School Committee Goals, Key Indicators and Federal and State Mandates

At last night’s School Committee meeting, a painful amount of time was spent going through all of the grants for the federal and state-mandated programs and initiatives.  Rest assured that the message was not lost on anyone that all of these programs must be funded and that there is precious little “wiggle room” from which to pull such financial resources.

We get it.  No Child Left Behind has evolved into a big, hungry monster which is eating every single financial resource available to school districts after the teachers unions take their piece of the pie and after the district pays out exorbitant amounts of money each year in tuition to school choice, charter schools and private schools.

School choice tuition adds up to some $3.2 million.  Seems to me that would go very far in funding all of these federally and state-mandated programs, wouldn’t it?

And the snowball effect is that we are losing many of our high achieving students to charter schools and private schools; so, we lose the top performers which help to offset the measurable performance indicators of the students for which most of our financial resources are being drained to educate.  With that, our measurable performance indicators look even more meager and we lose even more high-achieving students and enrollment drops even more.  On and on it goes.

During the discussion of these mandates and initiatives last night – nearly every single one of which is focused on special needs children and English Language Learners (ELLs) – a meek and tentative question was asked by Steve Edwards: “Are there any grants or programs in place for the so-called ‘regular’ kids?  Who speaks for them?”

I do not believe that it was Steve’s goal to be insensitive to children with special needs or to ELL students.  I certainly do not expect special needs children or ELL students to be ignored.  But the point is that they are NOT being ignored.  Their needs are being met at every turn, in every classroom, with every dollar the district has.  The pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that we are losing the “regular” and high-achieving students to schools where they can be challenged and prepared for acceptance into better colleges.

One of the other School Committee members suggested that “we should be careful going down this path” and that she saw parents nodding their heads to Steve’s question/comment [that would be me, for one] because “it could be your child who has special needs”.

I am not insensitive to the special needs of any child.  But I am becoming increasingly sensitive to the special needs of children like mine.  The children who are being “left behind” and who the district is losing are those who have the potential to achieve greatness and become the leaders of tomorrow.  The children who are leaving the district are those who have the potential to receive college athletic scholarships in sports which this district has cut or threatens to cut every year at budget time.  The “special” children who are being ignored are those who have to go elsewhere to realize their full potential.

What “No Child Left Behind” didn’t address is that EVERY child is special.  Now I know it sounds like that is exactly the point of the edict.  But instead of just helping those children who need help to learn, it drained all of the resources away from those children who have the potential to be the leaders of tomorrow.  No Child Left Behind has accomplished nothing more than to homogenize the achievements and potential of EVERY child.  No child is special anymore.  That makes me sad.

I attended the first goal-setting work session and I published a post to this blog stating how refreshing it was to see such positive progress made and such civility and teamwork amongst the School Committee members.  Then I looked at the most recent meeting packet which contained the goals and the Superintendent’s Key Indicators (which are meant to be used to meet those goals).  There were twelve Key Indicators for Academic Excellence.  Ten of the key indicators were to be met by 2014 and the other two by 2013.   I guess by next year, we shouldn’t expect to be able to benchmark any progress whatsoever.  I guess the Superintendent gets a free pass for the next four years – within which the key indicators can be failing miserably every year and we’ll just wait for that magic FOURTH year to see the goal met.

John Henderson questioned why we can’t have these key indicators broken down into annual goals and he was rudely rebuffed and virtually ignored.

I would have liked to have stood on my chair and screamed at the top of my lungs, “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and every other state in this country evaluates the progress of every public school EVERY single year.  Why is it unreasonable to expect that our elected officials not be entitled to hold the district to the same standards?”

But that would have been “out of order”.  And we all know how strictly the Committee adheres to Par Law, after all.

It was suggested that everyone should just stop “bad-mouthing” this district.  I contend that telling the truth about the measurable performance indicators and the district’s vast shortcomings is long overdue and the only way to elicit the change necessary to bring back academic excellence and keep our high achieving potential leaders of tomorrow IN the district.  I do not believe that if we all just stop saying mean things and join hands to sing a round of Kumbaya, that everything will turn up lollipops and rainbows.

But not to worry, at the rate things are going, by the year 2014, the only students left in the district will be those with special needs and English Language Learners – so the district should have plenty of money to pay for the federally and state-mandated programs.

There is no easy answer and it is my opinion that a total and complete overhaul of, not just our district, but the entire public school system in this country needs to occur to begin to fix the problem.  I fear that the only way this will happen is for one district after another to completely fail and gradually be replaced by alternative education (such as charter schools or private schools) which are not unionized and which function on merit-based performance.

