Month: March 2011

Reality Check

I have been exposing some very disturbing and startling truths about our school district.  I have done extensive research and I have published the factual results of that research.  All of what I have published can easily be confirmed and I have provided the sources for everything for just such a purpose.

The facts are not pretty.  In fact, many of them are downright negative.

But there are some individuals who are upset that I am “promoting negativity” about our school district.  These individuals seem to think that what I am exposing is somehow personal and emotion-based.  They apparently believe that no one should say bad things about our schools.  They apparently believe that by not saying bad things (even when they are absolutely factual), then everything will be good.  Even if the truth is bankrupting our towns, destroying our property values, robbing our children of the education they deserve – these individuals apparently believe that denying the truth will make it all better.  Oh, and we should always throw more and more money at the problem.

How naive, short-sighted and ignorant!  Do they not want our children to have the best educational product possible?  Am I the one doing harm by exposing the facts, acknowledging the problems and promoting solutions?  Or, is it logical to believe that staying the course on a sinking ship is the best way to proceed (while we all join hands and sing Kumbaya)?

Am I to look the other way and ignore the facts?  Should we all bury our heads in the sand while whole generations of children lose every competitive edge in our global economy from receiving substandard educations which do not hold up to the standards of the rest of the world?  The facts that I have exposed are true – across the board, without exception.  Ignoring the truth will not change it. And changing the facts about this school district from negative to positive is just what I want to see happen.

You cannot change what you don’t acknowledge, folks.

Our entire nation is facing the brutal fact that throwing more money at education is not the answer.  Our entire nation is grappling with the difficult decisions it will take to fix what is broken.  Our entire nation has spent too much time and sacrificed too many children’s educations looking the other way while their school leaders bankrupt their towns and cities with unsustainable budgets and provide inferior educational products to our children.  Our nation has fallen to the very bottom of global standards of education for the 30 wealthiest countries.  That is criminal.

Edgar Allen Poe said, “Words have no power to impress the mind without the exquisite horror of their reality.”

I am dealing with reality here.  This is not about emotions and it is not personal.  I am doing my level best to promote reality, not negativity.  If the two are not mutually exclusive, then let’s do what is right, what is moral, what is ethical.  Let’s change the reality.

A Petition for a Vote of No Confidence

A Petition for a vote of no confidence in Superintendent Carol Woodbury has been delivered to the School Committee Chairman with 272 signatures.

I know I have no confidence in her ability to turn this district around and take the reigns of the runaway train that is driving our students away in droves to other better performing schools.  Do you?

I believe that this district is at a crossroads and it is time for our elected officials to take a stance.  The facts are irrefutable and they prove that the performance of this district and the educational product being provided has plummeted in the six years Carol Woodbury has been Superintendent.

Anyone who chooses to support her and advocate for “more of the same” is choosing to fail.  The time for change is now and we need leaders who have the courage and fortitude to put our children and their education first.  If this School Committee commends the Superintendent for her performance and rubber stamps another contract renewal – then we simply MUST elect new School Committee members.

There is no shame in recognizing a problem and taking steps to resolve it.  There is great shame in hiding in denial.

The winds of change . . .

Who says a leopard can’t change its spots?  Well, I’m not sure I’d go quite so far as to say that our leopard has changed its spots, but perhaps those spots are fading a bit.

Woodbury review will be televised

Superintendent Carol Woodbury’s evaluation is being conducted on Wednesday, March 30th at 6:30pm at the Station Avenue Elementary School and it will be televised.

There are no shortage of voters who have called for more transparency and more accountability on the part of the School Committee and of our Superintendent and it appears that they are paying heed to that call.

As the truth about our school district’s performance and the problems plaguing it become more and more evident as the facts are exposed, heretofore advocates of the Superintendent must begin to question their support.

“Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending.”  Maria Robinson

It has also been said, “Life is change.  Growth is optional.  Choose wisely.”

