy paid for administrative raises last year, but the people weren’t told that -- not as they were signing on to support the levy, nor afterward, when the levy money was spent in that way. When I asked the district how MUCH of the levy paid for administrative raises, I was told the district “doesn’t break it down that way.”

In this year’s district forums, the people weren’t given budget totals. As they heard the district whine about an alleged budget “cut” since 2002 – they didn’t know that the district budget has actually grown by $60 million since 2002, or that the levy has grown by $23 million since 2002. It’s been an incredibly large money shift, not a budget cut.

Folks, there’s a lot more data out there just like this, but this snippet gives you the gist of the way the district presents outcomes. My conclusion is that Spokane Public Schools does NOT suffer from the Lake Wobegon Effect. What Spokane Public Schools suffers from is ever so much worse than that.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is
Rogers, L. (July 2011). "The Lake Wobegon Effect? Or deceit by omission?" Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article also was published July 27, 2011, on the EducationNews Web site at: http://www.educationnews.org/ed_reports/159100.html

Seattle teacher discusses the challenges teachers face

2011-07-07T09:08:00.000-07:00

[Note from Laurie Rogers: This is a guest article by a teacher in Seattle Public Schools. It was drawn from two emails he wrote to me in response to reading my book. This teacher asked to remain anonymous out of fear of reprisal for stating his views. For ease of reading, his comments are broken into sections.]

Written by an experienced elementary school teacher, Seattle

Dear Laurie Rogers:

Thanks for writing your book. One of the things that you discuss in your compelling discourse is the low standards that our colleges have had in the subject matter (as opposed to teaching theory, sociology, and psychology) for those who have a desire to become teachers in our public schools.

For the past twenty-two years, I have diligently taught 4th and 5th grade students. For the first eighteen years, I taught math according to the classical mode that you describe in your book. As the reforms took hold, and we were monitored ever more closely, I was forced into using Everyday Math according to a pacing guide set by the district. As you have rightly observed, it is a program that emphasizes coverage and not mastery.

For much of the year, I had 34 students. Of these 34 students, seven had Special Education IEPs and were to be served according to a pull-in model which never quite materialized. I did have a special ed. instructional assistant for 50 minutes a day until she was pulled to serve in a more "needy" classroom. One of my students was mentally retarded and never once scored about the first percentile on the MAP test. Another student started the year almost totally blind and had a personal assistant for two hours out of the day to teach her Braille. Two were removed from their homes by CPS and placed under foster care: one for neglect and the other for domestic violence. Three students were absent for more than 30 days each. I could go on, but I think that you get the picture.

At the beginning of August, I am expected to attend a five-day professional development on teaching math, followed by a five-day professional development on Readers Workshop. The regimen makes me feel like I am being sent to a reeducation camp to learn how to socialize America's youth.

The onslaught of the reform movement is causing teachers, like myself, who are in the twilight of our careers, to ask if it’s worth abandoning the principles that we were taught about good pedagogy, in order to qualify us to become another cog in the reformed collective, or if we should take an early retirement and supplement our meager income working at a much less stressful place.

As a classically trained musician, the concept of mastery is very important to me. There is, also, incidentally, no mastery effectively allowed in the mini-lesson format. In writing, for instance, we are to teach a lesson, and not require the students to put the skill taught to immediate use; they are to "put it in their tool box" for use when they feel that they need it. If I would dare to tell my administrator that is absurd, I would risk an evaluation that would put me on probation.

Your book has already helped me to see part of the bigger picture that I have been missing, and I look forward to reading the rest of it. Please keep up your good work. What we, as teachers can do to stem the tide of reform is very little. I struggle with my conscience over implementing such an inferior form of instruction. In my experience, direct instruction is the most fruitful. The other techniques can be useful when used in moderation by an experienced and skillful instructor, but unless they are closely monitored, easily become a playground for an exchange of ignorance, and in some extreme cases a forum for students to bully other students.

Seattle prides itself in being a data-driven district. The administrators here, however, seem to care about improving student performance by mandating, from on high, according to their pet theories than by listening to the people who should be able, if they are worth their salt, to tell them how and why those statistics were generated in the first place. They might just learn something if they really listened to their teachers.

