Ed Kirkland divorced from reality.
The candidate's forum on Tuesday, 21 April, revealed a trustee who can persuasively and convincingly tell an audience absolute garbage.
Ed Kirkland continues to insist that the LISD has made years of extraordinary improvements in TAKS scores, and has been careful with spending. In particular, he insists the number of administrators and the amount of money spent in school administration is in line with, or below, TEA guidelines.
The hard data, provided by LISD's own PEIMS submissions and reported by their own auditors each year, indicates the complete opposite.
In fact, the test scores in LISD are rising more slowly than the state average. Any gains made, and there have been many, are nevertheless smaller gains than our neighbors have accomplished in the same period, and leave our kids farther behind. Kirkland either is not capable of understanding that, or prefers to that the voting and taxpaying public not hear it.
In fact, the share of funds spent in administration (function code 41) for LISD is more than double the share spent in other districts and in the last year of his board presidency was over three times the state average. (State average spending on admin is about 4%) We have short -changed our campuses of aides and leadership positions in order to staff the headquarters building with "directors" and "specialists" positions filled with people who never teach a class.
Maybe such staffing is actually a good thing. But that is not the case Kirkland attempts to make. He prefers to deny the facts.
He is the smoothest public speaker now running for a trustee seat, with a deep and calm voice and (when he chooses) a pleasant demeanor. But he is unable to use his gifts in service of the truth.
In the last months of his board presidency he attended a meeting at TEA with the audit team that investigated our district finances. Hear his comments on an audio recording of that meeting, archived here: http://bestsouthwest.blogspot.com/2009/04/lisd-ed-kirkland-who-is-her.html (Kirkland's comments are near the final five or ten minutes)
Again, even after an hour of hearing Dr Lewis esssentially confess to, but attempt to justify, excuse, and explain the factual situation, Ed Kirkland lambasts the TEA team for daring to come into a minority-run district and hold them accountable to follow procedure and meet standards. How DARE they pick on a minority district?
This, while denying the rest of the board -- his peers and our elected officials -- access to the same report he was in Austin responding to.
It cost this district, as was pointed out last night, over $200,000 in legal fees to make plain that somebody was "tampering with the mail" -- among other violations -- in covering up and concealing this districts' problems.
Dr Lewis lost his job at the end of that investigation.
Ed Kirkland MIGHT be able to keep his. Because, as we all know, lies, cover-ups, denials and concealment work.
At least, for elected politicians.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
What do we see?
Is this a child who is struggling to keep up with his peers?
Or is this a child who is "on the right path, and moving in the right direction"?
Both could be true, of course. These are not mutually exclusive perspectives.
But the folks who believe students are on the right track and are headed in the right direct have very little incentive to think very hard, or change very much, or care very passionately.
Folks who worry that a child IS being left behind will be trying hard to change a great deal. And they care -- a lot.
Lancaster has six candidates competing for three seats on the school board.
We have nearly 300 students graduating High School within weeks of the election. They, too, will be competing for a limited number of seats -- in college classrooms, at desks in offices, behind steering wheels -- competition for a good seat is a constant.
I'm taking comments. Which of the trustee candidates do you think is most likely to help the kid catch the bus?
Is this a child who is struggling to keep up with his peers?
Or is this a child who is "on the right path, and moving in the right direction"?
Both could be true, of course. These are not mutually exclusive perspectives.
But the folks who believe students are on the right track and are headed in the right direct have very little incentive to think very hard, or change very much, or care very passionately.
Folks who worry that a child IS being left behind will be trying hard to change a great deal. And they care -- a lot.
Lancaster has six candidates competing for three seats on the school board.
We have nearly 300 students graduating High School within weeks of the election. They, too, will be competing for a limited number of seats -- in college classrooms, at desks in offices, behind steering wheels -- competition for a good seat is a constant.
I'm taking comments. Which of the trustee candidates do you think is most likely to help the kid catch the bus?
I see we have no less than three real estate agents running for school board this spring. Cynthia Corbin (also an accountant, and neo-journalist/blogger) primarily makes her living in Lancaster real estate. Marion Hamilton is, apparently, a part time homeseller. But the "big gun" in the real estate market is Historic Town Square's very own Ellen Clark.
I'm somewhat skeptical of the temptations brokers may suffer when dealing with a school district. There was, after all, the proposal to turn the empty lot near the High School into a casino hotel -- which proposal was, according to Larry Lewis, endorsed by former mayor, and property broker, Margie Waldrop. Former trustee Sue Mendoza some what famously was recommended by the superintendent as a property mortgage broker to any new LISD teacher, or at least those getting Dr Lewis's emails. And the district is always in need of help selling distressed properties, taken over for failure to pay taxes.
So it's nice to see at least one of the three realty agents taking the pledge I pledge that I and my immediate family, including parents, children, grandchildren and cousins, will not do business in any way, shape, fashion or form, directly or indirectly, with the school district and/or its vendors during my tenure.
I think, though, I'll let the readers figure out which of the three challengers is foregoing the profit and self-dealing opportunities.
So far as I can tell, none of the incumbents has come out against doing business with the district they govern.
It's liable to be an interesting campaign.
I'm somewhat skeptical of the temptations brokers may suffer when dealing with a school district. There was, after all, the proposal to turn the empty lot near the High School into a casino hotel -- which proposal was, according to Larry Lewis, endorsed by former mayor, and property broker, Margie Waldrop. Former trustee Sue Mendoza some what famously was recommended by the superintendent as a property mortgage broker to any new LISD teacher, or at least those getting Dr Lewis's emails. And the district is always in need of help selling distressed properties, taken over for failure to pay taxes.
So it's nice to see at least one of the three realty agents taking the pledge I pledge that I and my immediate family, including parents, children, grandchildren and cousins, will not do business in any way, shape, fashion or form, directly or indirectly, with the school district and/or its vendors during my tenure.
I think, though, I'll let the readers figure out which of the three challengers is foregoing the profit and self-dealing opportunities.
So far as I can tell, none of the incumbents has come out against doing business with the district they govern.
It's liable to be an interesting campaign.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Larry Lewis and the incredible shrinking fund.
Okay, at the end of the 2005-06 school year (August 2006) the audit team from Judd Thomas and Smith found Larry Lewis had drawn down the cash fund balance in the general fund to $274,000. The problem was generally blamed on CFO Eugene Smith.
In 2006-07 the general fund went negative by about $3 to 4 million, which was disguised by a "bridge loan" of six million. The cash on hand appeared positive, but Larry Lewis left the Lancaster ISD actual cash balance , according to TEA investigative review,was negative by about $3 million.
In 2007-08, the year just ending, the district expenses exceeded projected revenue by another $3 to $4 million dollars. The spending was not so excessive that year, but the revenue was short because the attendance rate did not meet Dr Lewis's projections. The annual compliance audit is only beginning. But it appears the cash on hand in the general fund for the year ending August 2008 will be in the red by about $7 to $8 million.
The coming year, school and fiscal year 2008-09, the district has over-hired by at least eighteen teachers -- a $900,000 excess expense over budget. The attendance rate in Lancaster is still falling, and the revenue is about $1.8 million short of projections. If nothing is done, the ending fund balance will accumulate a $10 million debt.
It will be interesting to calculate the rate of debt to the "rise" in TAKS test scores. How much does it cost to rise in the ranks from last place in 2006 to, uhm, well, wherever we are now?
Larry Lewis will no doubt argue that "all districts" have secret payday loan operations, pay unbudgeted awards to favorite employees, and generally ignore Texas law.
He may even be correct.
Okay, at the end of the 2005-06 school year (August 2006) the audit team from Judd Thomas and Smith found Larry Lewis had drawn down the cash fund balance in the general fund to $274,000. The problem was generally blamed on CFO Eugene Smith.
In 2006-07 the general fund went negative by about $3 to 4 million, which was disguised by a "bridge loan" of six million. The cash on hand appeared positive, but Larry Lewis left the Lancaster ISD actual cash balance , according to TEA investigative review,was negative by about $3 million.
In 2007-08, the year just ending, the district expenses exceeded projected revenue by another $3 to $4 million dollars. The spending was not so excessive that year, but the revenue was short because the attendance rate did not meet Dr Lewis's projections. The annual compliance audit is only beginning. But it appears the cash on hand in the general fund for the year ending August 2008 will be in the red by about $7 to $8 million.
The coming year, school and fiscal year 2008-09, the district has over-hired by at least eighteen teachers -- a $900,000 excess expense over budget. The attendance rate in Lancaster is still falling, and the revenue is about $1.8 million short of projections. If nothing is done, the ending fund balance will accumulate a $10 million debt.
It will be interesting to calculate the rate of debt to the "rise" in TAKS test scores. How much does it cost to rise in the ranks from last place in 2006 to, uhm, well, wherever we are now?
Larry Lewis will no doubt argue that "all districts" have secret payday loan operations, pay unbudgeted awards to favorite employees, and generally ignore Texas law.
He may even be correct.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
"Buildings don’t teach kids. People do. "
Somebody better tell Scott Milder about this.
We should invest much more in ensuring that we attract, retain, and motivate the best people as teachers rather than in "21st Century" facilities (whatever that blather means). The systematic evidence overwhelmingly shows that the quality of school facilities in the United States has no relationship to student achievement, while the quality of teachers is very strongly related. In the Handbook of the Economics of Education, Eric Hanushek reviews all of the research meeting minimal quality standards regarding the relationship between school facilities and student performance. He identifies 91 analyses on the issue in the U.S. and finds that 86% of them show no statistically significant relationship. Of the remaining 14% of analyses that did show significant effects, 9% were positive and 5% were negative.
Meanwhile, Dallas Observer journalist Jim Schutze is begging taxpayers to "Take Back Your Schools" from the construction industry.
Regarding the Dallas ISD budget fiasco and their bond program, Schutze writes:
Don't let me give the impression that school board trustees are lambs led to slaughter. Many of the same names—people who make money from public works projects—march through their campaign contribution lists like tin soldiers: Aguirre and Alcantar are frequent contributors, along with William Solomon of Austin Industries; Henry C. Beck III of Beck Group Construction; Arcilia Acosta, CEO of Carcon Industries and Construction; and Ron Steinhart, a director of the huge cement company TXI and many other stalwarts of the public works industry. Solomon, Beck and Acosta are not among the business foxes who have volunteered to come down and watch the poultry.
Look, I'm not saying these men should not support the schools. But there are three things I definitely do want to say: 1) Too many of these guys have overweening interests in the school bond construction campaigns; 2) they have a damned lousy track record of success for their manipulation so far (Yvonne Gonzalez, Waldemar Rojas and the current meltdown, for example); and 3) there are plenty of other people around town (including maybe a couple of women) who could come at this from a far less compromised perspective.
Schutze also mentions, in passing, our good mayor's father's company, Pegasus Projects, "which was hired by the school district to oversee the entire $1.3 billion 2002 school bond construction project" ...
