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

By Laurie H. Rogers


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a fair and helpful change that would be.



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

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

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

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

By Laurie H. Rogers


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

By Laurie H. Rogers


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note from Laurie Rogers: This is Part 1 of a series of articles on local education coverage. The next article in this series will discuss the PDC complaint and the superintendent’s recently announced retirement. This series articulates part of the reason Spokane needs a new print news source. –
 
 
Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (December 2011). "Paper pursues a political agenda as it accuses teacher of pursuing a political agenda." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

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

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

By Laurie H. Rogers


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

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

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

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

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

That issue definitely has not been put to rest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PDC launching a formal investigation regarding Spokane Public Schools

By Laurie H. Rogers


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

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

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

Please stay tuned. There will be more to come.

Vote for those whose allegiance is to the people

By Laurie H. Rogers


Thank you to all community members who worked so hard this campaign season to inform the public about local political races. You helped fill a huge gap in your community, and your efforts are deeply appreciated by citizens who care about the truth.

A fundamental difference between political candidates is found in their language. Candidates’ use of pronouns tells voters nearly everything we need to know about their alliances, allegiances, priorities, and likely future decision-making. When they use the pronoun “we,” are they referring to “We, the Establishment” – or to “We, the People”? When they talk about “our" money, are they referring to government budgets – or to private dollars? When they want things for “us,” is it for the government bureaucracy – or is it for us, the citizens?

In the case of the Spokane school board race, the language of candidate Deana Brower warns of a tight bond between her and the district/union leadership. Her use of the words “we,” “our” and “us” continually evokes “We" the district, we the union, we the establishment, we the power-brokers, we the ones who know what’s best. It’s rare that Brower publicly questions anything the district does. Meanwhile, our children and teachers are being suffocated by district decisions and by an administrative elitism that shunts aside the public’s questions, concerns and needs.

When board candidate Sally Fullmer uses pronouns, however, she evokes “We," the parents, teachers, children, taxpayers, voters and community members. She naturally speaks of “Our" taxpayer dollars, our children, and our community. Through her, we hear that the government works for the people, that the system should be accountable to the people, and that absolute government transparency is necessary to a free country. My questions for voters are these:

• Do we like how things are being done now in our public school system?
• Do we think our children are being properly educated in our public system?
• Do we think public-school teachers have sufficient freedom to do what they need to do in their classrooms?
• With a public-school budget in Spokane that has exploded by $210 million (for operating expenses, capital projects and debt service) since 2002, and an administration that keeps telling us the budget has been cut, do we think our tax dollars are being spent wisely?

If your answers to these questions are “yes,” then you might vote for an establishment choice. But if you’re frustrated that more than half of the children are failing basic math tests, that most high school graduates are testing into remedial math in college, that almost half fail or withdraw from those remedial classes, that many of our middle and high-school students drop out of school -- without even the skills they need to fill out a job application – if you’re a teacher who is tired of being micromanaged and then blamed by the district – if you’re tired of your tax dollars going to fund administrative raises rather than instructional staff – you probably will vote for change.

In Spokane, if voters want the school district to be accountable and transparent to its publics, I think we must vote for Sally Fullmer as the next school board director. Spokane citizens are beginning to sense how little real administrative accountability or transparency there currently is in Spokane Public Schools.

On Sept. 28, I filed a formal complaint with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission regarding activities by Spokane Public Schools with respect to a) school board candidate Deana Brower and b) the 2009 bond and levy “campaign.” Curious to know how Brower and Fullmer would handle such a situation if they were elected to the board, I asked them about it at the Oct. 25 Northeast Community Center candidate forum. Their answers were illuminating.

Question: Project into the future. You’ve been elected as a board director, and you’re facing a situation similar to the one that we’re facing in Spokane today. The school district has violated state law by distributing campaign information for a candidate for public office, invited that candidate to attend district meetings to which no other candidate was invited, and used district resources to promote a ballot proposition. How would you hold the district accountable for violations of state law?

Deana Brower said: "I realize you’re speaking of a very specific situation that has been asked at previous forums. Some of your question addresses, that you’ve suggested (sic) is in violation of policy. In fact, it’s not. Some of it is before the PDC. Your complaint has been registered, and the PDC has not responded that, in fact, any wrongdoing has taken place. It’s being investigated.