Unhelpful Testing

The case of Celesta is a true horror story. My wife and our two home schooled children were dumbfounded that such a thing could possibly happen. I wonder what kind of tests formed the basis for Celesta's outstanding math grades. One of the most striking aspects of reform math is the huge amount of activity that occurs without much, if any, mastery of the subject taking place.

The ambiguity of the language in the WASL math test, one year prompted a fifth grade student, the son of Vietnamese immigrants, in his responses to question after question to write: "If you mean this, the answer is_____, but if you mean this, the answer is__________, or if you mean this, the answer is________. I marveled at his tenacity and thoroughness. He was, in the end awarded a very high score for his efforts.

These days the MSP is so highly secured that teachers have to sign a statement that they affirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have not violated the rules for administering the assessment, which violation, itself, is now, under law, a misdemeanor. Talk about adding insult to injury. Teachers in our state are forced to implement ineffective instruction, and then are evaluated on the results that are logically obtained from that instruction on the state tests. Finally, if they are caught deviating from the script of the MSP and its rules for administration, they are not only in danger of being run out of the profession, but facing criminal charges as well. I agree that teachers who intentionally cheat to obtain better scores for their students should be disciplined, but I want to know the real purpose for criminalizing them.

What good is all of this voluminous data if it cannot be used to find gaps in a student's math skills; gaps which would have easily been identified and dealt with in every age of human experience before our enlightened era of social promotion?

Parent Involvement

One of my favorite activities with parents is to discuss their child's work with them. Reform math, by its very nature (of discovery) generally leaves the most influential voices in a child's life sitting in the nosebleed seats, so far away from the action that it is often difficult to discern exactly what is going on.

Is it possible that Celesta really didn't know that she had missed out on key components in her math education? If she was schooled only in the alternate algorithms, she may never have heard the term, long division. Why were not her parents aware that she needed to know her basic facts much better?

I was raised by my parents to believe that my education was ultimately their responsibility. In any parent teacher conference their attitude would be, "What can I do to help my child learn his math, etc. better?" In my experience, many parents feel disrespected and trashed by personnel in their local school districts. It is not unusual for me, therefore, to put the test scores and the statistics to the side during a parent teacher conference and ask permission to speak with them parent to parent, instead, about things that we both want our children to know, and what each of us can do to make it so.

On your list of ways to help children like Celesta, isn't empowering their parents a strategy that works, even if they, themselves don't have the best education in the world, or work three jobs between the two of them to make ends meet? It doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a committed parent who isn't sabotaged by the village to raise a child.

The organs of government and government-run schools repeatedly intimidate parents with

confusing report cards
pages of standards that analyze the curriculum to death
reams of test data that are disassociated from concrete examples of their child's performance, and
fancy constructivist notions of how children learn that blatantly contradict millennia of human experience.

As a result, many parents flee the system for private schools, or a home-school option. Those who are left often feel helpless, confused, bitter and angry.

I am not sure that the general public quite comprehends that as teachers, we are pledged by our contracts, and by state law, to carry out the lawful directives of our employer. But, as citizens of the United States, we are entitled to speak out on matters of public policy (including education) without fear of retaliation. As citizens, we are even allowed to work to replace those who employ us and join with others to empower new leaders by virtue of our votes.

It is my sense that reform-oriented administrators are not oblivious to this threat, and will do all in their power to stamp it out by relieving us of our jobs.

So-called “Best Practices” and Mission Creep

Why are we continuously being told that certain best practices are research based when it seems that no primary research can be pointed to, that conclusively supports them? So far as I can tell, primary research about the efficacy of “word walls,” writing your “teaching point” on the board, the superiority of “mini-lessons,” “turn and talk,” and “cooperative learning” simply does not exist. A year ago, I asked our school's math coach if she could find the primary research that forms the basis for those so-called high-leverage teaching moves. Several months later she reported back to me that she could not find it.