Mayor Knight is deeply interested in helping Lancaster schools. He served, for instance, on one of the (several, recently) bond planning committees. (That's not a great recommendation by the way. So did I...)
But of the 200 or so students forecast to attend Lancaster ISD who didn't show up -- Mayor Knight's are among them.
The problem is always spending more money on fancy schmancy buildings that show off an administrator's "edifice complex" -- and less on hiring and retaining good teachers.
Here we go again.
Somebody better tell Scott Milder about this.
We should invest much more in ensuring that we attract, retain, and motivate the best people as teachers rather than in "21st Century" facilities (whatever that blather means). The systematic evidence overwhelmingly shows that the quality of school facilities in the United States has no relationship to student achievement, while the quality of teachers is very strongly related. In the Handbook of the Economics of Education, Eric Hanushek reviews all of the research meeting minimal quality standards regarding the relationship between school facilities and student performance. He identifies 91 analyses on the issue in the U.S. and finds that 86% of them show no statistically significant relationship. Of the remaining 14% of analyses that did show significant effects, 9% were positive and 5% were negative.
Meanwhile, Dallas Observer journalist Jim Schutze is begging taxpayers to "Take Back Your Schools" from the construction industry.
Regarding the Dallas ISD budget fiasco and their bond program, Schutze writes:
Don't let me give the impression that school board trustees are lambs led to slaughter. Many of the same names—people who make money from public works projects—march through their campaign contribution lists like tin soldiers: Aguirre and Alcantar are frequent contributors, along with William Solomon of Austin Industries; Henry C. Beck III of Beck Group Construction; Arcilia Acosta, CEO of Carcon Industries and Construction; and Ron Steinhart, a director of the huge cement company TXI and many other stalwarts of the public works industry. Solomon, Beck and Acosta are not among the business foxes who have volunteered to come down and watch the poultry.
Look, I'm not saying these men should not support the schools. But there are three things I definitely do want to say: 1) Too many of these guys have overweening interests in the school bond construction campaigns; 2) they have a damned lousy track record of success for their manipulation so far (Yvonne Gonzalez, Waldemar Rojas and the current meltdown, for example); and 3) there are plenty of other people around town (including maybe a couple of women) who could come at this from a far less compromised perspective.
Schutze also mentions, in passing, our good mayor's father's company, Pegasus Projects, "which was hired by the school district to oversee the entire $1.3 billion 2002 school bond construction project" ...
Mayor Knight is deeply interested in helping Lancaster schools. He served, for instance, on one of the (several, recently) bond planning committees. (That's not a great recommendation by the way. So did I...)
But of the 200 or so students forecast to attend Lancaster ISD who didn't show up -- Mayor Knight's are among them.
The problem is always spending more money on fancy schmancy buildings that show off an administrator's "edifice complex" -- and less on hiring and retaining good teachers.
Here we go again.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Lancaster's answer to Jimmy Olsen, the intrepid Bill Conrad, wrote about the LISD budget:
http://www.todaynewspapers.net/articles/2008/08/29/lancaster/news/lnnews1.txt
The district didn't meet the TEA recommendation of 65 percent of funding going towards instruction. In the final budget, 58 percent of the funding went towards instruction. As a result, the board passed a resolution acknowledging the issue and the district will be required to post its check register online.
Anybody who noticed which trustees moved, and seconded, that resolution? Anybody record the vote? Did anybody happen to see the display of the verbiage of that resolution projected up on the big screen TVs there in the Lancaster ISD board room?
Dr Lewis assured the trustees that a draft of the resolution was in their "packet" along with the budget.
The budget was moved for approval by Ed Kirkland -- who made no mention of the resolution. Perhaps he was deliberately trying to set Carolyn Morris up; to show her the fool and not come back for the resolution.
On the other hand, perhaps Morris moved on deliberately, to show Kirkland as the fool for not including the legally required resolution in his motion to rubberstamp Dr Lewis's latest proposal.
It's odd though that in a room full of Trustees, highly paid administrators, a state-appointed conservator, the district's hired legal advisor, and at least one local attorney well known as a critic of district sloppy disregard of the law and parlimentary procedure; nobody noticed the omission.
That is, if it WAS an omission. Bill Conrad heard the resolution approved, and the official paper of record for all LISD matters reported it DID get approved. So maybe it happened so fast and so subtly that audio/video records couldn't keep up.
http://www.todaynewspapers.net/articles/2008/08/29/lancaster/news/lnnews1.txt
The district didn't meet the TEA recommendation of 65 percent of funding going towards instruction. In the final budget, 58 percent of the funding went towards instruction. As a result, the board passed a resolution acknowledging the issue and the district will be required to post its check register online.
Anybody who noticed which trustees moved, and seconded, that resolution? Anybody record the vote? Did anybody happen to see the display of the verbiage of that resolution projected up on the big screen TVs there in the Lancaster ISD board room?
Dr Lewis assured the trustees that a draft of the resolution was in their "packet" along with the budget.
The budget was moved for approval by Ed Kirkland -- who made no mention of the resolution. Perhaps he was deliberately trying to set Carolyn Morris up; to show her the fool and not come back for the resolution.
On the other hand, perhaps Morris moved on deliberately, to show Kirkland as the fool for not including the legally required resolution in his motion to rubberstamp Dr Lewis's latest proposal.
It's odd though that in a room full of Trustees, highly paid administrators, a state-appointed conservator, the district's hired legal advisor, and at least one local attorney well known as a critic of district sloppy disregard of the law and parlimentary procedure; nobody noticed the omission.
That is, if it WAS an omission. Bill Conrad heard the resolution approved, and the official paper of record for all LISD matters reported it DID get approved. So maybe it happened so fast and so subtly that audio/video records couldn't keep up.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Why did Cheryl Wright resign in August after taking her seat in June?
Was it because of the hate mail she got from the old, white, "Historic-Lancaster-on-the-Square" elite -- who called her names for supporting Carolyn Morris?
Was it because of the screaming insults she got from the large, black, male official entitled to join in "deliberations" in the executive conference room -- who later explained that "trash talk" is just "part of the culture"?
Was it fear, actual or foreseen, of the harassment the children she still has in the local schools were might get as classes begin this month?
Was it confusion over the morass of budget paperwork, still incomplete when distributed to trustees, still being revised under conservator Jim Damm's direction the night of the first budget workshop -- and the crushing responsibility of trying to vote on a $40-$50 million dollar mess that can't even be documented, let alone believed?
Was it simply that her husband's business's regular bookkeeper suddenly left, and that Ms Wright's financial skills were needed on the home front more than in the Lancaster trenches?
I dunno.
I bet, however, that hate mail, screaming, child harrassment, budget concerns combined to make ordinary business problems look a lot less troubling than they might otherwise have been.
And I sure hope Frank Mejia doesn't decide his business's books suddenly require his wife-partner's full time undivided attention, too.
Was it because of the hate mail she got from the old, white, "Historic-Lancaster-on-the-Square" elite -- who called her names for supporting Carolyn Morris?
Was it because of the screaming insults she got from the large, black, male official entitled to join in "deliberations" in the executive conference room -- who later explained that "trash talk" is just "part of the culture"?
Was it fear, actual or foreseen, of the harassment the children she still has in the local schools were might get as classes begin this month?
Was it confusion over the morass of budget paperwork, still incomplete when distributed to trustees, still being revised under conservator Jim Damm's direction the night of the first budget workshop -- and the crushing responsibility of trying to vote on a $40-$50 million dollar mess that can't even be documented, let alone believed?
Was it simply that her husband's business's regular bookkeeper suddenly left, and that Ms Wright's financial skills were needed on the home front more than in the Lancaster trenches?
I dunno.
I bet, however, that hate mail, screaming, child harrassment, budget concerns combined to make ordinary business problems look a lot less troubling than they might otherwise have been.
And I sure hope Frank Mejia doesn't decide his business's books suddenly require his wife-partner's full time undivided attention, too.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
A river in Egypt.
There is a interesting denial that just keeps floating around. What makes it interesting is this denial addresses a charge never, to my knowledge, made.
Senior leadership officials at the Lancaster school district deny that any money has ever been STOLEN.
Okay, cool. I actually believe that.
Now, I also believe CPA auditor Andrew Moore of the firm Judd Thomas Smith and Company when he tells the board, as he has for the past several years, that the district's financial controls are "not operating", or are "inadequate" or "fail to reconcile" one pile of records with another.
Millions of dollars slosh around, beyond control. But nothing was stolen.
I've heard, and happen to believe, rumors that a stash of cash and uncashed personal checks from volunteers for the schools was found unrecorded, unsecured, and apparently unused for the intended purpose. Thousands of dollars lying around idle, unused for the children as intended. But nothing stolen.
I believe the documentation provided by the TEA to the Lancaster administration in February -- the paperwork that mysteriously went missing from February until May -- that indicates funds from restricted accounts were used for purposes unauthorized by statute or the voters. For instance capital (bond) restricted funds for buying staff cars that should have been paid for -- if purchased at all -- from ordinary operating funds. Half a million dollars, at least, illegally spent. But it wasn't stolen.
I believe that the district wastes money hiring outside staff to do jobs that employees are also tasked to accomplish. From dance consultants who duplicate the duties of phys-ed specialists to "campaign planners" (like Scott Milder, the Karl Rove for Texas State Legislative District 112) who subcontract to fulfill the obligations of the superintendent; it seems to me about twice as money is spent as the value of the results obtained. Perhaps somewhere between thousands and millions, call it hundreds of thousands, of dollars are so wasted. But not, I think, stolen.
I believe a very very senior LISD administrative official is terribly bad at math -- to the point where he (or she) cannot balance his own personal check book. I believe this person, charged with managing millions of dollars and making long range multi-year strategic plans, can not survive from month to month without requesting and drawing a payroll advance against anticpated salary. Sort of her (or his) own personal "bridge loan" to carry thru on those seemingly too-frequent occasions when there's just a lot of month left at the end of the money. It's just a rumor. But I've seen this official do arithmetic under several circumstances and I find the rumor entirely plausible. So, in this personal instance, the official repeatedly may need to borrow hundreds of dollars.
At least that money isn't being stolen.
I don't hear rumors at all about any theft. Waste, mismanagement, poor controls? Sure. Funds for Craft and Trade and remedial education (CompEd) diverted to grant-seeking efforts? Yep, I've heard that.
Improper use of federal Title-Whatever funds paid to TODAY Newspaper? Uhm, that's not a rumor-- that's the district's boast. Money diverted to utterly stupid vanity projects that don't help kids? I've not only heard that accusation. I've made it a time or two.
Or two hundred.
Money MISSING? Well, what do we mean by that? If we're talking about money not delivered to classrooms, yeah, I believe there is money missing.
Do we mean "money missing" as in money STOLEN? Gone to line the pockets of the people tasked to manage it? Like the money former LISD-CFO Eugene P Smith stole from his employer back in Washington DC? You know, stolen, embezzled, carried away, diverted into personal pockets for private gain-- STOLEN?