"Flash forward. I’m on the school board. I believe that our educators, because our union, Spokane Public Schools is the second largest employer in the city of Washington – excuse me – in the City of Spokane. Our union are our employees, those are our teachers, our support staff, our custodians, our cafeteria workers. They are our employees. They have protected time in their day to conduct union business. It’s within their rights, in their contract. And so some of what you allege is wrongdoing took place during that time. And so, as a school board member, I certainly will honor and respect the negotiated contracts – the contract that’s negotiated between our administration and our employees – I find that, I will respect that fully.

"In terms of wrongdoing, should there be wrongdoing found, those individuals should be held accountable, absolutely. There should be a review of what happened and clarification of policies moving forward so that there is, we don’t, policies are not being violated. I don’t think anyone should be exempt from taking responsibility for their actions. I fully support having those be, (transparent?), being held accountable for their behaviors."

Sally Fullmer said: "In the newspaper on Saturday (Oct. 22), there was an article that says the union broke the law with the KIDS Newspaper ad. ... What happened was, there was an ad written for three candidates, including Deana Brower, that was sent home in every elementary child’s backpack in a magazine called KIDS. If I was on the board, first of all, I would stop the practice of sending this magazine home to kids altogether because it’s just full of ads, and I’m not sure that we should be sending any ads home with our kids.

"And then the district claimed that they hadn’t done any oversight of what goes home in that magazine in the past, and they’re committed to have oversight from now on. And that’s important, but they should have had that oversight before now. They shouldn’t be sending anything home in the kids’ backpacks that they don’t know what it is, or what the content of that is. So it’s very important that – we’re asking our kids to be honest and transparent and open – that the district holds to that standard, too. So I would call definitely for an investigation, and the people that have broken the law have got to be held accountable.

"I also would want to stop the practice of – and I understand that this is negotiated by our district with the unions– for them (the unions) to be coming in during school hours and bringing candidates in. I don’t think that needs to be taking place during the school day."

Also at the Oct. 25 forum, Fullmer and Brower discussed academics in Spokane Public Schools, specifically mathematics outcomes. This is what they said:

Sally Fullmer said: “One of the areas that I think we really need to make a difference in is math. I mentioned the scores before. I’ve been talking to business owners who say it’s hard to find employees that can do just some of the basic math skills they need or write in complete sentences. I’ve talked to business professors, college professors who say kids coming into the colleges lack the skills they need to do college-level work.

"And so, we need to make sure that the $12,000 per student we’re spending in the schools is being used to give them the basic tools they need to be successful. We need to teach them how to do math, not just how to use a calculator. We need to make sure they can write in complete sentences. They shouldn’t be just socially promoted through the system, because it does you no good to graduate if you don’t have the skills to move forward in life. So, I think those are things that need to be made a priority for the school board."

Deana Brower said: "In response to the math comment, we do have tremendous work ahead of us, and I’m very proud of the work that is being done. Just recently, this week, there’s been an announcement that Bemiss Elementary School received an academic achievement award for this last, most recent school year. Garfield Elementary, Logan (Elementary) and Whitman (Elementary), all received academic achievement awards for the previous year for math and/or English, some combination thereof. We have fabulous strides being made. Rogers High School, under the direction of (the principal) – they’re doing – with their school improvement grant – they’re making tremendous strides in improvements for the quality of work that the students are being expected to do and that they are producing.

"And so, we know, we do have our analyses, our test scores. The number that keeps coming up about the 10th-grade math scores – our district was right in line – within a half a percentage point of what was happening statewide. So, to look at that as a reflection of failure on our students, our teachers, or our district, I think is a little bit out of context. I think we have to step back, take a look at the broader picture at what’s happening statewide in education, and be proactive as a district in making positive strides for improvement."


That’s how these two candidates answered to the people on matters of legality and academics. (Please do click on the links I provided for the schools Brower cited as having won awards. See how they're doing.) Which candidate appears to speak for the people? To me, Deana Brower sounds just like the superintendent - excusing failure, blaming others and asking for more money. Her use of "we" consistently refers to the district and not to the People.

Our children desperately need arithmetic and grammar, and we the people need public accountability and absolute transparency. Our elections MUST be fair, honorable, ethical, and lawful. We seriously need a change in school district leadership.

