At the most recent Minooka CCSD 201 school board meeting on December 17, the proposed policy regarding lunch/recess time and a second recess for grades 1 through 4 was brought up for a second reading. In addition, the proposed policy for snacks in the classroom and snacks provided by the PTO was also brought up for a second reading. (For some background regarding these proposed policies, see previous posts here and here.)
After much discussion, the proposed policy regarding lunch/recess time and a second recess for grades 1 through 4 did not garner enough votes to pass (Martin, Crouch, and Allen voted "yes," while Skwarczynski, Clucas, Satorius and Hannon voted "no"). The consideration of the second reading of the proposed policy regarding snacks in the classroom and snacks provided by the PTO was tabled.
As a result, these proposed policies will be discussed at an upcoming Policy Committee meeting. The Policy Committee meeting will be held on Thursday, January 8, 2015 starting a 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center (305 Church Street, Minooka). The proposed policy regarding lunch/recess time and a second recess for grades 1 through 4 has been split into two policies, thereby creating three proposed policies (this was done in response to some suggestions that there might be more support for lengthening of the lunch/recess time and not for the second recess).
The agenda for the Policy Committee meeting can be found here. The current versions of the proposed policies can be found here, here and here. The Policy Committee meeting is open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to attend. The bulk of the meeting will be spent listening to input from staff and the public regarding the proposed policies.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Six Candidates Run for Four Minooka 201 School Board Seats
Six people have submitted petitions to run for the four Minooka CCSD
201 school board seats that will be filled in the next Consolidated
Election on April 7, 2015.
Five people submitted petitions to run for the three four-year terms. The five people are Kristan Crouch (incumbent), Mireya Martin, John Clucas (incumbent), Al Skwarczynski (incumbent), and Ed Cronin.
One person submitted a petition to run for the single two-year term. That person is Curt Jebens.
Five people submitted petitions to run for the three four-year terms. The five people are Kristan Crouch (incumbent), Mireya Martin, John Clucas (incumbent), Al Skwarczynski (incumbent), and Ed Cronin.
One person submitted a petition to run for the single two-year term. That person is Curt Jebens.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is
Wednesday, December 17, 2014. The Committee of the Whole Meeting starts
at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The Committee of the
Whole Meeting will be followed by a Truth in Taxation (tax levy) hearing
at 6:45 in the gymnasium. The Truth in Taxation hearing will then be
followed by the regular Board Meeting at 7 p.m. All of the meetings are
open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to
attend. You can find the agenda for each of the meetings here.
Information for the Committee of the Whole Meeting and the Truth in Taxation hearing can be found here. Information for the regular Board Meeting can be found here.
Information for the Committee of the Whole Meeting and the Truth in Taxation hearing can be found here. Information for the regular Board Meeting can be found here.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Lunch/Recess and Snack Policies: Response to Concerns
I recently proposed a couple of board policies that pertain to lunch, recess and snacks (see previous blog posts here and here and newspaper article). At the most recent board
meeting in November, both of these policies passed in a 6-0 vote. In order to become effective, though, these policies need to be voted on and passed two more times at the December and January board meetings. Since the November meeting and in spite of
passing by a 6-0 vote, I have heard of a few concerns by board members, administrators and teachers regarding these policies.
I have previously discussed my belief that these policies are sorely needed and can only help our students. I believe the research that I provided along with these proposed policies bears this out. So let’s now examine some of the concerns that I have heard regarding these policies.
The first proposed policy deals with adding 10 more minutes to the current 35-minute lunch and recess period for the children in 1st through 4th grades, as well as providing them with a second 15-minute recess during the school day. The most prevalent concern regarding this policy seems to be that the district could not reallocate 25 minutes from the academic schedule to accommodate the additional lunch/recess time. First and foremost, we should note that taking 25 minutes out of the instructional day will not impede on any current educational mandates regarding required instructional time. Our students will continue to receive all of their required curriculum and instructional time. Second, and equally as important, the research suggests that reallocating these 25 minutes from the classroom to lunch/recess will pay numerous dividends for the students. Not only will students benefit from better eating habits, better exercise habits, increased peer socialization, increased leadership and conflict resolution skills, but students will also likely become more productive academically and will be less likely to exhibit disruptive behavior during the school day.
I believe that our focus on taking away recess time in order to cram more academic time into the schedule has actually led to a point of diminishing (if not negative) returns--more time spent on academics does not equal more learning. American schools are under intense pressure to make sure that children perform well on standardized tests, but short-changing lunch and recess time is not the answer. In fact, the research suggests that this strategy is actually counter-productive. Not only are we not educating more well-rounded individuals, but the additional time spent on academic subjects is not leading to increased test scores (this, of course, assumes that scores on standardized test are a good indicator of educational results--itself a questionable proposition).
Another concern regarding the proposed lunch/recess policy is that a change to the current schedule would be disruptive. Would our teachers have to initially be flexible in carving out time to fit in a slightly longer lunch period and a second recess? Yes, but administrators at each building and teachers at each class grade level could and should work together to determine the best way to do this. The benefits to our students would far outweigh any initial disruption. I believe it is currently more disruptive to have students who cannot focus on their schoolwork because they are hungry and students who cannot focus on their studies because they have been cooped up for so long that they cannot sit still. Students need an extra recess to play so they can come back to class and be ready to focus on schoolwork. The entire educational process for both students and teachers will likely be improved if we give students this extra time. So let’s not wait another school year to implement this policy. Within just a few days, any initial disruption will have been long forgotten and our students will be much happier and much more productive.
The second proposed policy deals with allowing healthy snacks for all District 201 students. So let’s look at some concerns that I have heard regarding allowing snacks in the classroom.
The main concern seems to be that allowing snacks could endanger those students who are allergic to certain types of food. There are, however, numerous protocols and procedures in place in order to avoid this danger. First, the snack policy prohibits snacks that have peanuts in them. Second, before teachers or the PTO can provide snacks to students or use snacks as educational or motivational tools in the classroom, parents are required to be notified of the type of snack that will be offered and have to give written permission that their child can be given that snack. In the event that the parent does not give permission for that particular snack, a different snack can be given or the parent can even provide treats that their child can consume. These policies have worked in the past and there is no reason why these procedures couldn’t work just as effectively in the future.
Another concern is that children who are on reduced and free lunch may not be able to bring snacks in because they don’t have a lot of food at home and so these children would still be hungry during the day. In these situations, I believe that the school and the teacher can and should provide these students with a snack. Teachers could ask for parents to donate snacks for this purpose. I know that my wife and I have sent extra supplies to our children's classrooms such as kleenex, cleaning wipes and pencils. We would certainly donate boxes of goldfish crackers or other types of snacks if a teacher asked. I truly believe that our District 201 community would be more than generous in helping to provide snacks to hungry children in our schools.
A final concern that I have heard from some teachers is that they could be held personally liable if a student should suffer an allergic reaction in the classroom. This is not accurate. The Illinois School Code and Illinois Supreme Court cases provide classroom teachers with a significant level of immunity from such liability. A classroom teacher can only be held personally liable in these situations for willful or wanton misconduct. So, a teacher who is using reasonable care cannot be held liable in the unlikely event (given the protections of the existing allergy protocols) that a student suffers an allergic reaction in the classroom. In addition, it should be noted that this snack policy would merely expand on existing policies which already allow snacks into District 201 schools. District 201 teachers and administrators have demonstrated their ability to allow snacks in the schools without any dire consequences or lawsuits to this point. There is no reason to believe that they would not be able to do so in the future with an expanded snack policy.