Surprisingly, I don't hear that. Not even an echo in my own shower. And I don't believe it.
A person can get fired for stealing. But you can be incompetent, untruthful, away-from-your-duties, and unproductive for years and still hang on to your six-figure-a year salary. And provided you're merely a terrible financial manager, you can look forward to a huge severance bonus when you do, eventually, get forced out of your job.
But stealing would be unbelievably stupid. Even for somebody who's hopelessly bad at math and desperately needs the money.
Which is what makes the denial so interesting. Accused of money mismanaged, wasted, lost, and over-borrowed, the district denies THEFT.
Oh.
Right then. Let's all just move on.
(I hear that the district has a problem with mail tampering. What do you hear?)
There is a interesting denial that just keeps floating around. What makes it interesting is this denial addresses a charge never, to my knowledge, made.
Senior leadership officials at the Lancaster school district deny that any money has ever been STOLEN.
Okay, cool. I actually believe that.
Now, I also believe CPA auditor Andrew Moore of the firm Judd Thomas Smith and Company when he tells the board, as he has for the past several years, that the district's financial controls are "not operating", or are "inadequate" or "fail to reconcile" one pile of records with another.
Millions of dollars slosh around, beyond control. But nothing was stolen.
I've heard, and happen to believe, rumors that a stash of cash and uncashed personal checks from volunteers for the schools was found unrecorded, unsecured, and apparently unused for the intended purpose. Thousands of dollars lying around idle, unused for the children as intended. But nothing stolen.
I believe the documentation provided by the TEA to the Lancaster administration in February -- the paperwork that mysteriously went missing from February until May -- that indicates funds from restricted accounts were used for purposes unauthorized by statute or the voters. For instance capital (bond) restricted funds for buying staff cars that should have been paid for -- if purchased at all -- from ordinary operating funds. Half a million dollars, at least, illegally spent. But it wasn't stolen.
I believe that the district wastes money hiring outside staff to do jobs that employees are also tasked to accomplish. From dance consultants who duplicate the duties of phys-ed specialists to "campaign planners" (like Scott Milder, the Karl Rove for Texas State Legislative District 112) who subcontract to fulfill the obligations of the superintendent; it seems to me about twice as money is spent as the value of the results obtained. Perhaps somewhere between thousands and millions, call it hundreds of thousands, of dollars are so wasted. But not, I think, stolen.
I believe a very very senior LISD administrative official is terribly bad at math -- to the point where he (or she) cannot balance his own personal check book. I believe this person, charged with managing millions of dollars and making long range multi-year strategic plans, can not survive from month to month without requesting and drawing a payroll advance against anticpated salary. Sort of her (or his) own personal "bridge loan" to carry thru on those seemingly too-frequent occasions when there's just a lot of month left at the end of the money. It's just a rumor. But I've seen this official do arithmetic under several circumstances and I find the rumor entirely plausible. So, in this personal instance, the official repeatedly may need to borrow hundreds of dollars.
At least that money isn't being stolen.
I don't hear rumors at all about any theft. Waste, mismanagement, poor controls? Sure. Funds for Craft and Trade and remedial education (CompEd) diverted to grant-seeking efforts? Yep, I've heard that.
Improper use of federal Title-Whatever funds paid to TODAY Newspaper? Uhm, that's not a rumor-- that's the district's boast. Money diverted to utterly stupid vanity projects that don't help kids? I've not only heard that accusation. I've made it a time or two.
Or two hundred.
Money MISSING? Well, what do we mean by that? If we're talking about money not delivered to classrooms, yeah, I believe there is money missing.
Do we mean "money missing" as in money STOLEN? Gone to line the pockets of the people tasked to manage it? Like the money former LISD-CFO Eugene P Smith stole from his employer back in Washington DC? You know, stolen, embezzled, carried away, diverted into personal pockets for private gain-- STOLEN?
Surprisingly, I don't hear that. Not even an echo in my own shower. And I don't believe it.
A person can get fired for stealing. But you can be incompetent, untruthful, away-from-your-duties, and unproductive for years and still hang on to your six-figure-a year salary. And provided you're merely a terrible financial manager, you can look forward to a huge severance bonus when you do, eventually, get forced out of your job.
But stealing would be unbelievably stupid. Even for somebody who's hopelessly bad at math and desperately needs the money.
Which is what makes the denial so interesting. Accused of money mismanaged, wasted, lost, and over-borrowed, the district denies THEFT.
Oh.
Right then. Let's all just move on.
(I hear that the district has a problem with mail tampering. What do you hear?)
Friday, August 15, 2008
Marching Bands
I'm hearing rumblings that the Lancaster "back to school" parade may be as much a protest march as a celebration.
Apparently parents who paid to buy shiny uniforms for their high school students to parade in, haven't gotten either those uniforms, or a consistant story regarding what happened to the uniforms -- or the money.
The kids -- young ladies, I gather, the majorettes -- will be marching, if they can be persuaded, in black gym shorts and white t-shirts.
Sort of reminds me of a parable ...
The Music Man.
Anybody in Lancaster who missed the Cedar Valley College production of "The Music Man" this past summer missed not only a great show, but a vital education in how a local school district works.
But there are now two movie productions of the play, either of which offers a 2nd chance to catch up. Readers who have the time are advised to skip reading this post and go learn directly from the source.For the rest of you, let me recap the high points.
The school board in River City, Iowa is bitterly contentious. Then a fast talking good looking stranger comes to town. He makes sweeping promises. He charms parents and community members to buy into a dream. And he distracts the school board from both their duties and their differences. The board now accomplishes nothing except literally singing together in sweet harmony. Meanwhile the stranger extracts hard cash from the community for physical stuff -- musical instruments and elaborate uniforms. But people aren't buying the stuff -- they're buying the dream. They've believed that the stranger, the Music Man, will match their cash investment with his own investment of time, sweat, training and talent. They believe the Music Man can and will teach their children disciipline, cooperation, pride, and, of course, music.
Ah, but the Music Man is a fraud. He can't tell one note from another. He blows into town, collects cash, and leaves. The town is left with lots of shiny brass horns and, if any "band" at all, only an angry band of disappointed parents. (Typically, The Music Man also seduces and abandons -- saddens and wisens -- a girl or two in the process.) There's never been a trained and happy band of child musicians. The Music Man not only never teaches a single lesson himself; he alienates or distracts the actual music teachers -- old maid piano teachers, mostly -- making the music situation worse for every town he has ever worked.
Until, in River City, one courageous librarian stands up to the fraud. She by-passes the negligent school board; does her own independent research, and in the end forces the Music Man to stand and deliver on the promises made.Because this is a show rather than real life -- he does.
Alls Well that Ends Well.
There are more priceless lessons in the parable than I care to explore right now. Let me get away with three:
First, beware of a school board that sings together in sweet harmony. Harmony means they're not sufficiently independent, or skeptical. They are somehow under an influence that prizes the sound over the substance.
Second, dealing with a fraud doesn't depend on elected officials, anyway. And it doesn't take a huge committee. One person, patiently doing some basic research, can quickly learn all she (or he) and the entire community really needs to know. Provided the community cares to listen ...
Third, a dream can never be sealed to a contract. Buying tangible stuff, sure: sign on the dotted line, empty your pockets, and collect the delivery off the Wells Fargo Wagon. But beware when promised a dream. Beware a promise of a vision-statement, a mission, a strategy / process / character-development / community-improvement intangible. Beware the boys' band. Beware, especially, when you are promised a dream "for your children" . (Did you bother to ask your children about their own dreams?) Promised visions may live only in your incomplete memory of beautifully slick, fast, talk.
Marcellus Washington has settled in Lancaster and apparently intends to stay. But when Cambridge CEO Scott Milder arrives in town, we get to meet Professor Harold Hill himself. And the school board found sufficient harmony to sign on the line for the promise of better days to come. For the children.
Marion Librarian really has her work cut out for her this month.
I'm hearing rumblings that the Lancaster "back to school" parade may be as much a protest march as a celebration.
Apparently parents who paid to buy shiny uniforms for their high school students to parade in, haven't gotten either those uniforms, or a consistant story regarding what happened to the uniforms -- or the money.
The kids -- young ladies, I gather, the majorettes -- will be marching, if they can be persuaded, in black gym shorts and white t-shirts.
Sort of reminds me of a parable ...
The Music Man.
Anybody in Lancaster who missed the Cedar Valley College production of "The Music Man" this past summer missed not only a great show, but a vital education in how a local school district works.
But there are now two movie productions of the play, either of which offers a 2nd chance to catch up. Readers who have the time are advised to skip reading this post and go learn directly from the source.For the rest of you, let me recap the high points.
The school board in River City, Iowa is bitterly contentious. Then a fast talking good looking stranger comes to town. He makes sweeping promises. He charms parents and community members to buy into a dream. And he distracts the school board from both their duties and their differences. The board now accomplishes nothing except literally singing together in sweet harmony. Meanwhile the stranger extracts hard cash from the community for physical stuff -- musical instruments and elaborate uniforms. But people aren't buying the stuff -- they're buying the dream. They've believed that the stranger, the Music Man, will match their cash investment with his own investment of time, sweat, training and talent. They believe the Music Man can and will teach their children disciipline, cooperation, pride, and, of course, music.
Ah, but the Music Man is a fraud. He can't tell one note from another. He blows into town, collects cash, and leaves. The town is left with lots of shiny brass horns and, if any "band" at all, only an angry band of disappointed parents. (Typically, The Music Man also seduces and abandons -- saddens and wisens -- a girl or two in the process.) There's never been a trained and happy band of child musicians. The Music Man not only never teaches a single lesson himself; he alienates or distracts the actual music teachers -- old maid piano teachers, mostly -- making the music situation worse for every town he has ever worked.
Until, in River City, one courageous librarian stands up to the fraud. She by-passes the negligent school board; does her own independent research, and in the end forces the Music Man to stand and deliver on the promises made.Because this is a show rather than real life -- he does.
Alls Well that Ends Well.
There are more priceless lessons in the parable than I care to explore right now. Let me get away with three:
First, beware of a school board that sings together in sweet harmony. Harmony means they're not sufficiently independent, or skeptical. They are somehow under an influence that prizes the sound over the substance.
Second, dealing with a fraud doesn't depend on elected officials, anyway. And it doesn't take a huge committee. One person, patiently doing some basic research, can quickly learn all she (or he) and the entire community really needs to know. Provided the community cares to listen ...
Third, a dream can never be sealed to a contract. Buying tangible stuff, sure: sign on the dotted line, empty your pockets, and collect the delivery off the Wells Fargo Wagon. But beware when promised a dream. Beware a promise of a vision-statement, a mission, a strategy / process / character-development / community-improvement intangible. Beware the boys' band. Beware, especially, when you are promised a dream "for your children" . (Did you bother to ask your children about their own dreams?) Promised visions may live only in your incomplete memory of beautifully slick, fast, talk.