Please vote for Sally Fullmer, and please ask your friends and neighbors to do it, too. For more on Sally Fullmer, see her campaign Web site: http://www.seewhatsallysays.com/



Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (October 2011). "Vote for those whose allegiance is to the people." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com /

Newspapers neglect critical information about PDC issues

[Edited Oct. 27 to add a comment about the difference between union support for Brower and individual support for Fullmer.]


By Laurie H. Rogers

On Oct. 24, a Spokesman-Review reporter called me to talk about education. Over five years of education advocacy, this was the second phone call I've received from a SR reporter.

The first call came Oct. 13, after I submitted a Letter to the Editor about the formal complaint I filed Sept. 28 with the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC). This PDC complaint concerns Spokane Public Schools and school board candidate Deana Brower. Reporter Jody Lawrence-Turner called me to ask for a copy of the complaint.

On Monday, Lawrence-Turner called again as I was driving home with my daughter and a student I’m tutoring. Before I talked with Lawrence-Turner, I confirmed that we were having a conversation that was NOT on the record. Having confirmed that, I talked with her about various education-related topics.

This is the article that showed up in the paper today (Oct. 25): http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/oct/25/caign-limit-trend-shifts-to-smaller-races

If Lawrence-Turner wonders why I asked if our conversation was off the record, all she needs to do is look at her articles. Gee, do you think The Spokesman-Review and Lawrence-Turner want Brower to win the school board election? I offered my entire blog to Lawrence-Turner, the information in it, and the links to district emails – and this is what she wrote. It looks to me like yet another slanted article with unsupported insinuations regarding school board candidate Sally Fullmer and a local community member, and with an accompanying free pass for opponent Brower.

As a ("self-described") education advocate, I find the newspaper's public-relations pieces for Brower and the school district to be annoying and unhelpful. As a former newspaper journalist, I’m embarrassed for the state of print journalism. As an American citizen, however, I find it disturbing. Three local elections are at stake. Where our elections go, so goes a free America. This is a point I made repeatedly to Lawrence-Turner.

The SR articles lack respectable coverage of what Brower and Fullmer stand for. They lack a solid explanation of RCW 42.17.130, of how it applies to the school district, and of what it means to the people that the district appears to have violated that law in more than one way. They lack any mention of the district’s activities with respect to the 2009 bond and levy “campaign.” They fail to delve into reports to the PDC regarding union and district support for three local candidates. They fail to clearly explain possible consequences to those races because of district activities.

Before Lawrence-Turner's deadline, I gave her one quotation by email, which she declined to use: "Free and fair elections are the basis of a free America, and I'll stand up for that principle any and every day."

All that Lawrence-Turner and self-described newspaper The Spokesman-Review appear inclined to talk about with respect to board candidate Sally Fullmer are 1) Sally’s involvement with the Jefferson Elementary School move and 2) Sally's campaign donations from Duane Alton. Brower was involved in the Jefferson issue, too, seeming in district emails to stand on the same side as the school district. They decline to add to Brower's union support the vast practical and financial assistance she has received from union activities on her behalf since before the campaign began, including campaign training, a ready email network, sign waving activities, and these two $1,000 per page advertisements in the KIDS Newspaper.

The SR and Lawrence-Turner continually repeat Brower’s talking point about receiving just $800 from the union, as if that’s all there has been. Meanwhile, they insinuate without proof of any kind that Fullmer and Alton share philosophy on bonds and levies. Fullmer addressed her contributions from Alton at the Oct. 17 "Face Off at Ferris":
“I will be an independent voice, not beholden to anyone. If it weren’t for individual citizens helping me get my message out, I wouldn’t have a voice, because the traditional methods that the school uses to contract people using school emails, to contact teachers using school resources, are not available to me. I was not invited to come into the schools to meet with teachers as Deana was. Also, these people have chosen to donate to my campaign because they believe in my message, and they want to help me get it out, and have not asked for anything in return. Although I do know that they are really big on transparency, as I am, and I think the majority of people want to know where the money is going, and what’s happening with that in the school district.”[Added Oct. 27] A big difference between the union's support for Brower and Alton's support for Fullmer is that board directors won't be voting on bargaining agreements with Alton. And board directors don't have to worry about Alton using public resources to campaign for elective candidates or ballot propositions. And Alton didn't violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement by sending out campaign ads to schoolchildren -- in contravention of RCW 42.17.130.