All we can do is try to address, on a local level, the areas of weakness in which we are failing our children.  Continuing to support “business as usual” and “don’t make waves” will get us nowhere.  It is time to hold the Superintendent’s feet to the proverbial fire and stop accepting lies and deceit to distract everyone from the lack of accountability about what’s really happening in our district.

Enrollment is dropping, class sizes are shrinking, expenses are climbing and we have nothing to show for it.  The Superintendent doesn’t even seem the slightest bit concerned with determining why parents are placing their children in other, more successful schools.  Wouldn’t that be a good and responsible place to start?

Political Bias Policy . . . Not so much

At last night’s School Committee meeting, the new policy (quoted in the previous post) regarding prohibiting political bias in the classroom was to be brought before the Committee for a vote, when Superintendent Woodbury stated that, due to “a couple of letters” from faculty members questioning the policy being presented, it was her recommendation that the vote be tabled until the policy could be presented to legal counsel for review.

First and foremost, Superintendent Woodbury told me in a private conversation – when discussing the development of this very policy – that part of the standard procedure in the development of any new policy was that it be presented to legal counsel for review and be submitted to the Policy Subcommittee for review several times before it is presented to the School Committee for final approval.

If that was the truth, then the political bias policy has already been reviewed and approved by counsel and there is no need to waste further valuable and limited financial resources paying the district’s attorney to review it again.

If that was a lie, and policies are developed by the Policy Subcommittee willy-nilly, with no review by legal counsel – then our School Committee is severely negligent and is exposing the district to horrendous legal liability.

Since I do not believe that any School Committee member would be so short-sighted and ignorant as to write and develop whatever policies they chose with no regard to whether or not the School Committee or the district administrators have the legal authority to enforce such policies – I have to believe that – AGAIN – Superintendent Woodbury has lied.

Now, why would she desire to delay enacting this policy?  Because one or two teachers questioned its legitimacy?  That makes no sense if it has already been reviewed and approved by legal counsel.  I do not believe that this policy wasn’t reviewed already.

For crying out loud, Superintendent Woodbury, put your personal agenda aside and do the right thing by the students in this district.  Please?

Perhaps we should all be forced to endure another egregious violation of this important principle by the district’s public employees and waste and/or duplicate further financial resources before the School Committee will finally be permitted to vote on the policy.

If, in fact, policies are being developed and were presented to the School Committee for a vote without having been reviewed and approved by legal counsel, then the School Committee members should each be held personally liable for the risk of legal exposure in which they have placed the district.

Political Bias Policy . . . Finally

The incident which caused me to delve into the inner workings of the DY school district occurred June 12, 2010 at the Last Assembly at DYHS.  Two teachers held up an “End War” sign and refused to honor the students who had chosen to enlist in the military to serve our country.  The details of that incident were spelled out clearly in my June 12th blog post on http://susanstuff.wordpress.com and the posts that followed, as well as the comments to those posts, accurately depict the chain of events.

At the time, Superintendent Woodbury expressed to me that she didn’t know if there was an actual policy in place to prohibit political bias by school employees; however, she continued to say that she felt it was “common knowledge” that teachers are to remain neutral.  Interestingly, at the next School Committee meeting (within a week or so of the incident and my conversation with Superintendent Woodbury), it was announced that a policy was already in the process of being developed to address the issue.  I didn’t believe the lie then and I still don’t believe the lie now.  For if such a policy was already being developed, she would have surely said so to me, one very angry, very upset parent.  Instead, she “didn’t know”.  I checked with the Principal and with the Vice Principal at the school and no one could produce such a policy.

Fast forward FIVE months and a policy has finally been produced for the School Committee’s approval.  It reads as follows:

“The Dennis-Yarmouth Regional School District must adhere to the following guidelines concerning political bias in the classroom:

• Employees must refrain from expressing their own political views or taking political sides while educating students or in the company of students during the school day.
• Class lessons should encourage varying points of view.
• The needs of all learners must be provided for and textbooks and other instructional materials must be free of content, which discriminates on the basis of sex, race, religion, color, sexual orientation, housing status and/or national origin.”

It is my opinion that the phrase “political orientation” should be added to the third bullet point – because this particular discrimination has occurred in my son’s presence by a multitude of teachers for years and years . . . but I know better than to expect too much from the district’s administrators and/or School Committee.