I was quite enlightened by your discussion of the Delphi Technique and mission creep. I thank you for them. The Seattle Schools used this technique liberally throughout the past decade in its so-called courageous conversations about race. They repeatedly broke us up into discussion groups, and guided our meetings with a list of absurd norms, including "speak your truth." According to the way I was educated, truth is not the property of an individual; it's an absolute. In the end, it became quite obvious that their predetermined conclusion was that Caucasian people are guilty of perpetuating institutionalized racism, and it is our responsibility, as public school teachers, to be outspoken advocates for social justice. Talk about mission creep!

The opening paragraphs of your chapter on the learning environment are priceless. They mirror my beliefs exactly about public education. As a general rule, I believe that it is not my business to undo the values instilled in my students by their parents. I do, however, as a matter of course, listen carefully to parents when they expound on their values. The societal norms and expectations that you refer to that the school has a legitimate role in enforcing are quickly disintegrating before our very eyes. Together with reform math, investigative science, just-right books, and Writers Workshop, this disintegration is seriously jeopardizing our effectiveness in the classroom.

Culture and Implications of Reform Math

My fear is that a vastly inferior culture of teaching and learning is now supplanting a much superior culture of teaching and learning which preceded it. The proponents even call it a culture which indicates that they know precisely what they are doing. They are redefining our language and our values.

In some of our schools, cultural differences are a fact of life that we have to deal with, and here again, the reformers are failing us. Imagine implementing the mini-lesson format in a class where the mother tongues are Vietnamese, Chinese, Somali, Tagalog, Ilokano, Mexican, Lao and Ethiopian. In fifth grade, many of these students are proficient in neither English, nor in the language their parents speak at home. Turning them loose to solve problems such as finding the area of a triangle through discovery creates a veritable tower of Babel full of misconceptions and frustration.

Children from immigrant families are being sent to school by parents who are expecting them to receive direct instruction like they received in their homeland. Most immigrant parents can't understand why 5th-grade classrooms in this country are full of students who don't meet the standards that have been set as a prerequisite for their entry into that grade level. Most immigrant parents are dismayed that students who are disruptive to the learning process day in and day out receive ineffective consequences from the administration for their behavior.

Our leaders give a lot of lip service to the importance of being culturally literate, but many of them don't seem to know or care what true cultural literacy is outside of some box that contains a few external trappings of a given culture and some superficial generalizations about it. They shamelessly use these people to further their agenda of reform.

There are days I could swear that administrators think that we work in a factory turning out widgets. I have news for them. Human children are not machines. Students can be willful, lazy, and burdened with a multitude of personal problems. Many are nevertheless also highly appreciative of a teacher who stands by them in times of difficulty. Among my most treasured artifacts of the 2010-2011 school year is a handmade card. On the inside is written, “Thank you for believing in me when I didn't want to be successful.” I can't think of an administrator who can begin to understand just how profound those words are.

Please understand that this email represents but a tiny fraction of the torrent of frustrations, challenges, fears, and vexation that I and others like me experience every day as we attempt to fulfill the duties of our chosen profession and provide our families with their daily bread.

Sincerely yours,
(Seattle elementary school teacher)

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

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.

Teaching grammar doesn't stifle creativity; it enhances creative writing

2011-06-30T11:05:00.000-07:00

[Note from Laurie Rogers: Many school districts, including Spokane Public Schools, have not taught grammar in a coherent, focused, disciplined way for several years. District leadership argues that students can pick up grammar intuitively, through their own writing. Consequently, our students are graduating from high school without even basic skills in grammar. They cannot define an adverb or adjective, much less recognize a run-on sentence or sentence fragment. In 2010, a Spokane teacher described to me how her efforts to teach grammar were questioned by a central-office administrator. In this article, senior college student Katherine Brandt explains why teaching grammar is critically important.]

By Katherine Brandt
English Teaching student, Brigham Young University

Although the rules of the English language are constantly changing and transforming, teaching grammar has great value in the school system because it gives students the background that they need to understand their language and use it effectively both in and out of the academic world. By teaching grammar, educators provide students with the building blocks of language. When students understand each of the building blocks behind their language, they have a greater ability to communicate not only in their native tongue but also in other languages which employ similar building blocks, albeit in a different order.