Regardless of what happens now -- Brower and two other local candidates will benefit from the district’s acknowledged and seemingly unlawful distribution of two campaign advertisements in issues of the KIDS Newspaper. The district distributed these publications to elementary schools and to elementary school children across the city. It had them available for community members in school offices and in the downtown district office. Only after a community member and I queried the district, did the district acknowledge that its activity with respect to the KIDS Newspaper was in contravention of RCW 42.17.130. The district's acknowledgement of wrongdoing was confirmed in emails to me and that community member.

Lawrence-Turner and the SR knew about the district's distribution of KIDS, but wrote instead that the union (which is not a public agency) broke the law. They didn't write that this activity also appears to violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement (see page 9).

The Oct. 25 SR article finally mentions the PDC complaint I filed, but spent about half of its space talking about the size of contributions to Sally Fullmer. What impression of the issues do you suppose the paper and district want you to have? Imagine for a moment how Lawrence-Turner and the SR might have reported on these issues had Sally Fullmer received the SR's endorsement instead of Brower.

Gretchen McDevitt, former District 81 teacher/counselor, and her husband Jim McDevitt, wrote today about the district's distribution of the KIDS Newspaper in a joint email to colleagues: "Such campaigning is clearly in violation of State law, which the District now acknowledges. Those of us that worked in the District for years and are retired, were truly stunned that this type of activity is occurring."

I have loved newspapers since I was a girl. My undergraduate degree emphasizes print journalism, and I worked for newspapers as a reporter, editor and columnist. I’m sad to see their general decline, but they have brought it on themselves. No newspaper can cover everything, and there will always be complaints. But our print media have gotten so far away from the mission of providing unbiased information, they’re often painful to read. Any time We, the People face Power-with-No-Accountability, it seems we wind up with self-interest trumping the public interest. That isn’t a political problem; it’s the nature of people. It’s why absolute transparency and accountability are critical to maintaining the people’s interest.

The SR endorsed Deana Brower. Its education coverage typically is friendly to her and to the district. On Oct. 13, the SR and Lawrence-Turner received my Letter to the Editor regarding my PDC complaint -- nearly a week before ballots were mailed. And this is their pitiful response, published nearly a week after the ballots were mailed, and without my Letter.

The Inlander also received information on the PDC complaint Sept. 29, and my letter on Oct. 13. To the best of my knowledge, it, too, has declined to mention these issues. Below, for your general fund of knowledge, is a copy of my Oct. 13 letter.

I guess all of this is job security for me. Unfortunately, I don’t get paid to do this job, and it’s a job I’d rather weren’t necessary. I’d like to go back to the life I used to have. But somebody’s got to do it. As an education advocate in Spokane, I will continue to advocate for the children, academics, accountability, transparency, and – now – for the law.

Please stay tuned. There is more to say about the issues surrounding the PDC complaint and how this district runs itself. Meanwhile, as you fill out your ballot, please reject the way business is done in Spokane. This year, please elect people who are there for YOU, the parent, teacher, taxpayer and voter. Please elect Sally Fullmer as the next school board director. Stand up for academics, accountability, transparency, the law, our community and our children.

****


Laurie Rogers’s Oct. 13 Letter to the Editor, sent Oct. 13 to the SR and The Inlander:

Election coverage fails to mention that a Public Disclosure Commission complaint was filed Sept. 28 regarding Spokane Public Schools administrators, superintendent, board directors and school board candidate Deana Brower.

The PDC complaint concerns RCW 42.17.130, which prohibits the use of public agencies, facilities, or resources to campaign, directly or indirectly, for a candidate for elective office (such as a board candidate) or promote a ballot proposition (such as bonds and levies).

Public records from District 81 indicate that Brower was invited into schools to speak to employees about her candidacy, and that her appearances were promoted using district emails.

Public records appear to indicate that district employees used district resources to promote the 2009 bond and levy, setting a minimum number of presentations for principals, sending home pamphlets with students, asking staff to mention the initiatives before drama and concert performances, asking teachers to wave signs and hand out leaflets, asking parents to write letters to the editor, and making presentations to organizations and media throughout the city.

Public records indicate that the superintendent and administrators planned to meet with Brower, co-chair of the bond/levy advocacy group Citizens for Spokane Schools, to talk about strategy for an upcoming levy.

***


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

Rogers, L. (October 2011). "Newspapers neglect critical information about PDC issues." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/