Marcellus Washington has settled in Lancaster and apparently intends to stay. But when Cambridge CEO Scott Milder arrives in town, we get to meet Professor Harold Hill himself. And the school board found sufficient harmony to sign on the line for the promise of better days to come. For the children.
Marion Librarian really has her work cut out for her this month.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
I recently received an extraordinarily hostile email from a local elected official regarding a comparison of the "sit down" protests of Rosa Parks to my own mule headed stubborness. It appears that in some quarters the pursuit of educational quality at reasonable expense is considered a cloak for pure blind racism.
Well, I do confess to "blind", anyhow. I used the expression "good ol' boys" in a previous post. Please accept my apologies for use of the racist bigoted code word "boy". I will refrain ever after.
The NETWORK of cronies involved any multi-million dollar project in Texas is ALWAYS a matter of public interest. Whether it's the Trans Texas Corridor, T. Boone Picken's wind farms, or the Rio Grande fence, the ostensible purposes of the road, the power line, or the border control project rarely determine the outcome. The question of which politician can help which banker, architect, construction company, and lawyer is generally at least as interesting as the project itself.
In Lancaster the players have recently changed. Joe Tillotson has retired after years of holding the mayor's office. And Gallagher construction, along with the brothers and former legislator's Fred and Roy Orr, have bowed out in the middle of the project for the new public safety building. Based on the rumors I'm getting third and fourth hand, it appears some city officials were unhappy about the costs being charged for exotic materials ... perhaps, (and I stress that I'm guessing) it might have been something as reported by Joey Daubin
But to return to Lancaster, the players have changed. So let's review the new program and get familiar with the new players. Not that any of these folks are crooks, cronies, henchmen to one another, or have ANYTHING other than the education of children and the absolute best use of public money at heart. But just so we know who they are:
First, the new mayor, Marcus Knight. Mr Knight, formerly of Fort Worth, is a relatively new face on the Lancaster scene. He's come to us extremely well connected, though.
Well, I do confess to "blind", anyhow. I used the expression "good ol' boys" in a previous post. Please accept my apologies for use of the racist bigoted code word "boy". I will refrain ever after.
The NETWORK of cronies involved any multi-million dollar project in Texas is ALWAYS a matter of public interest. Whether it's the Trans Texas Corridor, T. Boone Picken's wind farms, or the Rio Grande fence, the ostensible purposes of the road, the power line, or the border control project rarely determine the outcome. The question of which politician can help which banker, architect, construction company, and lawyer is generally at least as interesting as the project itself.
In Lancaster the players have recently changed. Joe Tillotson has retired after years of holding the mayor's office. And Gallagher construction, along with the brothers and former legislator's Fred and Roy Orr, have bowed out in the middle of the project for the new public safety building. Based on the rumors I'm getting third and fourth hand, it appears some city officials were unhappy about the costs being charged for exotic materials ... perhaps, (and I stress that I'm guessing) it might have been something as reported by Joey Daubin
But to return to Lancaster, the players have changed. So let's review the new program and get familiar with the new players. Not that any of these folks are crooks, cronies, henchmen to one another, or have ANYTHING other than the education of children and the absolute best use of public money at heart. But just so we know who they are:
First, the new mayor, Marcus Knight. Mr Knight, formerly of Fort Worth, is a relatively new face on the Lancaster scene. He's come to us extremely well connected, though.
Twenty-two years ago, his father, Richard Knight Jr., was appointed Dallas' first black city manager. His mother, Mavis Knight, is on the state Board of Education.
married to Richard Knight, Jr., and they have three adult sons and eight grandchildren.
So we look at the current activities of Richard Knight to find out more. Well, the senior Mr Knight is, like his wife, active in supporting local schools. "Local", for the Knight family, has been focused on Fort Worth.
As vice president and COO Marcus E. Knight, formerly a marketing manager for Toyota Motor Sales in the New York Region, oversees the day-to-day operations for Knight Waste Services. Working with the Fort Worth Metropolitan Black Chamber of Commerce and the Fort Worth Independent School
District, the Knight family is sponsoring an Adopt-A-School program for the students at Dunbar Middle School on the city’s south side. The company started mentoring during the 2008 spring semester and will host a Career Day presentation in May at the school.
Somewhat odd to see Mr MARCUS Knight so active in the Fort Worth ISDs in spring 08 while his own Lancaster mayor's race was being contested ... but there you are.
Now, it's perhaps not entirely altruistic of Mr RICHARD Knight to be earning goodwill and good publicity from schools. In addition to his solid-waste and recycling business, Richard Knight is "chairman and managing partner of a construction firm. Pegasus Texas Holdings LLC is a construction management firm with offices in Fort Worth and Dallas.
Oddly, the PRESIDENT of Pegasus has almost no visible construction background at all. The President of Pegasus is an good old -- well, he's a white guy so maybe it wouldn't be offensive to use the word, but I did promise -- a good ol' fella from Lancaster ISD, Dr Larry Groppel. Ex-Superintendent. According to the bio on the Pegasus site:
Dr. Groppel brings an extensive resume and impressive background to the firm in both education management and construction of educational facilities. He offers twenty-five years of construction related experience.
Which is to say, he campaigned for his districts' school bonds.
Nothing illegal about that, by the way. It's called "informing the public". (We don't use the word "electioneering." )
Dr Groppel is ALSO a well connected sort of guy. His work in the Dallas ISD brought him to federal level attention. Not the best sort, but federal attention even so. The "connect the dots" among Larry Groppel, Ruben Bohuchot, William Coleman, Frankie Wong and other "guys in ties" is nicely summarized by Peyton Wolcott. Luckily for us all, Dr Groppel was, well, let's use the word "cleared."
Somewhat oddly, Dr Groppel used to be a rather important figure on the masthead for school banking outfit Moak, Casey. He still shows up on the front page -- see top of this post -- but the links don't seem to go anywhere anymore.
But not to worry. Dr Groppel is NOT confined to the wage he earns from Pegasus Texas Holdings. No, Dr Groppel is now working with the Lancaster ISD's news planning team, Cambridge.
As it happens, Cambridge does not yet acknowledge that Dr Groppel, ex-Lancaster ISD superintendent and approver of the Dallas ISD technology plan, is among the consultant's planning associates. Any day now, I suppose.
Racket -- a business that obtains money through fraud or extortion; an illegal or dishonest practice -- a clamor or uproar.
Also known as the "good ol' boys" network.
The racket is back. The players may change, but the game remains the same.
Mark this down and see how reliable my "clamor" is, compared to the mouth-noise of some self-styled "leaders" in this area.
I predict Lancaster ISD hires a new architect --the SHW Group. When you care enough to spend the very most -- SHW are the go-to guys. Bye bye, Steve Hulsey and Corgan Schools.
I predict Lancaster ISD tosses Matt Boles of RBC Dain Rausch under the bus. They'll bring in new bond advisors from the firm Moak Casey. This, despite the flowery praise Larry Lewis always heaps upon Boles as a 'true friend of this district". Bye, Matt. It's been fun, no hard feelings, nothing personal, just the racket, you know.
I predict a "bond steering committee" will be appointed before Christmas, 2008. Strangely, the majority of bond committee membes will have been members of the "strategic planning committee" that is still to be formed. "Red" Whiddon and the "School Business Group" will NOT be facilitating. Bye bye, Red.
I predict Dr Larry Lewis will violate state law regarding similar committees, specifically, the Texas Education Code . I further predict attorney Cynthia Hill and conservator James Damm will find other priorities to worry about. Hey, team. it's only a law...
I predict the 07-08 acheivements of the Lancaster Middle School will be attributed to local hero Eugene Young but that the TEA-appointed intervention led by Bobby Parker -- old white guy from Waxahachie -- will be completely obscured. Sorry Bobby. Hey, Bobby, want a secret mission to the High School?
Speaking of old white guys, I predict no praise or publicity for perennial not-quite-entitled-to-the-title-Chief-Financial-Officer Ted Warren. Certainly he'll get no more credit for salvaging any of the LISD's finances in the coming year than he was offered in May 2007. Just as Cheryl Peoples was praised to the sky for her long hours during the construction of an 06-07 ledger to be audited - while rescue consultant Warren was never publically mentioned -- I predict this year's budget process will rely heavily on the man Lewis forced out of this district in 2005, without actually mentioning, let alone praising, the white guy's efforts.
And I predict this ommission even though Dr Lewis begged the board, TWICE, to re-hire Warren; a second bite at the apple from the full board after a quorum failed to approve Warren's hire , 2-2-1, in the previous month. Hi Ted, welcome home.
And still speaking of old white guys, I predict former trustee Russ Johnson soon will be in the back in spotlight. Not, I fear, enjoying his new role as local spokesman for Fiends of Texas Public Schools. For that, Russ has impeccable credentials, being one of the few trustees refusing to allow taxpayer funds to buy his meals at board social events, and refusing travel expense reimbursements for his training and other necessary trips. Unfortunately, with the collapse of new Trustee Cheryl Wright under the rudeness and mockery of Ed Kirkland, Russ is, I predict, a leading contender for apppointment to re-fill that seat until May elections. This allows Russ to exercise his self-proclaimed ignorance about the complexities of school finance law. It also affords him the on-going opportunity to lecture us all about the biggest problem in public schools: too much money "wasted" --as he puts it -- doing maintenance on infrastructure. So we'll soon see Russ and the FOTPS fiends and the Lewis-and-Kirkland song and dance team stumping for a new bond at civic clubs, church groups, and town meetings all over Lancaster. I'd welcome you back, Russ, but then, you never really went away, did you?
Also known as the "good ol' boys" network.
The racket is back. The players may change, but the game remains the same.
Mark this down and see how reliable my "clamor" is, compared to the mouth-noise of some self-styled "leaders" in this area.
I predict Lancaster ISD hires a new architect --the SHW Group. When you care enough to spend the very most -- SHW are the go-to guys. Bye bye, Steve Hulsey and Corgan Schools.
I predict Lancaster ISD tosses Matt Boles of RBC Dain Rausch under the bus. They'll bring in new bond advisors from the firm Moak Casey. This, despite the flowery praise Larry Lewis always heaps upon Boles as a 'true friend of this district". Bye, Matt. It's been fun, no hard feelings, nothing personal, just the racket, you know.
I predict a "bond steering committee" will be appointed before Christmas, 2008. Strangely, the majority of bond committee membes will have been members of the "strategic planning committee" that is still to be formed. "Red" Whiddon and the "School Business Group" will NOT be facilitating. Bye bye, Red.
I predict Dr Larry Lewis will violate state law regarding similar committees, specifically, the Texas Education Code . I further predict attorney Cynthia Hill and conservator James Damm will find other priorities to worry about. Hey, team. it's only a law...
I predict the 07-08 acheivements of the Lancaster Middle School will be attributed to local hero Eugene Young but that the TEA-appointed intervention led by Bobby Parker -- old white guy from Waxahachie -- will be completely obscured. Sorry Bobby. Hey, Bobby, want a secret mission to the High School?