Grammar is an important tool because people who do not understand it have difficulty communicating well, and as a result their ideas are often overlooked. Consider children who have yet to learn how to speak well or foreigners who misunderstand how to use prepositions or adjectives. For example, a Spanish-speaker learning English might say, “The sock red has a hole small.” Though people may understand sentences like this one, they might also need to make a conscious effort to achieve understanding.

Although the idea of the foreigner is an exaggerated example, students who understand the idiosyncrasies of English grammar will, in a much more subtle way, be able to control the voice, meaning, and level of formality with which they write. As a result, they will be able to write for an educated audience without the embarrassment of making obvious mistakes.

I have been able to see grammar’s importance in my own education. When I was a child, I attended a private elementary school where we were constantly drilled in grammar. We diagrammed sentences, learned parts of speech, and revised incorrect sentences time and again to master the language.

When I was twelve, my family moved, and I went to a public junior high school where the teaching of grammar was considered unimportant and indeed somewhat damaging to a child’s voice. Nevertheless, in my first month of class, my English teacher checked for students’ basic understanding of grammar. To my shock and dismay, I was the only person in the class who could recognize verbs and complete sentences. My peers consistently struggled with their essays because they had never been taught how to construct a complete idea within a sentence. They had been to school for seven years and could not write a simple sentence. I wondered what they had learned in all that time.

Imagine reading entire papers composed of fragments such as “When I went to the store.” These papers might convey meaning but certainly not in the way that the students intend – with clarity. From the time I entered the public school system, I was at the top of my class in English simply because I had been taught how to put words together correctly. As a result, my teachers could understand and respond to the ideas that I expressed in my papers. All children need to obtain at least a basic understanding of grammar in order to communicate effectively and meaningfully in the educated world.

Knowing grammar also gives students another advantage when it comes to learning foreign languages. When I first started taking Spanish, I had greater understanding simply because I knew some grammar. My teacher, in vain, explained how Spanish speakers position nouns and adjectives differently from English speakers; most of the students did not even know how to differentiate a noun from an adjective. On the other hand, I easily understood what she was explaining because I had been taught to identify parts of speech and their function within a sentence. The other students struggled and guessed their way through the course because every unit presented new parts of speech. Indefinite and definite articles, participles, and verbs were among the difficult concepts that they had not even learned in their native tongue.

I pity my peers who came from a system of those who have written off grammar as unimportant. I have heard these educators say that the study of grammar “stills the creative voice.” My personal experience has shown the contrary. Grammar has been my key to creativity because, with my basic knowledge of the language, I know how to coherently express my ideas so that others can appreciate them. I also know the building blocks to learning other languages which will only expand my creativity and not inhibit it.

It is time for educators to take a stand and teach children to use grammar well so that they may be able to participate both creatively and formally in the educated world. Even as we would not cripple architects by taking away the resources that they need to build beautiful buildings, so we should not cripple our young writers by refusing them grammatical knowledge. From a strong foundation in grammatical understanding will come better, stronger writers who will know how to use the tools educators give them to create beautiful and original writing.

Katherine Brandt is a senior at Brigham Young University, majoring in English Teaching. She will receive her degree in April of 2012 after completing her student teaching.

As part of her program, Katherine was expected to pass a basic grammar exam. The average score on the exam for her class of English Teaching majors was 13 out of 50. According to Katherine, the vast majority of grammar questions did not go beyond the most basic grammar, yet most of the students in the teaching program found it difficult.

In a discussion in one of Katherine's classes, she listened quietly as her peers, who struggle with grammar, dismissed the need for students to learn grammar. In a separate discussion, the students were decrying parental involvement in curriculum choices. Happily the teacher intervened to say, "The parents are the customers."

Katherine is contemplating going on to law school after graduation.

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.

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

2011-06-23T07:32:00.000-07:00

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/

District blames Celesta for gaps in math skills - (part 2)

2011-06-08T11:40:00.000-07:00

By Laurie H. Rogers

[Note from Laurie Rogers: This is part 2 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 3 will discuss community efforts to help students like Celesta ... and the district’s response to those efforts.]