I have previously discussed my belief that these policies are sorely needed and can only help our students. I believe the research that I provided along with these proposed policies bears this out. So let’s now examine some of the concerns that I have heard regarding these policies.
The first proposed policy deals with adding 10 more minutes to the current 35-minute lunch and recess period for the children in 1st through 4th grades, as well as providing them with a second 15-minute recess during the school day. The most prevalent concern regarding this policy seems to be that the district could not reallocate 25 minutes from the academic schedule to accommodate the additional lunch/recess time. First and foremost, we should note that taking 25 minutes out of the instructional day will not impede on any current educational mandates regarding required instructional time. Our students will continue to receive all of their required curriculum and instructional time. Second, and equally as important, the research suggests that reallocating these 25 minutes from the classroom to lunch/recess will pay numerous dividends for the students. Not only will students benefit from better eating habits, better exercise habits, increased peer socialization, increased leadership and conflict resolution skills, but students will also likely become more productive academically and will be less likely to exhibit disruptive behavior during the school day.
I believe that our focus on taking away recess time in order to cram more academic time into the schedule has actually led to a point of diminishing (if not negative) returns--more time spent on academics does not equal more learning. American schools are under intense pressure to make sure that children perform well on standardized tests, but short-changing lunch and recess time is not the answer. In fact, the research suggests that this strategy is actually counter-productive. Not only are we not educating more well-rounded individuals, but the additional time spent on academic subjects is not leading to increased test scores (this, of course, assumes that scores on standardized test are a good indicator of educational results--itself a questionable proposition).
Another concern regarding the proposed lunch/recess policy is that a change to the current schedule would be disruptive. Would our teachers have to initially be flexible in carving out time to fit in a slightly longer lunch period and a second recess? Yes, but administrators at each building and teachers at each class grade level could and should work together to determine the best way to do this. The benefits to our students would far outweigh any initial disruption. I believe it is currently more disruptive to have students who cannot focus on their schoolwork because they are hungry and students who cannot focus on their studies because they have been cooped up for so long that they cannot sit still. Students need an extra recess to play so they can come back to class and be ready to focus on schoolwork. The entire educational process for both students and teachers will likely be improved if we give students this extra time. So let’s not wait another school year to implement this policy. Within just a few days, any initial disruption will have been long forgotten and our students will be much happier and much more productive.
The second proposed policy deals with allowing healthy snacks for all District 201 students. So let’s look at some concerns that I have heard regarding allowing snacks in the classroom.
The main concern seems to be that allowing snacks could endanger those students who are allergic to certain types of food. There are, however, numerous protocols and procedures in place in order to avoid this danger. First, the snack policy prohibits snacks that have peanuts in them. Second, before teachers or the PTO can provide snacks to students or use snacks as educational or motivational tools in the classroom, parents are required to be notified of the type of snack that will be offered and have to give written permission that their child can be given that snack. In the event that the parent does not give permission for that particular snack, a different snack can be given or the parent can even provide treats that their child can consume. These policies have worked in the past and there is no reason why these procedures couldn’t work just as effectively in the future.
Another concern is that children who are on reduced and free lunch may not be able to bring snacks in because they don’t have a lot of food at home and so these children would still be hungry during the day. In these situations, I believe that the school and the teacher can and should provide these students with a snack. Teachers could ask for parents to donate snacks for this purpose. I know that my wife and I have sent extra supplies to our children's classrooms such as kleenex, cleaning wipes and pencils. We would certainly donate boxes of goldfish crackers or other types of snacks if a teacher asked. I truly believe that our District 201 community would be more than generous in helping to provide snacks to hungry children in our schools.
A final concern that I have heard from some teachers is that they could be held personally liable if a student should suffer an allergic reaction in the classroom. This is not accurate. The Illinois School Code and Illinois Supreme Court cases provide classroom teachers with a significant level of immunity from such liability. A classroom teacher can only be held personally liable in these situations for willful or wanton misconduct. So, a teacher who is using reasonable care cannot be held liable in the unlikely event (given the protections of the existing allergy protocols) that a student suffers an allergic reaction in the classroom. In addition, it should be noted that this snack policy would merely expand on existing policies which already allow snacks into District 201 schools. District 201 teachers and administrators have demonstrated their ability to allow snacks in the schools without any dire consequences or lawsuits to this point. There is no reason to believe that they would not be able to do so in the future with an expanded snack policy.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Are Your Child's Essays Being Graded By A Computer?
If you have a child in Minooka Junior High School, chances are that a couple of essays that they have written or will be writing will be graded by a computer program. Yes, you read that correctly. The essays are assigned a score by a computer program.
The computer program is called Pearson Essay Scorer (click here for the login screen -- your child has an ID and password). It is only one among several so-called "automated essay scorers." These automated essay scorers assign a grade to the essay based on a complicated algorithm (computers, of course, cannot appreciate meaning in the human sense but merely analyze data such as essay length, average sentence length, etc.). For more background regarding these computer programs, click here and here.
So, what are the advantages to computerized grading of essays? Cost savings and standardization are generally touted. What are the disadvantages? Well, let's start with the fact that a computer cannot appreciate novel and imaginative writing or that students are not robots and standardization in writing (other than spelling and grammar) is not necessarily a laudable goal. I could go on from there, but I am not alone in my distrust of having a computer grade an essay. Many education professionals are already voicing their opposition to the use of these programs (see here). See here for their research-based critique of these programs.
I believe that school districts including Minooka CCSD 201 need to carefully examine, with a much more critical eye, the use of these automated essay scoring programs in language arts instruction.
The computer program is called Pearson Essay Scorer (click here for the login screen -- your child has an ID and password). It is only one among several so-called "automated essay scorers." These automated essay scorers assign a grade to the essay based on a complicated algorithm (computers, of course, cannot appreciate meaning in the human sense but merely analyze data such as essay length, average sentence length, etc.). For more background regarding these computer programs, click here and here.
So, what are the advantages to computerized grading of essays? Cost savings and standardization are generally touted. What are the disadvantages? Well, let's start with the fact that a computer cannot appreciate novel and imaginative writing or that students are not robots and standardization in writing (other than spelling and grammar) is not necessarily a laudable goal. I could go on from there, but I am not alone in my distrust of having a computer grade an essay. Many education professionals are already voicing their opposition to the use of these programs (see here). See here for their research-based critique of these programs.
I believe that school districts including Minooka CCSD 201 need to carefully examine, with a much more critical eye, the use of these automated essay scoring programs in language arts instruction.
Saturday, November 29, 2014
The Purpose of This Blog
Over the four years that this blog has existed, the feedback that I have received regarding it has been overwhelmingly positive. Many people have called, texted or stopped me on the street to tell me that they read my blog regularly and it helps to keep them informed about Minooka CCSD 201. There are a few people, however, who believe that my blog is inappropriate and that I should take it down.
To those that suggest that I take it down, you should not expect that to happen any time soon. This blog will remain as long as I am a member of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board and probably long after. You see, I believe there is a fundamental disagreement between myself and those that think this blog is inappropriate.