I applaud those who are willing to pull themselves out of the positions they have previously dug themselves in deep to defend, in order to effect the change necessary to improve.

The Formation of a School Finance Subcommittee on the Q.T.

It has come to my attention that the subject of the School Finance Subcommittee has finally been addressed!  Now, this is mostly interesting because the towns have been pressuring the School Committee to vote on and agree to forming such a committee since the Yarmouth Town Meeting last summer and although the School Committee has discussed the matter in open meeting on several occasions, they have never been able to come to enough of an agreement to hold a vote.

Short of the necessary vote by the School Committee to form such a subcommittee, how could it be that it has been formed?

Yet, a letter has now gone to the Dennis Selectmen and the Yarmouth Selectmen explaining that the subcommittee has been formed and naming the three School Committee members who have been appointed (those three, plus the Chairman makes the quorum of four – OUTSIDE of open meeting) requesting that each appoint a member to participate, “if they choose” to do so.

My questions:  Who will serve on this subcommittee?  Will there be citizens serving, as was suggested?  What will be within the scope of responsibility of such a subcommittee?  Will all interests be represented on the subcommittee or will it be just another means of rubber-stamping the Superintendent’s budget requests?  What’s up with the timing of forming the subcommittee, now that the budget proposal has already been approved by School Committee vote?

I can assure you that the Chairman formed this subcommittee outside of any open meeting and unilaterally decided to appoint specific members of the School Committee to the subcommittee without vote by the entire School Committee.  However, it is my understanding that he needs the vote of the Committee in order to do so.  Check recent agendas and Minutes to see for yourself.  Any vote for or against the formation of such a subcommittee has not taken place on record.  I certainly hope no deliberation took place behind closed doors.  That could be a violation of the open meeting law!

Hmmm.  So, what clandestine meeting took place outside of the public’s access to form this subcommittee and appoint its members?  I understand that the Chairman has the right to form subcommittees unilaterally, but one wouldn’t think that he would appoint its members without consulting with them regarding their desire to serve on it. And discussions about who would be on this subcommittee and what the responsibility of such a subcommittee will be would or should certainly be a subject to be put to vote by the entire School Committee in an open meeting.  And, as such, the public would then have an opportunity to voice their opinions on the matter at the meeting when the vote would take place.  I wonder if this new subcommittee will be news to the rest of the School Committee as they certainly did not vote on it . . .

It all sounds fishy to me.  But then I have learned to be suspicious of such actions.  I hope the Selectmen of our fine towns recognize a scam when they see it and don’t bother to waste the time of an appointee.    Clearly, this Finance Subcommittee is nothing more than a ruse meant to divert the public’s attention and attempt to quasi-satisfy the request of the Selectmen.  It shouldn’t satisfy any of the Selectmen, nor the voters who requested it, since it has been done on the sly, under cover of privacy and not in the manner requested.

Another Discreet Review

The Superintendent’s annual review is being held on March 30 at 6:30pm.  Although her review seems to be held on a variety of dates each year from July in 2006, to August in 2007, to May in 2008 and 2009, to April in 2010 – this year it is being held at the end of March.

Well, that should make it very convenient for the general public to have an opportunity to be present for the subject of her job performance, shouldn’t it?  [Yes, that’s sarcasm you detect.]

But wait!  There’s more!

My favorite thing about the Superintendent’s annual evaluation is that, for this very important meeting, it is moved to a little room in the high school.  This meeting is held in the administration room (the conference room, in essence) at DY High School.  Guess what?  There are no cameras in that room and very little room, if any, for the general public.  In fact, I question whether or not this is in violation of the Open Meeting Law.  When asked why it is held in the DY administration room, I was told “because it always has been, right along.”

That’s a good reason.  [Yep.  Sarcasm again.]

Come on, School Committee, have you no courage at all?  No, don’t answer that.  I already know the answer.  You would prefer to continue to see our school district plummet into obscurity under this Superintendent’s reign than take a stand for the change our children deserve.

Shame on all of you.