Celesta is an 11th grader in Spokane Public Schools who carried a 3.6 GPA, got As in all of her math classes, passed all of her math tests and who did so well she was placed last fall into honors pre-calculus. Unfortunately, she and many of her pre-calculus classmates lack proficiency in basic math skills (including long division, multiplication facts, the number line, and fractions).

Over a few days, I called Spokane’s middle and elementary schools to find out how they would help students like Celesta. I didn’t do anything silly like go undercover or assume a pseudonym; I just called them all as a concerned community member, offered my first name and gave them the scenario noted above. Then I asked them, “How do (I, you, we) help these students?”

You won’t believe what I was told.

Most district employees expressed concern, but it often came out in accusatory, unhelpful ways. Most had nothing to offer students like Celesta. There usually was a long pause on the other end of the line after I described her situation. Several expressed doubt about the truth of the scenario.

“How could that be?” they asked.
“I would just be appalled if that were true,” a high school counselor said.

I don’t understand their shock and surprise. The counselor who said he would be appalled should already be appalled that his school had a pass rate on the 2010 state math test of less than 30%. Students needed just 56.9% to pass that basic-skills test, and more than 70% of the 10th graders at his school couldn’t do it. The district’s overall pass rate for 10th grade math was just 38.9%. Four of the six middle schools had pass rates of less than 50% on the 8th-grade math test; two were at less than 40%.

Either these counselors and administrators already know of the low pass rates and of the district’s policy of socially promoting students regardless of what they've learned … or they don’t know. Why on Earth wouldn't they know? It’s their job to know.

So I took a deep breath and assured them calmly that the girl is real, her story is true, and I was wondering what the district had in place to help students like her. Nearly all recommended that she be tested for learning disabilities.

I haven’t tested Celesta for a learning disability. I have only tested her for proficiency in basic math skills, and she tested into 5th-grade math. It does seem odd that she would be in honors pre-calculus, with a 3.6 GPA, having passed all of her tests and with straight As in math – if a learning disability had kept her from learning basic math skills.

A middle-school counselor said something must have “slipped" Celesta's mind before she hit the pre-calculus class. I’ve heard that wild assumption before. Other administrators claim it about other students, also without proof, and in 2010, an administrator at Spokane Falls Community College said the math problem at SFCC isn’t because students didn’t learn enough math in K-12 – it was because they’d just forgotten it.

According to Celesta, at least half of her class has the same problem. Her pre-calculus teacher must continually stop teaching pre-calculus, she said, so he can teach basic skills. He showed them long division. He showed them the number line so they could subtract a negative. I asked the district employees: Did ALL of these honors students just forget? This observation was met with more silence.

A middle school principal talked about how poverty is such an issue for the students. This is the district’s go-to answer for student outcomes. In February, a district employee stated at one of my community forums that if we fixed the poverty problem, we would fix the math problem. But I had said nothing to anyone about Celesta’s home life. I asked Celesta for her reaction, and she was offended.

“I’m not that poor,” she said. “I’ve always had everything I needed. For someone to tell me I’m failing because I’m poor, that’s a little ridiculous.”

While there are strong correlations between family income and student achievement, poverty isn’t the problem with math. We could give every low-income family a million dollars and this district’s math program still wouldn’t have enough math in it. I noted to Celesta that lower-income families have fewer resources to pay for tutoring and outside help, and she expressed frustration.

“I don’t see why we need tutoring if the school is doing their job,” she said. “Why do I need to go to Sylvan to learn what [the district] should be teaching me? Why do I need extra help? Why aren’t they just teaching [it to me] in the first place?”

Why indeed? Why do district counselors and school administrators not have a firm grasp of the depth of the district’s deficiencies in math? “How can that be?” I kept hearing. Do they not see the low pass rates? Do they not see students struggle and fail, yet get passed through – and even be placed into advanced math classes? Do they not know about the district’s high remedial rates and dropout rates? Do they not see the district-wide anxiety over math, and the district-wide dearth of procedural skill? They should because I see it, and I don’t get paid taxpayer money to see it.