Let's start with the fact that Minooka CCSD 201 is a public school district. And as a public school district, it is financed with public money (your tax dollars). It is my belief that when you finance an institution with public money, that institution should be subject to public scrutiny and public oversight. That, my friends, is the reason that there is a school board elected by the voters of the district to oversee the district, an Open Meetings Act to ensure that the public is aware of and can attend the proceedings of the school board, a Freedom of Information Act to ensure that the public has access to public documents held by the school district, and a Public Records Act to ensure that public records created by the school district are preserved and cannot be destroyed.
As an elected official, I believe that it is my obligation to ensure transparency and provide the public with as much information as possible (while still abiding by the privacy laws that exist). I believe that public servants spending public money should invite and encourage scrutiny and not be afraid of it. We are, after all, doing the public's business on behalf of the public. If we are doing that to the best of our abilities, then we have nothing to fear from transparency and public scrutiny. And, if we fear transparency and public scrutiny, then that is the first sign that perhaps we are doing something that we should not be doing.
Unfortunately, public institutions do not always provide adequate transparency or desire public scrutiny. To the extent that this blog provides more transparency, invites public scrutiny, and increases public awareness of the inner workings of Minooka CCSD 201, then I consider it a success.
To those that suggest that I take it down, you should not expect that to happen any time soon. This blog will remain as long as I am a member of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board and probably long after. You see, I believe there is a fundamental disagreement between myself and those that think this blog is inappropriate.
Let's start with the fact that Minooka CCSD 201 is a public school district. And as a public school district, it is financed with public money (your tax dollars). It is my belief that when you finance an institution with public money, that institution should be subject to public scrutiny and public oversight. That, my friends, is the reason that there is a school board elected by the voters of the district to oversee the district, an Open Meetings Act to ensure that the public is aware of and can attend the proceedings of the school board, a Freedom of Information Act to ensure that the public has access to public documents held by the school district, and a Public Records Act to ensure that public records created by the school district are preserved and cannot be destroyed.
As an elected official, I believe that it is my obligation to ensure transparency and provide the public with as much information as possible (while still abiding by the privacy laws that exist). I believe that public servants spending public money should invite and encourage scrutiny and not be afraid of it. We are, after all, doing the public's business on behalf of the public. If we are doing that to the best of our abilities, then we have nothing to fear from transparency and public scrutiny. And, if we fear transparency and public scrutiny, then that is the first sign that perhaps we are doing something that we should not be doing.
Unfortunately, public institutions do not always provide adequate transparency or desire public scrutiny. To the extent that this blog provides more transparency, invites public scrutiny, and increases public awareness of the inner workings of Minooka CCSD 201, then I consider it a success.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Update Regarding Reprimand of Superintendent
At our last regular board meeting held on November 19, the Minooka CCSD 201 school board voted unanimously (Mr. Hannon was absent) to reprimand Superintendent Al Gegenheimer for unprofessional conduct and directed the board's attorney to draft a letter of reprimand (see newspaper article relating to reprimand). Last night at a special meeting, the school board adopted the letter of reprimand to be placed in Mr. Gegenheimer's personnel file by a vote of 5-1. Those voting "yes" were Mrs. Allen, Mrs. Crouch, Mr. Martin, Mr. Satorius, and Mr. Skwarczynski. Mr. Clucas voted "no." Mr. Hannon was absent. Hopefully, we can all move forward in a more positive manner.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Update Regarding Lunch/Recess Policy and Snack Policy
This past Wednesday, November 19th, at the Minooka CCSD 201 school board meeting, I brought forward the following motions (see newspaper article regarding these proposed policies):
First, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding lunch times and a second recess for grades 1 through 4. This was the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). For background information regarding why I believe a slightly longer lunch/recess period and a second recess will benefit our students in grades 1 through 4, please see the information at the following links: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. As this policy requires a second and third reading for approval, it will need to be voted on again at two future meetings.
Second, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding snacks in the classroom and snacks provided by the PTO. This was the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). I believe this policy will benefit all of our students. Our school days are fairly lengthy and students go for long periods between the beginning of the school day and lunch time and also lunch time and the end of the school day. You might ask yourself whether you snack throughout your day. I typically have a snack between breakfast and lunch and another between lunch and dinner to keep my energy level up, and young children have a much higher need for calorie intake than I do. Obviously the snacks would have to comply with our food allergy policies. Again, as this policy requires a second and third reading for approval, it will need to be voted on again at two future meetings.
Each of these motions passed with a unanimous vote (with Board Member Kevin Hannon absent).
Also, some people in attendance at the November 19th meeting asked about the material that was being discussed regarding achievement gaps. Click here for the Assistant Superintendent's report. The achievement gap data is on the pages marked 21 through 41.
First, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding lunch times and a second recess for grades 1 through 4. This was the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). For background information regarding why I believe a slightly longer lunch/recess period and a second recess will benefit our students in grades 1 through 4, please see the information at the following links: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. As this policy requires a second and third reading for approval, it will need to be voted on again at two future meetings.
Second, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding snacks in the classroom and snacks provided by the PTO. This was the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). I believe this policy will benefit all of our students. Our school days are fairly lengthy and students go for long periods between the beginning of the school day and lunch time and also lunch time and the end of the school day. You might ask yourself whether you snack throughout your day. I typically have a snack between breakfast and lunch and another between lunch and dinner to keep my energy level up, and young children have a much higher need for calorie intake than I do. Obviously the snacks would have to comply with our food allergy policies. Again, as this policy requires a second and third reading for approval, it will need to be voted on again at two future meetings.
Each of these motions passed with a unanimous vote (with Board Member Kevin Hannon absent).
Also, some people in attendance at the November 19th meeting asked about the material that was being discussed regarding achievement gaps. Click here for the Assistant Superintendent's report. The achievement gap data is on the pages marked 21 through 41.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Special Meeting of Minooka 201 School Board
The Minooka CCSD 201 school board will be holding a special meeting on Wednesday, November 26, 2014. The meeting agenda is available here. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. As always, members of the public are welcome to attend.
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is
Wednesday, November 19, 2014. The Committee of the Whole Meeting starts
at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The Committee of the
Whole Meeting will be followed by the regular Board Meeting at 7 p.m.
Both meetings are open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to
attend. You can find the agenda for each of the meetings here.
Last Tuesday (November 11th), I requested that three items be put on the agenda for this meeting:
First, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding lunch times and a second recess for grades 1 through 4. You can find this under the Action Items on the Regular Meeting Agenda as letter "g." This will be the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). For background information regarding why I believe this policy will benefit our students in grades 1 through 4, please see the information at the following links: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. This item is also on the agenda to be discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Second, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding snacks in the classroom. You can find this under the Action Items on the Regular Meeting Agenda as letter "h." This will be the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). I believe this policy will benefit all of our students. This item is also on the agenda to be discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Third, a motion to reprimand the Superintendent for insubordination and unprofessional conduct and to call for the Superintendent to make a public apology to the teachers, the school board, and Mrs. Kristan Crouch (a board member). This motion will be discussed in executive session (see item "H" on the Regular Meeting Agenda) and motioned under action item "I" on the Regular Meeting Agenda ("Action as a result of Executive Session"). As a result, the board will not consider this item until the very end of the regular Board Meeting. For background information regarding why I believe this motion is necessary, see my previous posts here, here, here, here, and here.