Speaking of old white guys, I predict no praise or publicity for perennial not-quite-entitled-to-the-title-Chief-Financial-Officer Ted Warren. Certainly he'll get no more credit for salvaging any of the LISD's finances in the coming year than he was offered in May 2007. Just as Cheryl Peoples was praised to the sky for her long hours during the construction of an 06-07 ledger to be audited - while rescue consultant Warren was never publically mentioned -- I predict this year's budget process will rely heavily on the man Lewis forced out of this district in 2005, without actually mentioning, let alone praising, the white guy's efforts.
And I predict this ommission even though Dr Lewis begged the board, TWICE, to re-hire Warren; a second bite at the apple from the full board after a quorum failed to approve Warren's hire , 2-2-1, in the previous month. Hi Ted, welcome home.
And still speaking of old white guys, I predict former trustee Russ Johnson soon will be in the back in spotlight. Not, I fear, enjoying his new role as local spokesman for Fiends of Texas Public Schools. For that, Russ has impeccable credentials, being one of the few trustees refusing to allow taxpayer funds to buy his meals at board social events, and refusing travel expense reimbursements for his training and other necessary trips. Unfortunately, with the collapse of new Trustee Cheryl Wright under the rudeness and mockery of Ed Kirkland, Russ is, I predict, a leading contender for apppointment to re-fill that seat until May elections. This allows Russ to exercise his self-proclaimed ignorance about the complexities of school finance law. It also affords him the on-going opportunity to lecture us all about the biggest problem in public schools: too much money "wasted" --as he puts it -- doing maintenance on infrastructure. So we'll soon see Russ and the FOTPS fiends and the Lewis-and-Kirkland song and dance team stumping for a new bond at civic clubs, church groups, and town meetings all over Lancaster. I'd welcome you back, Russ, but then, you never really went away, did you?
Monday, July 07, 2008
Eugene Smith was accused of embezzlement in October 2007. Smith pled guilty to embezzlement December 10th, 2007. He was sentenced to federal prison by a judge Rosemary M Collyer on May 8th, 2008. (US District court)
Why isn't he in custody? He drew six months of confinement -- he should have started his term by now, and should still be marking up the walls of a prison somewhere.
But he has not started to serve his time. He has certainly not come and gone -- been put in and been released. I'm looking at data from the federal "Bureau of Prisons" that indicates he's never been processed into the system.
Now, sometimes, a convicted felon makes a deal with the courts and prosecuters to give evidence against a "bigger fish". By turning over what he knows about other criminal activities, a felon may stay out of prison, or get a reduced sentence, or even enter a "witness protection program" and start a new life under a new name.
It happens.
But what could Eugene P Smith possibly know about other criminals who might be of interest to federal investigators?
Why isn't he in custody? He drew six months of confinement -- he should have started his term by now, and should still be marking up the walls of a prison somewhere.
But he has not started to serve his time. He has certainly not come and gone -- been put in and been released. I'm looking at data from the federal "Bureau of Prisons" that indicates he's never been processed into the system.
Now, sometimes, a convicted felon makes a deal with the courts and prosecuters to give evidence against a "bigger fish". By turning over what he knows about other criminal activities, a felon may stay out of prison, or get a reduced sentence, or even enter a "witness protection program" and start a new life under a new name.
It happens.
But what could Eugene P Smith possibly know about other criminals who might be of interest to federal investigators?
Sunday, July 06, 2008
A couple quirky things.
Why are the the LISD board's July 2008 meeting agendas posted in the 2008-2009 directory structure? Shouldn't the business of 2007-08 (fiscal year ending 31 August) be wrapped up before we start the meetings for 2008-09?
Odd to have a Wednesday meeting (the 9th) rather than a Monday. Another change by the new board members.
Strange to see the agenda proposing to "approve administrative appointments." I might have supposed the budget still needed review before the number -- and pay rates -- for administrative appointments could be discussed.
Oddest of all -- Didn't President Morris propose to introduce conservator James Damm to the board at that meeting? Are these introductions so intimate they must occur in the executive session?
Why are the the LISD board's July 2008 meeting agendas posted in the 2008-2009 directory structure? Shouldn't the business of 2007-08 (fiscal year ending 31 August) be wrapped up before we start the meetings for 2008-09?
Odd to have a Wednesday meeting (the 9th) rather than a Monday. Another change by the new board members.
Strange to see the agenda proposing to "approve administrative appointments." I might have supposed the budget still needed review before the number -- and pay rates -- for administrative appointments could be discussed.
Oddest of all -- Didn't President Morris propose to introduce conservator James Damm to the board at that meeting? Are these introductions so intimate they must occur in the executive session?
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Sigs
A "sig" is the little block of text, usually four or fewer lines, most e-mail programs append to the end of a message. It's supposed to be, like a handwritten signature, a revealation of character and a marker of individuality.
Below is the "sig" Dr Lewis is appending to his messages:
"Sent by God and Committed to Children First,
Dr.Larry D. Lewis"
Reminds me of the other things sent by God:
... frogs, lice, hail, boils, locust, dark clouds and rivers of blood ...
A "sig" is the little block of text, usually four or fewer lines, most e-mail programs append to the end of a message. It's supposed to be, like a handwritten signature, a revealation of character and a marker of individuality.
Below is the "sig" Dr Lewis is appending to his messages:
"Sent by God and Committed to Children First,
Dr.Larry D. Lewis"
Reminds me of the other things sent by God:
... frogs, lice, hail, boils, locust, dark clouds and rivers of blood ...
Beleaguered Lancaster School District takes Another Blow
Wednesday afternoon, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) released campus ratings, based on TAKS test data, for the entire state. The reports for Lancaster show the district remains, as in 2006, “Academically Acceptable”.
However, the district is only barely holding steady with that rating. For 2006, the nine traditional* schools of LISD had zero “Exemplary” campuses, two “Recognized”, five “Acceptable” and two “Unacceptable”. For 2007 the rankings are zero “Exemplary”, zero “Recognized”, seven “Acceptable” and two “Unacceptable”.
The two campus that dropped in the ratings from “Recognized” in 2006 to the lower “Acceptable” standard are elementary schools. Pleasant Run Elementary and the newly-constructed Houston Elementary are the schools that slipped to the lower “Recognized” status. Among other elementary schools, Rolling Hills ES remained “Unacceptable”, unchanged in 2007 from its 2006 rating.
In good news, the Lancaster Middle School has gained ground. The Middle School configuration reached an “Acceptable” rating in 2007, up from the older Lancaster Junior High’s scores of “Unacceptable” in 2006.
The High School has progressed in the wrong direction, slipping from “Acceptable” to “Academically Unacceptable” for 2007. The High School is the largest campus in the district. Over 2000 students are enrolled in the HS from the district’s total enrollment of some 6000. The district administration had hoped and planned that the new $73 million HS facility, and its luxurious athletic arenas, would boost both morale and test scores among the students. The current rating comes as a disappointment. This one rating leaves a third of the community’s students attending an “Unacceptable” facility.
The ratings are not expected to be addressed at the Thursday, 2 August, LISD budget workshop. However, the following Monday 6 August, the regularly scheduled meeting of the Lancaster Board of Trustees is sure to include some comment on the results.
This will be particularly apt in light of recent reports by the superintendent regarding his progress within the district since his arrival in 2003-04. For the rating year 2004, TEA awarded Lancaster High School, Junior High, and “Intermediate” schools an “Acceptable” ranking, and two Elementary Schools, the “Recognized” status. As rated by the TEA, five of the nine LISD campuses have lost ground under Dr Larry Lewis’s leadership.
* The district runs a tenth school, the JD HALL learning center, as an alternative program for students with disciplinary and/or other challenges. The TEA rating for this alternative education program is “Other”.
The J.D. HALL of the name is actually a proper name of a former district leader. The facility was re-christened in 2004. ** The Hall family recently donated memorabilia to establish a small museum or shrine to their patriarch, “ J.D. “ Lancaster residents are encouraged to visit and pay their respects.
Contrary to inference the facility name and function does NOT indicate the facility or “hall” in which the district warehouses it’s “Juvenile Delinquents”.
** Prior to January 2004 the alternate education center was known as “Rocky Crest”. Just who Rocky Crest was and what role he (or she) had in the district’s history is unclear to this author.
Wednesday afternoon, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) released campus ratings, based on TAKS test data, for the entire state. The reports for Lancaster show the district remains, as in 2006, “Academically Acceptable”.
However, the district is only barely holding steady with that rating. For 2006, the nine traditional* schools of LISD had zero “Exemplary” campuses, two “Recognized”, five “Acceptable” and two “Unacceptable”. For 2007 the rankings are zero “Exemplary”, zero “Recognized”, seven “Acceptable” and two “Unacceptable”.
The two campus that dropped in the ratings from “Recognized” in 2006 to the lower “Acceptable” standard are elementary schools. Pleasant Run Elementary and the newly-constructed Houston Elementary are the schools that slipped to the lower “Recognized” status. Among other elementary schools, Rolling Hills ES remained “Unacceptable”, unchanged in 2007 from its 2006 rating.
In good news, the Lancaster Middle School has gained ground. The Middle School configuration reached an “Acceptable” rating in 2007, up from the older Lancaster Junior High’s scores of “Unacceptable” in 2006.
The High School has progressed in the wrong direction, slipping from “Acceptable” to “Academically Unacceptable” for 2007. The High School is the largest campus in the district. Over 2000 students are enrolled in the HS from the district’s total enrollment of some 6000. The district administration had hoped and planned that the new $73 million HS facility, and its luxurious athletic arenas, would boost both morale and test scores among the students. The current rating comes as a disappointment. This one rating leaves a third of the community’s students attending an “Unacceptable” facility.
The ratings are not expected to be addressed at the Thursday, 2 August, LISD budget workshop. However, the following Monday 6 August, the regularly scheduled meeting of the Lancaster Board of Trustees is sure to include some comment on the results.
This will be particularly apt in light of recent reports by the superintendent regarding his progress within the district since his arrival in 2003-04. For the rating year 2004, TEA awarded Lancaster High School, Junior High, and “Intermediate” schools an “Acceptable” ranking, and two Elementary Schools, the “Recognized” status. As rated by the TEA, five of the nine LISD campuses have lost ground under Dr Larry Lewis’s leadership.
* The district runs a tenth school, the JD HALL learning center, as an alternative program for students with disciplinary and/or other challenges. The TEA rating for this alternative education program is “Other”.
The J.D. HALL of the name is actually a proper name of a former district leader. The facility was re-christened in 2004. ** The Hall family recently donated memorabilia to establish a small museum or shrine to their patriarch, “ J.D. “ Lancaster residents are encouraged to visit and pay their respects.
Contrary to inference the facility name and function does NOT indicate the facility or “hall” in which the district warehouses it’s “Juvenile Delinquents”.
