Accountability, transparency desperately needed for education expenditures

[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

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

[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

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

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

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.

[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/