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

[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/

Good golly, our schools desperately need new leadership

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


By Laurie H. Rogers

When our school administrators speak to the public, we often hear one or more of the following:

• Blaming of others – Typical targets include teachers, parents, students, poverty, and a (fake) lack of money.
• Deceitful presentation of student outcomes – They’ll speak glowingly of some stray statistic that supposedly shows them in a slightly more positive light, but which also depends on the public not knowing the entire truth of it.
• Astonishing ignorance or accidental honesty. Sometimes the truth comes out of them – in shocking or comical ways.
• Requests for more money, on the heels of low student achievement. As pass rates go down, the expense per student continues to increase.
• New policy that will serve their ulterior purpose, but which will make life more difficult for students, parents and teachers.

And so it went, at two recent gatherings for Spokane Public Schools. Teachers were blamed. Administrators praised themselves. The superintendent’s comments caused a stir. And the school board voted to have the option to increase class sizes and cut 90 teachers.

Blaming of Others

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

(No one takes actual minutes, which would have to include parent questions and concerns.)

At the April 11 CAC meeting, district administrators were enthused over new, “prescriptive” evaluations for teachers and principals. These evaluations will entail four tiers - like standards-based grading - and will be based partly on student outcomes. Such assessments would be valuable tools if:

• Teachers had the freedom to teach and supplement as they deem necessary
• Teachers weren’t constantly pulled out of classrooms for non-academic activities
• Teachers’ professional development contained real content
• The district’s choice of instructional materials were sufficient and dependable
• Principals had the freedom to allot money, modify curriculum, and hire and fire as they see fit.

Alas, this is Spokane Public Schools, and teachers and principals will be assessed on student outcomes over which they have little control.

At the CAC meeting, I asked: Do these new evaluations mean that teachers will gain academic freedom? I received three different answers from the same administrator.

• Staci Vesneske said teachers might be awarded that freedom if they hit the top tier of the evaluation system. (Answer #1)
• I asked, What if they need that freedom in order to hit the top tier? She said teachers already have academic freedom. (Answer #2)
• I persisted: Will teachers gain academic freedom? She said it will all come down to collective bargaining. (Answer #3)

Later, I asked: Will principals gain the freedom to allot money, hire and fire, and modify the curriculum? Dr. Vesneske didn’t fully answer this question, saying only that the board makes all decisions on curriculum and supplementary materials.

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

Self-serving statistics

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

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

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

Increased expense for unproved programs

Taxpayers pay for scads of district and community programs devoted to reducing dropout rates and increasing on-time graduation rates. As district expenditures skyrocket, parents are still staring at students’ low pass rates, high dropout rates, high rates of college remediation, and low levels of basic skills.

Dr. Stowell praised the district for obtaining a multi-million-dollar grant for Rogers High School, which suffers from particularly low graduation rates. (Please note the illogic of awarding grants to failing programs because they are failing. Failure thus results in more money.) Dr. Stowell said the grant will pay for longer school days, extra teacher pay, a homework center, and – you knew it was coming – a pilot evaluation for teachers.

Astonishing comments

Dr. Stowell said the federal Race to the Top initiative “required” that 50% of a teacher’s evaluation be “based on student growth.”

• Weird. The state always said the percentage of teachers' evaluation that would be based on student outcomes would be just a small part of the total assessment. Fifty percent doesn’t seem small.
• But Dr. Stowell said Washington State isn’t “going in that direction,” anyway, so she’s trying to work in the 50% herself, by bargaining with the teachers union.

Here’s an April 11 quotation from Dr. Stowell on removing teachers:

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

Dr. Stowell then asked CAC members to push legislators for help in removing people.

Unhelpful district policy

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

On the district Web site, Dr. Stowell explains the need for cuts: “Over the past 10 years, facing enrollment decline and state funding challenges, our district has already made tens of millions of dollars in cuts to programs and support staff, leaving us with no easy ‘fixes’ outside of the classroom to solve this budget challenge.”

The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) Web site says:

• Overall expenditures for Spokane Public Schools increased, from $252 million in 2004-2005 to $298 million in 2009-2010.
• Per-student expenditures increased, from $8,158 in 2004-2005 to $10,406 in 2009-2010.
• Enrollment decreased, from 30,923 in 2004-2005 to 28,712 in 2009-2010.
• The district’s on-time graduation rate decreased, from 85.1% in 2004-2005 to 62.1% in 2009-2010.

Regardless of how the Spokane superintendent is assessed, the student data cannot be seen as “success.” Her contract will roll over in June unless the school board says “No.” Dear parents and teachers: Please ask the school board to say “No.”

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

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

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