** Prior to January 2004 the alternate education center was known as “Rocky Crest”. Just who Rocky Crest was and what role he (or she) had in the district’s history is unclear to this author.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Is it possible to get rid of a superintendent or school board trustee?
FAQs from the TASB, 2006, legislative session review
ETHICS
Recall and Financial Statements
Recall elections and requiring school board members to file financial disclosure statements nearly passed the legislature. The recall legislation, which targeted only school board trustees, did not pass because the author of the bill agreed to study the issue to allow input from everyone on the specifics of the legislation.
One proposed bill required only 10 percent of the voter turnout from the last election to recall a school board member. For example, if 300 votes are cast, then 30 signatures of registered voters is all that would be required to overturn an election result.
Currently, no law permits recall of any school board official in Texas.
Lawmakers tried to create a laundry list of detailed responsibilities that school board members must meet to prevent a recall election from being triggered (i.e. attendance at meetings).
Removal of school board members, however, is allowable under current law using the county or district attorney. It has only been done once since inception and is considered to be a political nightmare for the CA or DA’s office.
Attempts were made to pass a requirement that school board members file financial disclosure statements with the Texas Ethics Commission similar to other elected officials (including legislators).
Legislators heard anecdotal information that trustees “are not doing their job in the interests of the people who elected them.” Many believe trustees should police themselves if they don’t want the legislature to do it for them.
"Nightmare", huh?
Not, however, "impossible".
FAQs from the TASB, 2006, legislative session review
ETHICS
Recall and Financial Statements
Recall elections and requiring school board members to file financial disclosure statements nearly passed the legislature. The recall legislation, which targeted only school board trustees, did not pass because the author of the bill agreed to study the issue to allow input from everyone on the specifics of the legislation.
One proposed bill required only 10 percent of the voter turnout from the last election to recall a school board member. For example, if 300 votes are cast, then 30 signatures of registered voters is all that would be required to overturn an election result.
Currently, no law permits recall of any school board official in Texas.
Lawmakers tried to create a laundry list of detailed responsibilities that school board members must meet to prevent a recall election from being triggered (i.e. attendance at meetings).
Removal of school board members, however, is allowable under current law using the county or district attorney. It has only been done once since inception and is considered to be a political nightmare for the CA or DA’s office.
Attempts were made to pass a requirement that school board members file financial disclosure statements with the Texas Ethics Commission similar to other elected officials (including legislators).
Legislators heard anecdotal information that trustees “are not doing their job in the interests of the people who elected them.” Many believe trustees should police themselves if they don’t want the legislature to do it for them.
"Nightmare", huh?
Not, however, "impossible".
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Thinking about late shifts ... I managed the second shift, (some 900 employees) at my companies operation in Virginia for a few years. Not my favorite assignment. When times were booming 2nd shift ran AFTER first shift, so my "day" ran from 3 in the afternoon to 1 or 2 the following morning. (the boss has to arrive early and stay late.) When business fell off the shifts overlapped, so 2nd shift started at 11:00 and ran till 9 or 10 at night.
I felt there was NEVER enough time to sleep.
Put up with that stuff for 3 years ...
Anyway, sleep and the lack thereof as applied to teenagers is discussed in a number of studies online here and there:
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/06/everything_you_always_wanted_t.php
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/09/more_on_sleep_in_adolescents.php
http://circadiana.blogspot.com/2006/04/more-on-sleep-in-adolescents.html
So, I wonder what the school nurses and the TEA medical-type authorities are thinking about the effect of a longer day on the student's sleep cycles.
I felt there was NEVER enough time to sleep.
Put up with that stuff for 3 years ...
Anyway, sleep and the lack thereof as applied to teenagers is discussed in a number of studies online here and there:
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/06/everything_you_always_wanted_t.php
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/09/more_on_sleep_in_adolescents.php
http://circadiana.blogspot.com/2006/04/more-on-sleep-in-adolescents.html
So, I wonder what the school nurses and the TEA medical-type authorities are thinking about the effect of a longer day on the student's sleep cycles.
An old (2006) article on the 4-day week can be found, here:
http://www.ednews.org/articles/1158/1/An-Unknown-School-Reform-The-Four-Day-Week/Page1.html
One of the things that makes me suspicious is that some very good arguments for such an idea are NOT being made. It's like Sherlock Holmes's "dog, that did not bark, in the night time." Well, why didn't he bark, and why doesn't Dr Lewis explain how the extended day can save BOND money?
Say (for convenience of math, not because the figure is accurate) the High School has 20 chemistry laboratory classrooms with work stations for 20 students each. So for each period of the day, 400 high school kids can do chemistry. (We're taking about the kind with sodium and boron not hormones and pheromones...) With a five period day the MOST, the maximum number, of chemistry students that can physically sit down to a lab workstation is 2000. But the school has 2200 hundred kids, and they district expects 2800 any day now. So, what to do? Well, if the school could somehow run SEVEN periods a day, 400 kids times 7 is 2800 kids at lab workstations. We don't need no more stinkin' classrooms - we just need more hours in the day.
Now, that seems to me to be a very obvious benefit of the longer day. Why doesn't the superintendent make it?
Well, first, of course, he wants (in my opinion) to pass a bond and build the bigger building anyhow. He'd much rather leave behind the big Taj Mahal monument to his own ego than solve the problem at lower cost.
Second, he could extend periods and hours without making ALL kids do ten hours a day, in a four day week. He could implement "shifts" in which half the kids(and their chemistry teachers) start, (in this example) science classes at 7:30 or so and get out of school at 15:30, (taking other classes after, of course) while another shift starts at say 9:30 and goes until 17:30. Overlapping 8 hour days, five days a week. The chemistry teachers of course would have to double as math teachers or some other subject, and class size waivers to allow 25 or so students per class in lecture/recitation classrooms (not limited by lab space) would also be necessary. But getting more hours use out of the limited labs does NOT take more hours from each kid or each teacher. Except in Larry Lewis's Lancaster.
Third, Larry Lewis just doesn't like to do math. The example I citied with 20 classes of 20 times five verus times seven? That sort of thing confuses Dr Larry Lewis, PhD. He just isn't very good at math, as far as I can tell. And so he tries hard not to make mathematical arguments in his presentations. Or, at least, he hasn't since 2005 when he and I had our first, and last, face-to-face meeting in his office and I quizzed him about one of his powerpoint slides ...
Fourth, I believe Dr Lewis doesn't (or didn't) think it was necessary. The board, the parents, and the TEA all trust him, he thought. All he has to do is present a notion, and they'll all leap to embrace and endorse it. Why bother running the numbers?
So, that's my guess, (and it's ONLY a guess) about that. But what I'm trying to say is that the ten hour days isn't ridiculous. We might want to look at it seriously. For selected campuses, sometime next year.
This year, this late in the year ... what a sad joke.
http://www.ednews.org/articles/1158/1/An-Unknown-School-Reform-The-Four-Day-Week/Page1.html
One of the things that makes me suspicious is that some very good arguments for such an idea are NOT being made. It's like Sherlock Holmes's "dog, that did not bark, in the night time." Well, why didn't he bark, and why doesn't Dr Lewis explain how the extended day can save BOND money?
Say (for convenience of math, not because the figure is accurate) the High School has 20 chemistry laboratory classrooms with work stations for 20 students each. So for each period of the day, 400 high school kids can do chemistry. (We're taking about the kind with sodium and boron not hormones and pheromones...) With a five period day the MOST, the maximum number, of chemistry students that can physically sit down to a lab workstation is 2000. But the school has 2200 hundred kids, and they district expects 2800 any day now. So, what to do? Well, if the school could somehow run SEVEN periods a day, 400 kids times 7 is 2800 kids at lab workstations. We don't need no more stinkin' classrooms - we just need more hours in the day.
Now, that seems to me to be a very obvious benefit of the longer day. Why doesn't the superintendent make it?
Well, first, of course, he wants (in my opinion) to pass a bond and build the bigger building anyhow. He'd much rather leave behind the big Taj Mahal monument to his own ego than solve the problem at lower cost.
Second, he could extend periods and hours without making ALL kids do ten hours a day, in a four day week. He could implement "shifts" in which half the kids(and their chemistry teachers) start, (in this example) science classes at 7:30 or so and get out of school at 15:30, (taking other classes after, of course) while another shift starts at say 9:30 and goes until 17:30. Overlapping 8 hour days, five days a week. The chemistry teachers of course would have to double as math teachers or some other subject, and class size waivers to allow 25 or so students per class in lecture/recitation classrooms (not limited by lab space) would also be necessary. But getting more hours use out of the limited labs does NOT take more hours from each kid or each teacher. Except in Larry Lewis's Lancaster.
Third, Larry Lewis just doesn't like to do math. The example I citied with 20 classes of 20 times five verus times seven? That sort of thing confuses Dr Larry Lewis, PhD. He just isn't very good at math, as far as I can tell. And so he tries hard not to make mathematical arguments in his presentations. Or, at least, he hasn't since 2005 when he and I had our first, and last, face-to-face meeting in his office and I quizzed him about one of his powerpoint slides ...
Fourth, I believe Dr Lewis doesn't (or didn't) think it was necessary. The board, the parents, and the TEA all trust him, he thought. All he has to do is present a notion, and they'll all leap to embrace and endorse it. Why bother running the numbers?
So, that's my guess, (and it's ONLY a guess) about that. But what I'm trying to say is that the ten hour days isn't ridiculous. We might want to look at it seriously. For selected campuses, sometime next year.
This year, this late in the year ... what a sad joke.
Evaluation Instrument.
Like everything in the district this year, we're a month or so behind schedule on this little requirement. But as part of the annual budget LAST year, the LISD Board of Trustees published the superintendent's "evaluation instrument".
Elsewhere , I have commented that the Superintendent's evaluation process is like " a runner not only setting his own distance, but holding his own stopwatch. At the end of the race, don't you suppose he could at least tell everybody how fast he thinks he's run? "
So, what five to eight goals has this Superintendent set for himself for this year? Are these goals higher, or "more achievable", than last year's goals? Who will be measuring the progress and publishing the benchmarks?
Does it make any difference that the Trustees have a new board President? Does it matter that Larry Lewis, PhD, is no longer the ONLY PhD on the "Team of Eight" ?
Like everything in the district this year, we're a month or so behind schedule on this little requirement. But as part of the annual budget LAST year, the LISD Board of Trustees published the superintendent's "evaluation instrument".
Elsewhere , I have commented that the Superintendent's evaluation process is like " a runner not only setting his own distance, but holding his own stopwatch. At the end of the race, don't you suppose he could at least tell everybody how fast he thinks he's run? "
So, what five to eight goals has this Superintendent set for himself for this year? Are these goals higher, or "more achievable", than last year's goals? Who will be measuring the progress and publishing the benchmarks?
Does it make any difference that the Trustees have a new board President? Does it matter that Larry Lewis, PhD, is no longer the ONLY PhD on the "Team of Eight" ?