Last Tuesday (November 11th), I requested that three items be put on the agenda for this meeting:
First, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding lunch times and a second recess for grades 1 through 4. You can find this under the Action Items on the Regular Meeting Agenda as letter "g." This will be the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). For background information regarding why I believe this policy will benefit our students in grades 1 through 4, please see the information at the following links: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. This item is also on the agenda to be discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Second, a motion to approve a new board policy (click here for the proposed policy) regarding snacks in the classroom. You can find this under the Action Items on the Regular Meeting Agenda as letter "h." This will be the first reading of this policy (board policies require three readings for approval). I believe this policy will benefit all of our students. This item is also on the agenda to be discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting.
Third, a motion to reprimand the Superintendent for insubordination and unprofessional conduct and to call for the Superintendent to make a public apology to the teachers, the school board, and Mrs. Kristan Crouch (a board member). This motion will be discussed in executive session (see item "H" on the Regular Meeting Agenda) and motioned under action item "I" on the Regular Meeting Agenda ("Action as a result of Executive Session"). As a result, the board will not consider this item until the very end of the regular Board Meeting. For background information regarding why I believe this motion is necessary, see my previous posts here, here, here, here, and here.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
A Little Background May Be In Order
My previous post may have raised more questions than it answered. Perhaps some background is in order to answer some of those questions. (I hope that this background will answer some of the questions raised by Mr. Folsom in his rather eloquent comment to my previous post).
My recent FOIA request did not turn up any emails in which the superintendent, Mr. Al Gegenheimer, directly addressed to Mrs. Kristan Crouch or any other current member of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board any concerns that he might have had with the proposed parent survey. (By the way, I hope you have all taken the time to read the survey and have the same reaction that others have had: "What is the issue with this survey? I don't see it.") As I recall, Mr. Gegenheimer did not express any concerns regarding the proposed parent survey at the two special board meetings where we discussed the Strategic Plan and the Parent Survey (September 17th and October 15th) other than the following: (1) he was concerned that, by making the survey anonymous, we would not get reliable feedback (such concern was largely dismissed by those who felt, as I did, that an anonymous survey would be the only way to get honest feedback from the parents), and (2) he was concerned that we needed to have the survey ready to hand out at parent-teacher conferences since that would ensure the largest number of parent responses.
However, we now know from the emails, that Mr. Gegenheimer did share some concerns about the survey with a former member of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board, Mr. Don McKinney. For me, the fact that Mr. Gegenheimer would not disclose his concerns regarding the proposed parent survey to the current members of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board while at the same time seeking the input of former member Don McKinney is particularly troublesome for the following reason. Mr. McKinney resigned in March 2014 under the cloud of a facebook post in which he sought to disparage the young female volleyball players in our district by calling them by a slang term for female homosexuals. Mr. McKinney, who is the superintendent at Nettle Creek school district in Morris, Illinois, was reprimanded by his own district and issued an apology to Nettle Creek parents for the facebook post (see here and here). Why would Mr. Gegenheimer choose to ask this particular person for his opinion about the work of the current board?
Mr. McKinney, to my knowledge, has never apologized to Minooka parents or Minooka volleyball players. Perhaps that was because Mr. Gegenheimer went to great lengths to ensure that Minooka parents did not speak out regarding the facebook post at our board meetings. Mr. Gegenheimer even went so far as having Barb Erickson, one of the school district's attorneys (whose name you may recall seeing on one of the emails from the previous post), attend the public comment period at the very next school board meeting. I wonder what exactly her role was going to be since parents and community members do not lose their right to free speech at school board meetings (in fact, it is specifically protected at such a public forum). She left right after the public comment period. She did not say a word, but I'm sure that she had an intimidating effect on any parent who may have thought about speaking up about Mr. McKinney's abhorrent behavior and feared that doing so would get them into legal trouble.
In his comment to my previous post, Mr. Folsom also wondered whether Mr. Gegenheimer's conduct with regard to the parent survey was typical or exceptional. Unfortunately, based on my experience, this type of behavior is par for the course. Mr. Gegenheimer’s unprofessional conduct has been going on for years—at least since I was elected to the Board in April 2009. I previously chose not to blog about his conduct or blog about the conduct of some of my fellow board members who have never spoken up to stop Mr. Gegenheimer's behavior and by continuing to support him have, in effect, encouraged it. As mentioned in a previous post, it was due to similar unprofessional behavior that I advocated to my fellow board members in April 2012 that Mr. Gegenheimer's contract should not be renewed. Not only did the board vote 5 to 2 to renew the contract, but they gave Mr. Gegenheimer what can only be considered a "sweetheart deal" at the taxpayers' expense (see here and here). Of the five members who voted to renew Mr. Gegenheimer's contract, only Mr. Jim Satorius, Mr. Al Skwarczynski, and Mr. Kevin Hannon are members of the current school board.
So, why have I not previously spoken out about Mr. Gegenheimer's conduct or the complicity of some board members in enabling his conduct? In the past, I thought that I could get policies passed that would benefit the students and the teachers if I used diplomacy, tact and negotiation. I thought that I could use reasoning to convince the other board members when something was in the best interests of the district.
Recently, it seemed that my patience was starting to bear fruit. In February 2014, the board brought in Mr. Jeff Cohn, a representative from the Illinois Association of School Boards to conduct some board self-evaluation sessions. After the first session in February, the board brought Mr. Cohn back again in June for another board self-evaluation session. As a result of these meetings, the board decided to come up with a strategic plan for the district, something that has not been done as long as I have been on the board. Special meetings were held on September 17th and October 15th to work on drafting the Strategic Plan. I was very encouraged that the board was working together as a team to form a Strategic Plan and get parents, teachers and the community involved in having a collaborative relationship with the school board in order to try to improve the educational experience for our children. The board was finally taking baby steps to do its job after years of abdicating its authority to Mr. Gegenheimer.
The board spent taxpayer money and expended much time and effort in bringing in Mr. Cohn, in creating the Strategic Plan, in discussing the importance of a parent and teacher survey, and in creating the parent survey. (As an aside, the administration had already "jumped the gun" on the teacher survey by sending it out without authorization or input from the school board. Mr. Gegenheimer didn't seem concerned about the "validity and reliability" of this survey. In fact, this survey was apparently designed for an inner-city high school, and there are many questions on this survey that have little relevance to Minooka teachers (see, for example, questions 11, 19, and 20)). So, Mr. Gegenheimer's apparent conscious decision to undermine and ridicule the board, pit the teachers against the board, and blame and attack a board member (Mrs. Kristan Crouch), effectively destroyed all of the board’s efforts. Precious time and taxpayer money went completely to waste through the orchestrated and seemingly malicious efforts of Mr. Gegenheimer.
So, the question remains, why did I choose this episode to lay bare the inner workings of Minooka CCSD 201? It is blatantly clear to me now that I can no longer remain silent about Mr. Gegenheimer's actions and conduct. I can handle the personal attacks against myself that have been going on for years. I have a very thick skin, and very few things short of actual combat rattle me. I, however, will not countenance such blatant disrespect and sabotage against the school district and the school board, much less such personal attacks against one of my fellow board members. My conscience and my ethical duty to the students, teachers, parents, taxpayers and my fellow board members of District 201 simply do not allow it.