The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

In this day and age, when discrimination is at the forefront of our social awareness, it seems to be going somewhat unnoticed that it exists at the top-level of our public school district.  But it does.  It is somewhat masked, but this is what makes it “soft bigotry”.  It is subtle, but it is there.

To what do I refer, specifically?

If any of you have attended School Committee meetings over the past year or so, you have surely witnessed the Superintendent’s presentations of specific subgroups of our student population about which she proudly exclaims meager improvements.  And yes, apparently it is true that there is very meager improvement in certain grades of certain subgroups’ MCAS scores.  And this is apparently completely unexpected, because the Superintendent expects free and reduced lunch students and English Language Learners to perform badly.  You see, that is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Yet, she talks out of both sides of her mouth (no surprise to me) because in most of the other categories of measurable performance indicators, she blames these subgroups for sub-par graduation rates, attendance rates, drop-out rates, etc.

The primary subgroup which the Superintendent has pinpointed as the anchors which drag this district down in those areas is the free and reduced lunch students.  She readily blames any under-performance by the district as a whole on the notion that our towns have more free and reduced lunch students than neighboring towns.

The reality is that the Cape is suffering an approximated 13% unemployment rate (I just heard that yesterday on the radio) and, as a result, there are a great number of families who now qualify for free and reduced lunch.  Even prior to the spike in the unemployment rate, many families throughout the Cape qualified for free and reduced lunch and they are not limited – by any means – to just Yarmouth and Dennis.  Every town has its share of low-income families who qualify for free or reduced lunch.

Here’s the concern and the rest of the story: do we really believe what the Superintendent is saying?  Is it plausible to believe that children whose families qualify for free and reduced lunch are simply not expected to perform very well on measurable performance indicators?  Really?

This is the definition of the “soft bigotry of low expectations” and it is being used as an excuse for the district’s under-performance.  The Superintendent is attempting to divert the focus for the district’s low performance from the truth to the easiest target she can find: free and reduced lunch students.

Perhaps there is an argument to be made in inner-city schools with regard to the difficulty of low-income children achieving in school – but Yarmouth and Dennis are not inner-city communities.  Our towns are not riddled with drive-by shootings and children fending for themselves and hoping to survive another day.  How do I know this?  I live here and so do you.  We have a relatively low crime rate, comparatively speaking (to inner-cities).  Although we all know that the perception off-Cape is that all families on the Cape are rich – and we certainly are not.  We also know that, by and large, our low-income families are not the same as inner-city low-income families.  The fact is, a family earning $25,000 annually here is not the same as a family earning $25,000 annually in South Boston – plain and simple.

I happen to know families who qualify for free and reduced lunch and some of the children are honors students.  Huh.  Must be some crazy anomaly, eh?

The real reason our district’s performance indicators are worse than our competitors is because the leadership in our district refuses to acknowledge that anything is wrong or that there are any problems.  Instead, they go along with the discriminatory idea that we have more free and reduced lunch students and more English Language Learners and, as a result, they believe that those subgroups are – as expected – dragging us down.

It isn’t the minority subgroups who are bringing us down.  It is not having the highest performing students to bring us up that is causing our measurable performance indicators to be below standard.  Our highest performing students have left this district, and continue to do so in higher numbers every year for the past six years, to attend better performing public schools and charter schools.  We know this because we pay over $3 million in tuition to those schools each year.

It is convenient to blame the leadership’s failure in this district on a couple of unfortunate subgroups of our student population.  But that sounds like discrimination to me.

There are better ways to spend our money

An excerpt from an article in The Washington Post on Monday:

“The value of measuring effectiveness is clear when you compare teachers to members of other professions – farmers, engineers, computer programmers, even athletes. These professionals are more advanced than their predecessors – because they have clear indicators of excellence, their success depends on performance and they eagerly learn from the best.