Are you old enough to remember back in the 1990's, before blogging?
Remember "mail lists" ?
Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPP2007/ . Sign up to join the list and get news and views from everybody who is anybody in the effort to restore accountability to the Lancaster ISD.
Remember "mail lists" ?
Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPP2007/ . Sign up to join the list and get news and views from everybody who is anybody in the effort to restore accountability to the Lancaster ISD.
The TEA heard from both the supporters and opponents of the Lancaster ISD's proposed 4-day school week on Thursday. A minor issue arose with having present too MANY Trustees from the LISD board. This risked a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act. The five members attending, (Sue Mendoza, Ed Kirkland, Marie Elliot, Marjorie King, and Carolyn Morris) would have constituted a quorum of the LISD Board of Trustees. The risk was resolved when President Ed Kirkland and most-junior-Trustee Marjorie King voluntarily left the hearing room. Acting Commissioner Scott presided and gave Dr Lewis, on the affirmative, equal time with Trustee Carolyn Morris for the opposition.
Friday the TEA followed up with a faxed request to the District for additional information. Reportedly over 15 substantive concerned with the proposal were raised to the LISD Board For instance, Dr Lewis told the commission that "Transitioning to a 4-day week will allow for implementation of structured science lessons. " The TEA fax quoted the claim and asked "How are CURRENT science lessons implemented? "
The TEA addressed issues regarding meal breaks, staff development requirements, educators' employment contracts, and the districts compliance with "Site Based Committtee" requirements of the Texas Education Code TEC 33.005. ( The "District Site Based Committee" should not be confused with the committee responsible for the "District Improvement Plan" required under TEC 11.252 It is not clear that either committee, required by statute, has reviewed or approved the 4-day proposal.)
The TEA has 30 days in which to consider the proposal. Approval for the waiver, if granted, would provide parents approximately a week to adapt to the new schedule.
Friday the TEA followed up with a faxed request to the District for additional information. Reportedly over 15 substantive concerned with the proposal were raised to the LISD Board For instance, Dr Lewis told the commission that "Transitioning to a 4-day week will allow for implementation of structured science lessons. " The TEA fax quoted the claim and asked "How are CURRENT science lessons implemented? "
The TEA addressed issues regarding meal breaks, staff development requirements, educators' employment contracts, and the districts compliance with "Site Based Committtee" requirements of the Texas Education Code TEC 33.005. ( The "District Site Based Committee" should not be confused with the committee responsible for the "District Improvement Plan" required under TEC 11.252 It is not clear that either committee, required by statute, has reviewed or approved the 4-day proposal.)
The TEA has 30 days in which to consider the proposal. Approval for the waiver, if granted, would provide parents approximately a week to adapt to the new schedule.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
The voice crying in the wilderness is starting to hear a chorus joining in.
Visit http://www.savelisd.blogspot.com/
Visit http://www.savelisd.blogspot.com/
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The remnant of Today Newspaper has a feature today regarding Larry Lewis's response to the defeat of the district's bond proposal:
Dr Lewis believes that if enough parents had received the district's message, the opposition and their motivations wouldn't have mattered. "If enough parents vote, we don't have a thing to worry about," he said. "Even with all the information, our parents don't vote. We're looking at about 2,400 votes and 1,360 early votes. When we get the overall numbers I'll be surprised if we had 500-600 parents vote. That's the thing we need to do a better job on. First, how do we get the parents involved in their children's education? Then we have to get them to vote." He said a group sold their opposition to the bond in return for political support in upcoming elections.
Let's see if I have that straight. The majority of Lancaster voters are lazy; and won't be moved to the ballot box. Another huge number of voters are stupid, and have been fooled by a few voters who are just evil -- as evidenced by the fact that these few disagree with Dr Lewis. There are only a few hundred voters who are energetic, wise, virtuous, and above all, obedient ... acquiesent to Dr Lewis's will.
I'm not sure this is exactly a winning message to take into another election, but if that's how the man feels -- perception becomes reality.
But just why was Dr Lewis unable to persuade anybody? One thing even his detractors will confess is that Dr Lewis certainly spent enough money, put in enough personal face-to-face time, and tried really really hard.
He's not lazy.
Let's consider the scope of the failure here. Even after Dr Lewis and his supporters repeatedly spent a ton of time and money they still failed to turn out the "base" of support he claims to believe is lurking in the community. In three successive bond campaigns Dr Lewis has promoted an identical "tear down" plan for the district's elementary schools. His supporting Political Action Committees have taken out full page ads in Today Newspapers, and multiple ads in Belo's "Neighbors" weekly. The PAC had huge signs in yards and along roadways all over town. They mailed out slick advertisements to every postal customer in the district including endorsements from county commissioner John Wiley Price, Senator Royce West, and Mayor Joe Tillotson.
(Excuse me, but just exactly who is selling just exactly what in return for political support in upcoming elections here? )
The district itself dared skirt the line against electioneering. Dr Lewis directed the district website to post "informational" material about the bond -- much of it deceptive. (For instance, using the term "new" schools instead of "replacement"; suggesting the HB1 tax reductions would RESULT from a "yes" vote on the bond rather than arrive independently of such a vote; and misquoting the "current" tax rate at $1.74 when the central appraisal district had already posted $1.40. ) In both fall and spring the headline of his "community" newsletters regarded the need for the bond; and no such newsletters were published when a bond is NOT in the offing. Huge "your bond funds in use, thank you Lancaster" signs went up on school properties where the 2004 bonds were finally being applied, and "future site of your school" signs went up on property where the developer hasn't even finished draining the site. Even tax-payer funded city newsletters were co-opted into advertising for the bond. Dr Lewis and his staff spent innumerable hours in churches, town hall meetings, joint meetings with the city, talking to business groups, appearing in front of TV cameras.
Three times we've been through this.
Thousands of dollars and hundreds of LISD employee man-hours were committted to Dr Lewis's "tear down" propositions. He's taken money from the Allen Group, the Corgan architects, the Gallagher Construction company, from John Wiley Price's re-election campaign ... the Superintendent's "tear down" plan collected support from everybody but the voters. He's dragged out the city manager, the mayor, the Lancaster Economic Development Council, various city councilmen, all to do nothing but spend an evening nodding their heads in agreement while Dr Lewis talks. He talked to parents. He talked to civic clubs. He talked and talked and promised and cajoled and wheedled. He's begged, he's borrowed, and he's -- publicly and loudly -- prayed.
All that talk, all that time and all that money; every word, every dime, every minute, now been proven wasted.
Wasted time and money doesn't discourage Larry Lewis, of course. Hey! It's not HIS money.
As for the time, well, he spent most of it in the spotlight with a microphone in his hand. From his perspective, maybe it wasn't such a waste of time, after all.
Dr Lewis believes that if enough parents had received the district's message, the opposition and their motivations wouldn't have mattered. "If enough parents vote, we don't have a thing to worry about," he said. "Even with all the information, our parents don't vote. We're looking at about 2,400 votes and 1,360 early votes. When we get the overall numbers I'll be surprised if we had 500-600 parents vote. That's the thing we need to do a better job on. First, how do we get the parents involved in their children's education? Then we have to get them to vote." He said a group sold their opposition to the bond in return for political support in upcoming elections.
Let's see if I have that straight. The majority of Lancaster voters are lazy; and won't be moved to the ballot box. Another huge number of voters are stupid, and have been fooled by a few voters who are just evil -- as evidenced by the fact that these few disagree with Dr Lewis. There are only a few hundred voters who are energetic, wise, virtuous, and above all, obedient ... acquiesent to Dr Lewis's will.
I'm not sure this is exactly a winning message to take into another election, but if that's how the man feels -- perception becomes reality.
But just why was Dr Lewis unable to persuade anybody? One thing even his detractors will confess is that Dr Lewis certainly spent enough money, put in enough personal face-to-face time, and tried really really hard.
He's not lazy.
Let's consider the scope of the failure here. Even after Dr Lewis and his supporters repeatedly spent a ton of time and money they still failed to turn out the "base" of support he claims to believe is lurking in the community. In three successive bond campaigns Dr Lewis has promoted an identical "tear down" plan for the district's elementary schools. His supporting Political Action Committees have taken out full page ads in Today Newspapers, and multiple ads in Belo's "Neighbors" weekly. The PAC had huge signs in yards and along roadways all over town. They mailed out slick advertisements to every postal customer in the district including endorsements from county commissioner John Wiley Price, Senator Royce West, and Mayor Joe Tillotson.
(Excuse me, but just exactly who is selling just exactly what in return for political support in upcoming elections here? )
The district itself dared skirt the line against electioneering. Dr Lewis directed the district website to post "informational" material about the bond -- much of it deceptive. (For instance, using the term "new" schools instead of "replacement"; suggesting the HB1 tax reductions would RESULT from a "yes" vote on the bond rather than arrive independently of such a vote; and misquoting the "current" tax rate at $1.74 when the central appraisal district had already posted $1.40. ) In both fall and spring the headline of his "community" newsletters regarded the need for the bond; and no such newsletters were published when a bond is NOT in the offing. Huge "your bond funds in use, thank you Lancaster" signs went up on school properties where the 2004 bonds were finally being applied, and "future site of your school" signs went up on property where the developer hasn't even finished draining the site. Even tax-payer funded city newsletters were co-opted into advertising for the bond. Dr Lewis and his staff spent innumerable hours in churches, town hall meetings, joint meetings with the city, talking to business groups, appearing in front of TV cameras.
Three times we've been through this.
Thousands of dollars and hundreds of LISD employee man-hours were committted to Dr Lewis's "tear down" propositions. He's taken money from the Allen Group, the Corgan architects, the Gallagher Construction company, from John Wiley Price's re-election campaign ... the Superintendent's "tear down" plan collected support from everybody but the voters. He's dragged out the city manager, the mayor, the Lancaster Economic Development Council, various city councilmen, all to do nothing but spend an evening nodding their heads in agreement while Dr Lewis talks. He talked to parents. He talked to civic clubs. He talked and talked and promised and cajoled and wheedled. He's begged, he's borrowed, and he's -- publicly and loudly -- prayed.
All that talk, all that time and all that money; every word, every dime, every minute, now been proven wasted.
Wasted time and money doesn't discourage Larry Lewis, of course. Hey! It's not HIS money.
As for the time, well, he spent most of it in the spotlight with a microphone in his hand. From his perspective, maybe it wasn't such a waste of time, after all.
The Taxpayers Involved In Governement Education Reform (T.I.G.E.R.)s are a shoestring, grassroots political action committee in Lancaster. For the last three elections the TIGERs have gathered a few bucks each from a few hundred donors. With that limited funded the TIGERS sent out a few postcards discussing the Lancaster ISD's three recent school bond proposals.
Each election, the bonds were defeated.
All that the TIGERs have done is channel the voices of the Lancaster community. We didn't --couldn't --- create this sentiment. We simply help people in the community talk to each other, ask questions and find their polling place. The district refuses to hear, much less answer, the questions, so they keep getting surprised by the election results.