My recent FOIA request did not turn up any emails in which the superintendent, Mr. Al Gegenheimer, directly addressed to Mrs. Kristan Crouch or any other current member of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board any concerns that he might have had with the proposed parent survey. (By the way, I hope you have all taken the time to read the survey and have the same reaction that others have had: "What is the issue with this survey? I don't see it.") As I recall, Mr. Gegenheimer did not express any concerns regarding the proposed parent survey at the two special board meetings where we discussed the Strategic Plan and the Parent Survey (September 17th and October 15th) other than the following: (1) he was concerned that, by making the survey anonymous, we would not get reliable feedback (such concern was largely dismissed by those who felt, as I did, that an anonymous survey would be the only way to get honest feedback from the parents), and (2) he was concerned that we needed to have the survey ready to hand out at parent-teacher conferences since that would ensure the largest number of parent responses.
However, we now know from the emails, that Mr. Gegenheimer did share some concerns about the survey with a former member of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board, Mr. Don McKinney. For me, the fact that Mr. Gegenheimer would not disclose his concerns regarding the proposed parent survey to the current members of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board while at the same time seeking the input of former member Don McKinney is particularly troublesome for the following reason. Mr. McKinney resigned in March 2014 under the cloud of a facebook post in which he sought to disparage the young female volleyball players in our district by calling them by a slang term for female homosexuals. Mr. McKinney, who is the superintendent at Nettle Creek school district in Morris, Illinois, was reprimanded by his own district and issued an apology to Nettle Creek parents for the facebook post (see here and here). Why would Mr. Gegenheimer choose to ask this particular person for his opinion about the work of the current board?
Mr. McKinney, to my knowledge, has never apologized to Minooka parents or Minooka volleyball players. Perhaps that was because Mr. Gegenheimer went to great lengths to ensure that Minooka parents did not speak out regarding the facebook post at our board meetings. Mr. Gegenheimer even went so far as having Barb Erickson, one of the school district's attorneys (whose name you may recall seeing on one of the emails from the previous post), attend the public comment period at the very next school board meeting. I wonder what exactly her role was going to be since parents and community members do not lose their right to free speech at school board meetings (in fact, it is specifically protected at such a public forum). She left right after the public comment period. She did not say a word, but I'm sure that she had an intimidating effect on any parent who may have thought about speaking up about Mr. McKinney's abhorrent behavior and feared that doing so would get them into legal trouble.
In his comment to my previous post, Mr. Folsom also wondered whether Mr. Gegenheimer's conduct with regard to the parent survey was typical or exceptional. Unfortunately, based on my experience, this type of behavior is par for the course. Mr. Gegenheimer’s unprofessional conduct has been going on for years—at least since I was elected to the Board in April 2009. I previously chose not to blog about his conduct or blog about the conduct of some of my fellow board members who have never spoken up to stop Mr. Gegenheimer's behavior and by continuing to support him have, in effect, encouraged it. As mentioned in a previous post, it was due to similar unprofessional behavior that I advocated to my fellow board members in April 2012 that Mr. Gegenheimer's contract should not be renewed. Not only did the board vote 5 to 2 to renew the contract, but they gave Mr. Gegenheimer what can only be considered a "sweetheart deal" at the taxpayers' expense (see here and here). Of the five members who voted to renew Mr. Gegenheimer's contract, only Mr. Jim Satorius, Mr. Al Skwarczynski, and Mr. Kevin Hannon are members of the current school board.
So, why have I not previously spoken out about Mr. Gegenheimer's conduct or the complicity of some board members in enabling his conduct? In the past, I thought that I could get policies passed that would benefit the students and the teachers if I used diplomacy, tact and negotiation. I thought that I could use reasoning to convince the other board members when something was in the best interests of the district.
Recently, it seemed that my patience was starting to bear fruit. In February 2014, the board brought in Mr. Jeff Cohn, a representative from the Illinois Association of School Boards to conduct some board self-evaluation sessions. After the first session in February, the board brought Mr. Cohn back again in June for another board self-evaluation session. As a result of these meetings, the board decided to come up with a strategic plan for the district, something that has not been done as long as I have been on the board. Special meetings were held on September 17th and October 15th to work on drafting the Strategic Plan. I was very encouraged that the board was working together as a team to form a Strategic Plan and get parents, teachers and the community involved in having a collaborative relationship with the school board in order to try to improve the educational experience for our children. The board was finally taking baby steps to do its job after years of abdicating its authority to Mr. Gegenheimer.
The board spent taxpayer money and expended much time and effort in bringing in Mr. Cohn, in creating the Strategic Plan, in discussing the importance of a parent and teacher survey, and in creating the parent survey. (As an aside, the administration had already "jumped the gun" on the teacher survey by sending it out without authorization or input from the school board. Mr. Gegenheimer didn't seem concerned about the "validity and reliability" of this survey. In fact, this survey was apparently designed for an inner-city high school, and there are many questions on this survey that have little relevance to Minooka teachers (see, for example, questions 11, 19, and 20)). So, Mr. Gegenheimer's apparent conscious decision to undermine and ridicule the board, pit the teachers against the board, and blame and attack a board member (Mrs. Kristan Crouch), effectively destroyed all of the board’s efforts. Precious time and taxpayer money went completely to waste through the orchestrated and seemingly malicious efforts of Mr. Gegenheimer.
So, the question remains, why did I choose this episode to lay bare the inner workings of Minooka CCSD 201? It is blatantly clear to me now that I can no longer remain silent about Mr. Gegenheimer's actions and conduct. I can handle the personal attacks against myself that have been going on for years. I have a very thick skin, and very few things short of actual combat rattle me. I, however, will not countenance such blatant disrespect and sabotage against the school district and the school board, much less such personal attacks against one of my fellow board members. My conscience and my ethical duty to the students, teachers, parents, taxpayers and my fellow board members of District 201 simply do not allow it.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave . . .
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" --Sir Walter Scott, Marmion
Click here to read an interesting series of emails that were obtained from Minooka CCSD 201 through a simple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. These emails pertain, of course, to the recent board meetings on October 15th and October 22nd and the controversy surrounding the proposed parent survey (see previous posts here, here and here; click here to see the proposed survey). What jumps out at me from the emails, which are emails to and from Superintendent Al Gegenheimer, is the sheer duplicity of the messages (showing one face to the board and another to the administration and his confidants).
For example, in an email to one of the school board attorneys, Barb Erickson, in which he attaches the first draft of the survey, Mr. Gegenheimer writes "If it was funny, it would be laughable." However, the very next day (Friday, October 17) when forwarding the board of education a revised draft of the survey, Mr. Gegenheimer has nothing more to say than "Attached you will find the survey. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for revision." Barely a minute later, Mr. Gegenheimer forwards the same email to a Richard Dombrowski (who, to my knowledge, has no connection to Minooka CCSD 201) with this to say: "Here it is. It would be laughable if it was funny."