The same advances haven’t been made in teaching because we haven’t built a system to measure and promote excellence. Instead, we have poured money into proxies, things we hoped would have an impact on student achievement. The United States spends $50 billion a year on automatic salary increases based on teacher seniority. It’s reasonable to suppose that teachers who have served longer are more effective, but the evidence says that’s not true. After the first few years, seniority seems to have no effect on student achievement.

Another standard feature of school budgets is a bump in pay for advanced degrees. Such raises have almost no impact on achievement, but every year they cost $15 billion that would help students more if spent in other ways.

Perhaps the most expensive assumption embedded in school budgets – and one of the most unchallenged – is the view that reducing class size is the best way to improve student achievement. This belief has driven school budget increases for more than 50 years. U.S. schools have almost twice as many teachers per student as they did in 1960, yet achievement is roughly the same.”

And yet, our School Committee continues to demand that we keep our class sizes unreasonably small.  The Superintendent likes to say that some of the outflow of our students to other districts is due to the other districts having smaller class sizes.  This simply isn’t true (and there is nothing surprising about the Superintendent making inaccurate representations of the truth).

DY has a 12 to 1 student/teacher ratio.

Nauset has a 12.6 to 1 student/teacher ratio.

Barnstable has a 13.9 to 1 student/teacher ratio.

Only Harwich (of the school districts to whom we lose most of our students) is the only district with a [barely] smaller student/teacher ratio at 11.7 to 1.

See the full article at How Teacher Development Could Revolutionize Our Schools

It just does not make sense to continue to throw good money after bad when the real problems are never being addressed by the current leadership in our towns.  This Superintendent and the School Committee will apparently not be happy until they have bankrupted our towns, destroyed our property values beyond recognition and left us with public education that isn’t worthy of our pets, let alone our children.

 

Graduation Rates

It will be interesting to see what spin the Superintendent puts on the article which was published in the Cape Cod Times yesterday regarding the high graduation rates of vocational schools and schools which offer vocational classes.  I’m sure, somehow, it will be tied to the budget and the need for more money.  After all, more money is the Superintendent’s answer to every problem.  The entire country is grappling with the unsustainable drain from enormous public school budgets and it is finally coming to the forefront that continuing to throw more money at the problem is not the answer.

The chart published with the article in the Times showed exactly what I have been saying for the past year.  Dennis-Yarmouth performs worse in the majority of categories of measurable performance indicators when compared to every other school on the Cape and Islands.  It’s not remotely surprising to me (and, in fact, I have published just such data in previous posts on this blog) that DY has the lowest graduation rate in any category (be it four-year graduations or any other category).

Yet, we are expected to believe that (a) this is not really the case because data lies/misrepresents the truth/isn’t accurate; (b) this is only because Dennis and Yarmouth are totally unlike every other town on the Cape because we have more under-performing subgroups (English Language Learners, free and reduced lunch kids, etc.); or (c) it is because our towns won’t agree to spend enough money.

Enough is enough, Mrs. Woodbury!  You refuse to address the problem or even admit that our district has a problem.

(A) Data does not lie.  The information presented is derived the same for every school so they show accurate comparisons.  (B) Every town has English Language Learners and with high unemployment rates everywhere, free and reduced lunch kids are everywhere.  But more to the point, I simply do not accept that children who qualify for free or reduced lunch are not capable of performing adequately!  (C) There is absolutely no correlation between the amount of money spent per student to the measurable performance indicators.

Since the current School Committee obviously chooses to put blinders on and doesn’t have the fortitude to hold the Superintendent accountable for the performance of the district in her charge, then the voters in our towns must elect responsible new members to the Committee who will have to courage to take the actions necessary to pull our district out of the bottom of nearly every single category of performance.

I have heard that a former School Committee member intends to run for one of the vacant seats this spring and her election would be nothing less than a leap into the past and would, in effect, be the kiss of death for this district.  Not only is she a very close, personal friend to the Superintendent – which is a conflict of interest of monumental proportions – but the last thing this district needs is another School Committee member who will guzzle from the Superintendent’s Kool-Aid of conformity!

The time for change is now.