Will the community support building more schools, new schools? Yes, sure. Will voters favor demolishing existing schools – as they’ve already been done on one campus?. No, no, and no. Clearly, Lancaster is not Highland Park, and "tear downs" aren't a popular idea in our community. Three times we've been asked to approve a plan involving "tear downs" and three times we've rejected that plan. When will voters approve MORE buildings on NEW sites? As soon as that proposition hits the ballots.
Is the community willing to tax itself to the max to build new schools? We're within 11 cents of state tax caps -- and our valuations will support a $60 million dollar or so bond package. Will we go to the max for our kids? Yes, sure. Will we approve a package that asks for a blank check -- 30, 80, 100 million more than our credit limit? No, no and no. Three times we've been offered a bond package that exceed our debt cap and three times we’ve rejected it. Our board is obviously not shy about frequent bond elections. When will voters approve maximum tax rates? As soon as proposed maximum is really the max.
Is the community willing to borrow for a new "teacher resource center", a "maintenance center", a bus barn, stadium renovations, and short term buys of computers, staff cars, and grounds keeping equipment? No, no, and no. Three times those proposals have been set before the voters and three times the voters have rejected those plans. When will voters put children first? When the propositions set the same priority.
Has the district used its 2004 bond funds wisely? For instance, when a $14 million dollar estimate for renovation works drew bids costing nearly $30 million, did the district attempt at least half of the renovation work? Did they go back to a citizens’ oversight committee to prioritize the projects with the money they had? No, no, and no. Oh, the money was spent LEGALLY, sure. It's legal to use 30-year loans to pay for choir robes, squad cars, computer software -- it's legal. But wise? And are those the reasons voters approved the 2004 loans? No. The point of separate propositions is to ensure each project and each school has a separate approved budget limit so funds don't slosh from one purpose today to another purpose tomorrow. When will voters approve bond propositions? When the vote makes a difference to the projects.
Is this some kind of anti-school, anti-child, anti-tax, anti-Superintendent effort? No, no, no, and no. The biggest problem our voters have with our superintendent is he insists on having his own way over the wishes of the voters. It's certainly not a racial thing. A black incumbant trustee who opposed the bond defeated a black challenger who supported it. A white incumbant trustee who supported the bond lost to a white challenger running on a "good stewardship" and accountability -- anti-bond -- platform. Will we support Dr Lewis? When he supports us.
Are the TIGERS going to defeat another bond package next November? If the proposals are the same a fourth time, the TIGERs will not have any difficulty whatever in continuing to channel the existing voter sentiments. But if the district comes back with four or five or so small packages dedicated to fixing existing schools, building more new classrooms, and focused on children first -- the TIGERs will be leading the effort to PASS the proposals.
Each election, the bonds were defeated.
All that the TIGERs have done is channel the voices of the Lancaster community. We didn't --couldn't --- create this sentiment. We simply help people in the community talk to each other, ask questions and find their polling place. The district refuses to hear, much less answer, the questions, so they keep getting surprised by the election results.
Will the community support building more schools, new schools? Yes, sure. Will voters favor demolishing existing schools – as they’ve already been done on one campus?. No, no, and no. Clearly, Lancaster is not Highland Park, and "tear downs" aren't a popular idea in our community. Three times we've been asked to approve a plan involving "tear downs" and three times we've rejected that plan. When will voters approve MORE buildings on NEW sites? As soon as that proposition hits the ballots.
Is the community willing to tax itself to the max to build new schools? We're within 11 cents of state tax caps -- and our valuations will support a $60 million dollar or so bond package. Will we go to the max for our kids? Yes, sure. Will we approve a package that asks for a blank check -- 30, 80, 100 million more than our credit limit? No, no and no. Three times we've been offered a bond package that exceed our debt cap and three times we’ve rejected it. Our board is obviously not shy about frequent bond elections. When will voters approve maximum tax rates? As soon as proposed maximum is really the max.
Is the community willing to borrow for a new "teacher resource center", a "maintenance center", a bus barn, stadium renovations, and short term buys of computers, staff cars, and grounds keeping equipment? No, no, and no. Three times those proposals have been set before the voters and three times the voters have rejected those plans. When will voters put children first? When the propositions set the same priority.
Has the district used its 2004 bond funds wisely? For instance, when a $14 million dollar estimate for renovation works drew bids costing nearly $30 million, did the district attempt at least half of the renovation work? Did they go back to a citizens’ oversight committee to prioritize the projects with the money they had? No, no, and no. Oh, the money was spent LEGALLY, sure. It's legal to use 30-year loans to pay for choir robes, squad cars, computer software -- it's legal. But wise? And are those the reasons voters approved the 2004 loans? No. The point of separate propositions is to ensure each project and each school has a separate approved budget limit so funds don't slosh from one purpose today to another purpose tomorrow. When will voters approve bond propositions? When the vote makes a difference to the projects.
Is this some kind of anti-school, anti-child, anti-tax, anti-Superintendent effort? No, no, no, and no. The biggest problem our voters have with our superintendent is he insists on having his own way over the wishes of the voters. It's certainly not a racial thing. A black incumbant trustee who opposed the bond defeated a black challenger who supported it. A white incumbant trustee who supported the bond lost to a white challenger running on a "good stewardship" and accountability -- anti-bond -- platform. Will we support Dr Lewis? When he supports us.
Are the TIGERS going to defeat another bond package next November? If the proposals are the same a fourth time, the TIGERs will not have any difficulty whatever in continuing to channel the existing voter sentiments. But if the district comes back with four or five or so small packages dedicated to fixing existing schools, building more new classrooms, and focused on children first -- the TIGERs will be leading the effort to PASS the proposals.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
10:12 p.m. Well the results are final. About 2/3rd of those voting rejected the bonds; all bonds, one thru six.
Time to make some new plans...
Time to make some new plans...
6:30 p.m. The election is winding down. Turnout appears to be light. We'll see what difference that makes. Early results will be available shortly after 7:00 p.m.
6:41 p.m. The Dallas County Election result web site offers results in several formats. The comma separated value is quick but does not report precinct level detail. On the other hand, for early voting -- who cares? Let's just get totals and analyze as we go.
7:00 p.m. Morris over Dixon, King over Vick, Prop one Y 468 N 904 Prop 2 Y 442 N 920 Prop 3 Y 432 N N 936 Prop 4 Y 460 N 910 Prop 5 390 N 978 and Prop 6 Y 517 and N 845
7:10 p.m. I have to say I'm especially pleased and surprised to see King taking an early lead over Vick. The Trustee seats are very minor races, and a few dozen vote "surge" may change things. But the hard core electorate seems to have totally repudiated the current LISD oversight and direction.
7:31 p.m. Let's reformat the early results for easier viewing.
LISD place 3 Carolyn Ann Morris Barbara Ann Dixon
123 59.71% 83 40.29%
LISD place 6 Marjorie Ann King Nannette Vick
137 59.83% 92 40.17%
AGAINST / FOR
Lancaster ISD Bond 1 904 65.89% / 468 34.11%
Lancaster ISD Bond 2 920 67.55% / 442 32.45%
Lancaster ISD Bond 3 936 68.47% / 431 31.53%
Lancaster ISD Bond 4 910 66.42% / 460 33.58%
Lancaster ISD Bond 5 978 71.49% / 390 28.51%
Lancaster ISD Bond 6 845 62.04% / 517 37.96%
09:10 p.m. Another Dallas County update posted at nine. No update on the Morris / Dixon race. King has slipped one percentage point against Vick, and now the challenger is "only" leading 58.8% to 41.1%.
The bond results look like this:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -AGAINST / FOR
Lancaster ISD Bond 1 1248 64% / 676 35%
Lancaster ISD Bond 2 1278 67% / 633 33%
Lancaster ISD Bond 3 1305 68% / 609 32%
Lancaster ISD Bond 4 1258 66% / 657 34%
Lancaster ISD Bond 5 1357 71% / 565 29%
Lancaster ISD Bond 6 1172 61% / 736 39%
9:40 p.m. Another update to the Dallas County Elections website posted. Sadly, no additional news about Lancaster was included.
I think it extremely unlikely a 2/3rd landslide will be reversed at this point.
From a taxpayer's and activist's viewpoint, I am, of course, thrilled. But from a blogger's perspective this runaway result is almost disappointing. No analysis of the new voters in new neighborhoods versus the old power structure in historic downtown. No nuances of the "straight party" voters who might, or might not, have noticed the down-ballot decisions ... This looks like an out-and-out rout.
10:oo p.m. As near as I can tell from the Dallas County Elections site, the south side voting (all done at the Elsie Robertson Middle School) has all been reported. That leaves the north side of Lancaster -- voting at the Recreation Center -- uncounted, as yet.
The Cedardale site for the new elementary school may sway a number of voters in these precincts. Maybe. But not, I think, enough to swing the entire election. Not at this point.
There. Some analysis, after all.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
After pilot programs, Schools Reject Laptops
From the NY Times:
...(T)wo educational consultants, Hayes Connection and the Greaves Group, conducted a study of the nation’s 2,500 largest school districts last year and found that a quarter of the 1,000 respondents already had one-to-one computing, and fully half expected to by 2011.
Yet school officials here and in several other places said laptops had been abused by students, did not fit into lesson plans, and showed little, if any, measurable effect on grades and test scores at a time of increased pressure to meet state standards. Districts have dropped laptop programs after resistance from teachers, logistical and technical problems, and escalating maintenance costs.
Last month, the United States Department of Education released a study showing no difference in academic achievement between students who used educational software programs for math and reading and those who did not.
In one of the largest ongoing studies, the Texas Center for Educational Research, a nonprofit group, has so far found no overall difference on state test scores between 21 middle schools where students received laptops in 2004, and 21 schools where they did not, though some data suggest that high-achieving students with laptops may perform better in math than their counterparts without. When six of the schools in the study that do not have laptops were given the option of getting them this year, they opted against.
From the NY Times:
...(T)wo educational consultants, Hayes Connection and the Greaves Group, conducted a study of the nation’s 2,500 largest school districts last year and found that a quarter of the 1,000 respondents already had one-to-one computing, and fully half expected to by 2011.
Yet school officials here and in several other places said laptops had been abused by students, did not fit into lesson plans, and showed little, if any, measurable effect on grades and test scores at a time of increased pressure to meet state standards. Districts have dropped laptop programs after resistance from teachers, logistical and technical problems, and escalating maintenance costs.
Last month, the United States Department of Education released a study showing no difference in academic achievement between students who used educational software programs for math and reading and those who did not.
In one of the largest ongoing studies, the Texas Center for Educational Research, a nonprofit group, has so far found no overall difference on state test scores between 21 middle schools where students received laptops in 2004, and 21 schools where they did not, though some data suggest that high-achieving students with laptops may perform better in math than their counterparts without. When six of the schools in the study that do not have laptops were given the option of getting them this year, they opted against.