A little later that same day, there was an email exchange with Mrs. Kathleen Cheshareck (Principal of Walnut Trails Elementary School) that went like this:
"Hi Al, Did Kristan [referring to board member Kristan Crouch] develop the survey or is it a published one? thanks, Kathy" (Kathleen Cheshareck)
"Kristin [sic] did. It is pitiful. It would be laughable if it was funny." (Al Gegenheimer)
"Validity and reliability???" (Kathleen Cheshareck)
"None at all! It's a joke (that isn't funny)." (Al Gegenheimer)
Two days later (Sunday, October 19), Mr. Al Skwarczynski (board member) sent an email to Mr. Gegenheimer which stated "I would like to see the last three open ended questions separated. Since there is room on the page, each question needs to have space directly under it for a response." In response to Mr. Skwarczynski's email, Mr. Gegenheimer merely stated "Thanks Al!" The next day (Monday, October 20), I emailed Mr. Gegenheimer regarding the agenda for the meeting on October 22 stating "It seems that two items are missing from the meeting agenda: (1) the adoption of the strategic plan; and (2) approval of the parent survey." The response from Mr. Gegenheimer was: "I will get it revised and posted. Thanks!" Again, at no point when he was emailing either of the two board members regarding the survey did Mr. Gegenheimer state or even imply that he had concerns about the survey or that he thought the survey was laughable, a joke, pitiful, or that it had absolutely no validity or reliability.
On the morning of October 22 (the day of the regular board meeting), Mr. Gegenheimer sent the proposed parent survey by email to Don McKinney (a former Minooka CCSD 201 board member who resigned from the school board earlier this year and is the current superintendent at Nettle Creek) with this to say: "Sorry that I didn't get this to you sooner. Please look it over and let me know your thoughts. Please call me today, if possible. Thanks!" Mr. McKinney's response stated: "I would agree that this survey is filled with bias. On top of that, everything the board needs to know can already be found in the 5 Essentials Survey data. This think [sic] is ridiculous."
At the very least, this is a rather interesting series of emails. As I have stated in my previous blog posts, I believe that Mr. Gegenheimer was insubordinate and unprofessional in the manner in which he conducted himself regarding this entire incident. For me, these emails just further that impression. You can, of course, draw your own conclusions.
Click here to read an interesting series of emails that were obtained from Minooka CCSD 201 through a simple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. These emails pertain, of course, to the recent board meetings on October 15th and October 22nd and the controversy surrounding the proposed parent survey (see previous posts here, here and here; click here to see the proposed survey). What jumps out at me from the emails, which are emails to and from Superintendent Al Gegenheimer, is the sheer duplicity of the messages (showing one face to the board and another to the administration and his confidants).
For example, in an email to one of the school board attorneys, Barb Erickson, in which he attaches the first draft of the survey, Mr. Gegenheimer writes "If it was funny, it would be laughable." However, the very next day (Friday, October 17) when forwarding the board of education a revised draft of the survey, Mr. Gegenheimer has nothing more to say than "Attached you will find the survey. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for revision." Barely a minute later, Mr. Gegenheimer forwards the same email to a Richard Dombrowski (who, to my knowledge, has no connection to Minooka CCSD 201) with this to say: "Here it is. It would be laughable if it was funny."
A little later that same day, there was an email exchange with Mrs. Kathleen Cheshareck (Principal of Walnut Trails Elementary School) that went like this:
"Hi Al, Did Kristan [referring to board member Kristan Crouch] develop the survey or is it a published one? thanks, Kathy" (Kathleen Cheshareck)
"Kristin [sic] did. It is pitiful. It would be laughable if it was funny." (Al Gegenheimer)
"Validity and reliability???" (Kathleen Cheshareck)
"None at all! It's a joke (that isn't funny)." (Al Gegenheimer)
Two days later (Sunday, October 19), Mr. Al Skwarczynski (board member) sent an email to Mr. Gegenheimer which stated "I would like to see the last three open ended questions separated. Since there is room on the page, each question needs to have space directly under it for a response." In response to Mr. Skwarczynski's email, Mr. Gegenheimer merely stated "Thanks Al!" The next day (Monday, October 20), I emailed Mr. Gegenheimer regarding the agenda for the meeting on October 22 stating "It seems that two items are missing from the meeting agenda: (1) the adoption of the strategic plan; and (2) approval of the parent survey." The response from Mr. Gegenheimer was: "I will get it revised and posted. Thanks!" Again, at no point when he was emailing either of the two board members regarding the survey did Mr. Gegenheimer state or even imply that he had concerns about the survey or that he thought the survey was laughable, a joke, pitiful, or that it had absolutely no validity or reliability.
On the morning of October 22 (the day of the regular board meeting), Mr. Gegenheimer sent the proposed parent survey by email to Don McKinney (a former Minooka CCSD 201 board member who resigned from the school board earlier this year and is the current superintendent at Nettle Creek) with this to say: "Sorry that I didn't get this to you sooner. Please look it over and let me know your thoughts. Please call me today, if possible. Thanks!" Mr. McKinney's response stated: "I would agree that this survey is filled with bias. On top of that, everything the board needs to know can already be found in the 5 Essentials Survey data. This think [sic] is ridiculous."
At the very least, this is a rather interesting series of emails. As I have stated in my previous blog posts, I believe that Mr. Gegenheimer was insubordinate and unprofessional in the manner in which he conducted himself regarding this entire incident. For me, these emails just further that impression. You can, of course, draw your own conclusions.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Ultimate Responsibility for the Spectacle
Many who attended the most recent meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 board of education on October 22 were witness to a spectacle. The spectacle consisted of heated verbal exchanges between board members, teachers and the superintendent. On the surface, the arguments were about a proposed parent survey and the teachers being extremely concerned that parent comments on these surveys would be used to adversely affect their employment. Apparently, the teachers were told that the survey could endanger their jobs. This was never the case nor do I believe it was the intent of the school board (see my previous post for background information regarding the parent survey). The deeper argument, however, was not about a parent survey but was really about whether the board should assert its legal responsibility and authority to direct the management of the school district.
In small part, the spectacle was caused by a superintendent (Mr. Gegenheimer) who apparently chose to blindside the board of education and set them up for a fall rather than come to them with his concerns regarding the survey (an interesting action from someone who constantly reminds the board about the chain of command and being given the professional courtesy of not being surprised by an issue). As I discussed in my previous post, the parent survey was discussed and drafted through a collaborative effort of six members of the board of education (Mr. Hannon was absent) along with Dr. Palaniuk and Mr. Gegenheimer at a special meeting on October 15. The discussion of the survey took about an hour and a half of a two hour meeting. At the end of the meeting, there was a general agreement that the survey was ready, barring any last minute changes, to be approved at the upcoming regular board meeting.
In the time between the special meeting on October 15 and the regular board meeting on October 22, Mr. Gegenheimer apparently had time to consult with nameless "college professors" and the school district's attorneys, all of whom supposedly had reservations about the survey. Yet, Mr. Gegenheimer did not share this information with the board until the spectacle on October 22 had begun. Instead, he apparently went to the teachers' union representatives on October 20 and cast the survey in a negative light (a role which he replayed at the regular meeting). Additionally, whether on their own initiative or at the direction of the superintendent, building principals reportedly took the survey to teachers in their respective buildings. And, apparently, when Mr. Gegenheimer learned that union representatives and teachers took issue with the survey and were planning on coming to the regular board meeting in protest, he failed to mention anything to the board of education until the regular meeting had begun.
I believe that Mr. Gegenheimer had a responsibility as the board's administrator to come to the board with his concerns rather than take those concerns to the teachers and potentially misrepresent the board's intent to the teachers. I believe his conduct both prior to and at the regular meeting on October 22 was insubordinate and has significantly damaged the board's, or at least my own, ability to trust Mr. Gegenheimer to administer and implement the mandates and directives of the board, something that a superintendent is legally required to do.