Here’s what concerns me about the policy: the ability to enforce it and the method/manner in which teachers will be made to understand it.

I produced specific case-law which speaks to this issue – and it is the most current, most applicable, most accurate case-law – which explains in clear language that the United States Supreme Court has upheld the principle of political neutrality in public schools.  (Mayer v. Monroe)

Putting a policy in place with which teachers strenuously disagree or about which they are decidedly misinformed and do not understand is a recipe for failure.

I read with interest the new Cyber Bullying policy as well and it is a complex and involved issue.  There will most certainly be opinions on both sides of the issue.  Are we to hope that teachers (and administrators) will be versed in accurate laws and reasoning behind these policies?  Are we to just expect that – especially with regard to the political bias policy – teachers who have readily, consistently, continuously, egregiously violated this principle for years and years – openly and vociferously – will just do as they are told because they get a piece of paper that meekly requests that they keep their political opinions out of their classrooms?

I have no faith in such success.  However, with a policy in place, it is incumbent upon every parent and every student to report such violations EVERY time they occur.  Maybe then, when the ignorant likes of Marybeth Verani continue to discriminate against the boys in her class (she has been quoted as having told a class on the first day of school that since our society discriminates against women, she will practice reverse discrimination in her class) or abuses her position of authority against a captive audience by furthering her own political agenda, the district will finally have the means to fire her and others like her.

Waiting For Superman

I just noticed that the movie “Waiting for Superman” is playing in Dennis right now.  I hope the DY administrators, teachers and School Committee will be sure to see it, as well as every voter in Dennis and Yarmouth.

The winds of change are blowing and staying committed to “business as usual” will be the downfall of every school system in our country.

What courage would it take to be inspired by the ancestors of this state and blaze the trail into a new, better future?  We approach Thanksgiving, and it draws to mind images of Pilgrims coming to this country to do better than the land they left.  What will it take to inspire our current administration and School Committee members to admit to where we’ve failed and blaze a trail of change that could start a trend nationwide?

There are districts which are finding success and managing to control their budget.  Let’s learn from them.  There are charter schools all across our country which are finding great success.  Let’s learn from them.

“Life is change. Growth is optional.  Choose wisely.”

It is time to learn from our mistakes and admit that the current system is not working.  Albert Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”.  Isn’t this just what we’re doing?  It takes courage to make bold changes.

Expansion of Sturgis Charter School

I’m not sure how many people are aware that Sturgis Charter School was approved for significant expansion in late 2009.  I believe the school intends to open a second campus in Hyannis (or perhaps locate a larger facility to accommodate all students, including the additional students).  I know that Sturgis requested approval of an additional 375 students – I’m not certain, but I believe that number was approved.

It will be interesting to see how dramatically this expansion affects the enrollment numbers in the DY district.

But our administration and School Committee won’t have any resources available to them to retain those students in our district, because we have absolutely NO data or information about why parents are pulling their children out of the district.

Seems as though that would be the first step in correcting the problem.

But maybe that’s just one of my crazy ideas.

Has everyone received their tax bill?

http://208.106.162.24/town_yarmouth_videos/MISC/2010/SpecialTownMeeting072610.wmv

The link above is the video of the Yarmouth Special Town Meeting held on July 26th.  I encourage all Yarmouth residents to view the video and fast forward to 25:50.  This is the point at which our neighbor, Phil O’Leary, offered publicly and on the record to pay anyone’s tax increase who didn’t feel they were able to pay the increase in their taxes.

In fact, the generous Mr. O’Leary offered to take the addresses of everyone in town who couldn’t pay their fifty cents per week so that he could willingly drop off two quarters at your door each week.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but my taxes are higher and I’m thinking it might be an interesting endeavor to submit an invoice to Mr. O’Leary for that fifty cents per week (we own two houses so that’s $52) for reimbursement.  Our property taxes certainly went up more than $26 per house, but, what the heck?  Mr. O’Leary was kind enough – amidst his lengthy, wearisome, inconsequential and exhaustive pontificating over the extraordinary bargain Yarmouth residents are receiving in educational achievements and the reasonable cost thereof – to make the offer to pay our increase.  I think we should all take him up on the offer.

I certainly don’t feel that I’m getting more for my money (with regard to education, anyway) and whether or not what we pay is a “bargain” or not is most assuredly NOT the point, Mr. O’Leary.  The point is that enrollment drops every year, the school district gets more money every year, and overall measurable performance indicators do not improve.  That’s no bargain.

Just a thought . . .