A high school counselor then decided Celesta must have been cheating to get her 3.6 GPA if she now has issues in pre-calculus. Startled, I said, “Pardon me?” He said, “Yeah, she must have cheated or lied. Or, maybe,” he added helpfully, “she’s had a traumatic brain injury.”

I asked Celesta for her reaction.

“It makes me feel sad that they’d jump to that conclusion,” she said. “I know I’m a good student. I know I work hard. I know that I’m smart and that it’s really hard for me right now that I’m struggling. And for someone to tell me that I have a learning disability or my brain has been damaged because I don’t know math because I wasn’t taught? It’s pretty hurtful. It’s not my fault. I have to go to public school every day. That’s what I have to do. It’s not my choice to be there, and it’s not my choice to do the lesson plan. I’m learning what they’re teaching me. If I’m not learning it … when I am a very attentive student, and I’m there, and I’m trying … Is it my fault?”

Celesta said there never was any indication that she or her classmates were struggling, that they had learning issues, or that there were gaps in skills. This year has been a shock. It isn’t that pre-calculus is so hard, she said. It’s just become clear to her that she and many classmates are missing basic math skills that they need to be successful in that class. She fought hard and wound up with a final grade of C.

“Even if I study really hard, and I go in and get help, and I get extra help from my old math teacher,” she said, “I just seem to always hit a 60% on all my tests, no matter how confident I feel about them. … Before this year, everything was fine. I would get my tests back and maybe I’d get a 3 out of a four, and that still isn’t very OK with me. I always strive to do the best. Usually, I’d go in and try and retake, but in pre-calculus we cannot retake tests. That’s what really kills me. I can’t try again. … I just have to accept that I’m failing.”

Well, I don’t accept it.

I’ve found that it takes about two months, an hour a day, five days a week, to properly tutor a student through one grade level in K-8 math. Celesta is missing about six years of basic skills. She’s leaving for the summer, and I’ll try to help her by email. It will be a challenge. She’s 17, and it’s the summer, and she’s visiting family. We plan to connect when she comes back in the fall. It’s daunting, but I’m willing to fight for her if she’s willing to fight for herself.

Math was always a strong suit for Celesta, one of her favorite classes. Now, she isn’t interested in taking any more math classes. But if she doesn’t, her dream of earning a business degree is over.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is
Rogers, L. (June 2011). "District blames Celesta for gaps in math skills - (part 2)." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published June 9, 2011 on educationnews.org at: http://www.educationnews.org/blogs/157780.html

Who cares about Celesta? - (part 1)

2011-06-03T07:18:00.000-07:00

By Laurie H. Rogers

[Note from Laurie Rogers: This is part 1 of a series of articles on Celesta, a Spokane high school student whom I interviewed for “Cut to the Chase,” a radio show hosted by Rob Chase for the ACN Network. The show is located at 630 on the AM dial. This interview will air locally Saturday at 6 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., and on Sunday at 10 a.m. Part 2 of these articles will discuss the district's response to my queries about how to help her.]

Celesta is a high school junior in Spokane Public Schools. She’s a good student – “attentive,” she says. But she’s missing basic math skills, and she’s struggling to get through her 11th-grade math class.

Celesta has a dream. She wants to be a business owner. She plans to attend university and get a degree, with a major in business and a minor in accounting. She says she wants to “run some kind of business of my own. I want to be in charge.”

Celesta has one more year before she is supposed to graduate and go to college. Without intervention of some kind, when she takes college entrance exams, she's likely to test into arithmetic. She’ll have to pay for several non-credit-bearing remedial math classes before she even begins college math classes. She'll be at risk of failing those remedial math classes. Almost 50% of the students who take those classes at our local community colleges do not pass them.

You wouldn’t expect Celesta to be in this position. Currently, she carries a 3.6 GPA. Up until 11th grade, she passed all math tests and got As in all math classes. She’s always been considered to be a good student. In fact, because they all did so well in their math classes, she and more than two dozen other students were placed into honors pre-calculus. There was never any indication before this year, she said, that they had gaps in math skills, or learning issues, or that they were struggling in any way. None was considered to be a special education student.