The ultimate responsibility for the spectacle, however, rests squarely on the shoulders of the board of education. After all, the board of education hires and evaluates the superintendent. If we choose to continue to employ a superintendent who acts in what I believe to be an unprofessional manner and apparently is threatened by a board of education that is taking baby steps to assert its legitimate authority after years of abdication of that authority, then we as a board should not be surprised by what results from that choice. You see, when a board of education abdicates its role and authority, the superintendent steps in to fill the void and does not only his or her job but also the job of the board of education. Many superintendents welcome this. After all, it increases their power. But, in the process it harms the district (and, as a result, the students). School districts function much more effectively when the board of education and the superintendent each do their own job. In addition, the voters who elect the board members to the board of education probably do so thinking that the board members will take an active role in directing and overseeing the management of the district.
I was surprised by some aspects of the spectacle but not by the events leading up to the spectacle. For years, I have been convinced that Mr. Gegenheimer is one of the most unprofessional people I have met and that many of his actions are detrimental to the best interests of our school district.
Mr. Gegenheimer has a track record of treating parents, community members, staff and board members in a similar unprofessional manner. Time and time again, those who have the "audacity" to express disagreement or criticism of him or his administration are met with personal attacks, attempts at intimidation and retaliation. Teachers fear for their jobs. Parents and community members stop coming to board meetings. The entire district suffers. Unfortunately, there are all too many people in our community who know what I am talking about. I have been witness to a number of these instances (some of which have been directed at me personally), and I have been told about many more. It was due to behavior such as this that I voted in April 2012 (see here) against renewing Mr. Gegenheimer's contract.
The day-to-day operations of our school district should be managed by someone who knows how to lead in a professional manner, someone who treats everyone with respect whether they agree or disagree with him or her. Everyone should feel welcome at our board meetings and should feel comfortable voicing their opinions in public without fear of maltreatment or retaliation. Mr. Gegenheimer has proven to me that he is not that person. Unfortunately this view is not shared by some of my fellow board members. One wonders what exactly it will take to convince them.
In small part, the spectacle was caused by a superintendent (Mr. Gegenheimer) who apparently chose to blindside the board of education and set them up for a fall rather than come to them with his concerns regarding the survey (an interesting action from someone who constantly reminds the board about the chain of command and being given the professional courtesy of not being surprised by an issue). As I discussed in my previous post, the parent survey was discussed and drafted through a collaborative effort of six members of the board of education (Mr. Hannon was absent) along with Dr. Palaniuk and Mr. Gegenheimer at a special meeting on October 15. The discussion of the survey took about an hour and a half of a two hour meeting. At the end of the meeting, there was a general agreement that the survey was ready, barring any last minute changes, to be approved at the upcoming regular board meeting.
In the time between the special meeting on October 15 and the regular board meeting on October 22, Mr. Gegenheimer apparently had time to consult with nameless "college professors" and the school district's attorneys, all of whom supposedly had reservations about the survey. Yet, Mr. Gegenheimer did not share this information with the board until the spectacle on October 22 had begun. Instead, he apparently went to the teachers' union representatives on October 20 and cast the survey in a negative light (a role which he replayed at the regular meeting). Additionally, whether on their own initiative or at the direction of the superintendent, building principals reportedly took the survey to teachers in their respective buildings. And, apparently, when Mr. Gegenheimer learned that union representatives and teachers took issue with the survey and were planning on coming to the regular board meeting in protest, he failed to mention anything to the board of education until the regular meeting had begun.
I believe that Mr. Gegenheimer had a responsibility as the board's administrator to come to the board with his concerns rather than take those concerns to the teachers and potentially misrepresent the board's intent to the teachers. I believe his conduct both prior to and at the regular meeting on October 22 was insubordinate and has significantly damaged the board's, or at least my own, ability to trust Mr. Gegenheimer to administer and implement the mandates and directives of the board, something that a superintendent is legally required to do.
The ultimate responsibility for the spectacle, however, rests squarely on the shoulders of the board of education. After all, the board of education hires and evaluates the superintendent. If we choose to continue to employ a superintendent who acts in what I believe to be an unprofessional manner and apparently is threatened by a board of education that is taking baby steps to assert its legitimate authority after years of abdication of that authority, then we as a board should not be surprised by what results from that choice. You see, when a board of education abdicates its role and authority, the superintendent steps in to fill the void and does not only his or her job but also the job of the board of education. Many superintendents welcome this. After all, it increases their power. But, in the process it harms the district (and, as a result, the students). School districts function much more effectively when the board of education and the superintendent each do their own job. In addition, the voters who elect the board members to the board of education probably do so thinking that the board members will take an active role in directing and overseeing the management of the district.
I was surprised by some aspects of the spectacle but not by the events leading up to the spectacle. For years, I have been convinced that Mr. Gegenheimer is one of the most unprofessional people I have met and that many of his actions are detrimental to the best interests of our school district.
Mr. Gegenheimer has a track record of treating parents, community members, staff and board members in a similar unprofessional manner. Time and time again, those who have the "audacity" to express disagreement or criticism of him or his administration are met with personal attacks, attempts at intimidation and retaliation. Teachers fear for their jobs. Parents and community members stop coming to board meetings. The entire district suffers. Unfortunately, there are all too many people in our community who know what I am talking about. I have been witness to a number of these instances (some of which have been directed at me personally), and I have been told about many more. It was due to behavior such as this that I voted in April 2012 (see here) against renewing Mr. Gegenheimer's contract.
The day-to-day operations of our school district should be managed by someone who knows how to lead in a professional manner, someone who treats everyone with respect whether they agree or disagree with him or her. Everyone should feel welcome at our board meetings and should feel comfortable voicing their opinions in public without fear of maltreatment or retaliation. Mr. Gegenheimer has proven to me that he is not that person. Unfortunately this view is not shared by some of my fellow board members. One wonders what exactly it will take to convince them.
Friday, October 24, 2014
My Apologies to Mrs. Crouch
Those of you who were witness to the spectacle that took place at the recent Minooka CCSD 201 board of education meeting on October 22 should step back and calmly consider what happened. The spectacle consisted of heated verbal exchanges between board
members, teachers and the superintendent regarding a proposed parent survey. But, the spectacle also consisted of a superintendent, Mr. Gegenheimer, throwing one member of the board of education, Mrs. Kristan Crouch, "under the bus" with some members of the board of education not objecting. In fact, at one point, Mr. Gegenheimer asserted that Mrs. Crouch was "the problem." An assertion that Mrs. Crouch was understandably shocked to witness (as was I), and responded to by telling Mr. Gegenheimer he was being "unprofessional" (which he was). Actually, she was being nice. In my book, "unprofessional" is a somewhat tame adjective to describe his actions.
First a little background may be in order. As part of a decision to implement a Strategic Plan, the board of education decided to conduct an anonymous survey of parents to obtain input into how parents felt that District policies could be improved in order to improve the educational experience for their children. The board also decided to conduct an anonymous survey of its teachers/staff in order to determine teacher/staff morale and receive input on how District policies could be improved in order to improve working conditions for them. During two open meetings specifically held to discuss the Strategic Plan, there was much discussion on how to implement these two surveys, how to obtain the highest level of feedback from both parents and teachers/staff, and the types of questions that would be asked on these surveys.