Celesta said she and many of her classmates aren’t proficient in algebra or geometry, but the problem is deeper than that. Their pre-calculus teacher must continually stop teaching pre-calculus so he can teach basic math skills to his class.

“Pretty much every day I hear him say, ‘Well, you should have learned this already, but we have to go over it,’” Celesta says. “It makes me feel stupid … He’s not really that sweet about it. He’ll be like ‘I’m teaching this lesson and half of you are gonna get it and half of you won’t, and a quarter of you will never get it.’ And I just feel like that quarter that’s never gonna get it.”

I tested Celesta a few weeks ago using a basic skills test, and she tested into 5th-grade math. However, her lack of proficiency with multiplication facts and division puts her into 4th-grade math. This year is the first year she’s ever seen long division, she says. Her pre-calc teacher showed the skill to his class, but there hasn’t been time to learn it to mastery. A deficiency in division inhibits students in any number of mathematical procedures, including determining averages, isolating variables, and simplifying fractions.

Celesta also doesn’t know her multiplication facts. This honors student couldn’t tell me what 6x8 equals. She didn’t know what a radical is. She expressed doubts about her ability to convert from fractions to percents to decimals. On the pre-algebra portion of my test, she got one answer out of 20 correct.

“I wish that I would have got direct instruction in the first place,” she says. “I feel like it is a better approach to math, and that if I did learn it that way in the first place, I would be very successful right now. But because I don’t know that, I need to sit there and pretty much have someone baby me, as much as I hate to admit it.”

If Celesta tests into remedial math at Spokane Falls Community College, she might not get direct instruction there, either. Not long ago, SFCC began offering its remedial math classes with an approach that looks a lot like the approach that has already failed Celesta.

How many young people in our communities are in Celesta's position? The district implies that Celesta's story is rare, but Celesta isn't alone or even unusual. In fact, students in her position are now the norm in America's public education system. I hear stories like hers all of the time. Every day. All day.

When I talk with younger people in my community -- in restaurants, fast food venues, and businesses around town -- they'll eventually confide -- somewhat sheepishly -- that they dropped out of college because they couldn't get through remedial math, or that they struggled in school but hope to go back. It hurts my heart to hear their doubts about their own abilities. I know those doubts were fostered in them by a self-serving bureaucracy that refuses to acknowledge its massive error in math. I try to reassure them, but it's a lot to explain in a few minutes. They go away, still certain that they just couldn't cut it.

Whenever I pay for purchases and wait for change, I watch the younger crowd stumble to do it correctly, often making mistakes, then not understanding as I count it back for them. And math isn't their only weakness. Their handwriting (usually just printing) is atrocious, their spelling is imaginary, their punctuation and grammar non-existent. This is not their fault. This is the district's fault.

And Spokane Public Schools isn't alone in having failed these people. The problem is mirrored across the country - from border to border and from coast to coast. When I talk with others about this -- teachers, parents, students, advocates -- their stories are the same as mine. They saw the problem, many spoke up, all were patronized and dismissed, and their district's administration just rolled over top of them. And the children in their communities continued to be failed.

Who cares about Celesta and all of these other poorly-educated children? Caring about them means caring about our communities and about our country. They are the face of our future, and they are not prepared.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is
Rogers, L. (June 2011). "Who cares about Celesta? - (part 1)." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published June 6, 2011 on educationnews.org at: http://www.educationnews.org/blogs/157609.html

Help students by rejecting the self-interested

2011-05-25T19:39:00.000-07:00

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:

An effective and motivated teacher.
An efficient, effective, and sufficient curriculum.
A prepared and motivated student.
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/

Why I quit teaching math at SFCC

2011-05-18T13:53:00.000-07:00

[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 .

Tutoring desperately needed; please help us

2011-05-10T13:21:00.000-07:00

[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/

Good golly, our schools desperately need new leadership

2011-05-02T13:45:00.000-07:00

[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