At the second such meeting on October 15, the majority of the discussion was focused on the parent survey. It was hoped that this survey could be finalized and distributed to parents at the upcoming Parent-Teacher conferences since a large majority of parents attend one or more Parent-Teacher conferences. The teachers were going to be asked to hand out the surveys at the end of the conference, and parents would fill them out and place them in a receptacle in order to maintain anonymity. There were to be no markings on the surveys that would identify classrooms or teachers. The only identifier was to be that different colors of paper were to be used at each building so that results could be looked at by building. At no time were teachers going to be asked to discuss or spend time on the parent surveys during their conferences.
Now, back to the events of the board of education meeting on October 22. There was some talk of who drafted the parent survey. This talk was pointless and only served the purpose of attempting to castigate Mrs. Crouch. Someone had to do a first draft of the survey. Unfortunately for Mrs. Crouch, she was assigned the job of writing the first draft of the parent survey (which made sense to me since she is a parent with children currently attending Minooka 201 schools). As an aside, Mrs. Allen was assigned the task of writing the first draft of the teacher survey (which also made sense to me since she was a teacher for 27 years). Mrs. Allen, you better hold off on that survey, lest you become the next target.
Here is where the apology comes in (or part of it at least). I was the one who suggested that Mrs. Crouch write the first draft of the parent survey. So, Mrs. Crouch, I apologize for suggesting that you write the first draft of the survey. In my defense, my intention in doing so was to make sure that our newest board member had a chance to contribute.
So, let's go back to the subject of who wrote the first draft of the survey. Who cares? It is not relevant, unless you are trying to throw someone "under the bus." It takes forever to draft anything by committee, so it made sense to have one person take the first crack at it and present it for comments and editing. Once Mrs. Crouch presented it to those of us at the special meeting, including five other members of the board (Mr. Hannon was absent) and Mr. Gegenheimer and Dr. Palaniuk, it became our survey. Every one of us at that meeting had something to say about the survey. We spent an hour and a half editing the survey, changing the wording, deleting some questions, adding some questions. By the end of the meeting, it was no longer a product written by one person, but a product of the attendees of that meeting. At the end of the meeting, there was general agreement that the parent survey was ready, barring last minute comments, to be approved at the next regular meeting of the board of education. Mrs. Crouch was charged with taking the comments and edits that we had all agreed upon, revising the survey and sending it to Mr. Gegenheimer. Mrs. Crouch made the changes and emailed the revised survey ("our survey") to Mr. Gegenheimer on October 17. Mr. Gegenheimer forwarded the survey by email to the rest of the board and Dr. Palaniuk without any comment other than the following: "Dear Board, Attached you will find the survey. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for revision."
Because, in my view, the proposed parent survey was a product of that meeting and every board member present as well as Mr. Gegenheimer and Dr. Palaniuk contributed and had a chance to raise objections to any particular question or the survey as a whole, it was "our survey." And so, for me, Mr. Gegenheimer's attempt to castigate Mrs. Crouch and throw her "under the bus" was malicious and cowardly. In addition, the failure of many of my fellow board members to defend Mrs. Crouch and chastise Mr. Gegenheimer for his actions is also at best an act of cowardice and at worst an act of malice (as if she had it coming). Mrs. Allen, to her great credit, in response to Mr. Gegenheimer's charge that Mrs. Crouch wrote the survey, stated that "we also all talked about it and agreed upon it."
Here is where the remainder of the apology comes in. I attempted to explain to those present that the proposed parent survey was not the work of some "lone" board member, but rather a product of collaboration of the board, Mr. Gegenheimer, and Dr. Palaniuk. (That we failed to include the teachers in this collaboration was a collective failure not a failure of one individual). What I failed to do, however, was to explain to the teachers present that contrary to what was presented to them both before the meeting and at the meeting, Mrs. Crouch was never "out to get them." Truth be told, Mrs. Crouch is one of the most ardent supporters of our classroom teachers. So, it would be a tragedy if the teachers or anyone present came away from that spectacle with the wrong impression. Again, I apologize, this time for a sin of omission rather than one of commission.
In the end, the spectacle was a display of cowardice and, potentially, malice. I hope we are teaching our children better than this.
[Edited to provide background information.]
First a little background may be in order. As part of a decision to implement a Strategic Plan, the board of education decided to conduct an anonymous survey of parents to obtain input into how parents felt that District policies could be improved in order to improve the educational experience for their children. The board also decided to conduct an anonymous survey of its teachers/staff in order to determine teacher/staff morale and receive input on how District policies could be improved in order to improve working conditions for them. During two open meetings specifically held to discuss the Strategic Plan, there was much discussion on how to implement these two surveys, how to obtain the highest level of feedback from both parents and teachers/staff, and the types of questions that would be asked on these surveys.
At the second such meeting on October 15, the majority of the discussion was focused on the parent survey. It was hoped that this survey could be finalized and distributed to parents at the upcoming Parent-Teacher conferences since a large majority of parents attend one or more Parent-Teacher conferences. The teachers were going to be asked to hand out the surveys at the end of the conference, and parents would fill them out and place them in a receptacle in order to maintain anonymity. There were to be no markings on the surveys that would identify classrooms or teachers. The only identifier was to be that different colors of paper were to be used at each building so that results could be looked at by building. At no time were teachers going to be asked to discuss or spend time on the parent surveys during their conferences.
Now, back to the events of the board of education meeting on October 22. There was some talk of who drafted the parent survey. This talk was pointless and only served the purpose of attempting to castigate Mrs. Crouch. Someone had to do a first draft of the survey. Unfortunately for Mrs. Crouch, she was assigned the job of writing the first draft of the parent survey (which made sense to me since she is a parent with children currently attending Minooka 201 schools). As an aside, Mrs. Allen was assigned the task of writing the first draft of the teacher survey (which also made sense to me since she was a teacher for 27 years). Mrs. Allen, you better hold off on that survey, lest you become the next target.
Here is where the apology comes in (or part of it at least). I was the one who suggested that Mrs. Crouch write the first draft of the parent survey. So, Mrs. Crouch, I apologize for suggesting that you write the first draft of the survey. In my defense, my intention in doing so was to make sure that our newest board member had a chance to contribute.
So, let's go back to the subject of who wrote the first draft of the survey. Who cares? It is not relevant, unless you are trying to throw someone "under the bus." It takes forever to draft anything by committee, so it made sense to have one person take the first crack at it and present it for comments and editing. Once Mrs. Crouch presented it to those of us at the special meeting, including five other members of the board (Mr. Hannon was absent) and Mr. Gegenheimer and Dr. Palaniuk, it became our survey. Every one of us at that meeting had something to say about the survey. We spent an hour and a half editing the survey, changing the wording, deleting some questions, adding some questions. By the end of the meeting, it was no longer a product written by one person, but a product of the attendees of that meeting. At the end of the meeting, there was general agreement that the parent survey was ready, barring last minute comments, to be approved at the next regular meeting of the board of education. Mrs. Crouch was charged with taking the comments and edits that we had all agreed upon, revising the survey and sending it to Mr. Gegenheimer. Mrs. Crouch made the changes and emailed the revised survey ("our survey") to Mr. Gegenheimer on October 17. Mr. Gegenheimer forwarded the survey by email to the rest of the board and Dr. Palaniuk without any comment other than the following: "Dear Board, Attached you will find the survey. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for revision."
Because, in my view, the proposed parent survey was a product of that meeting and every board member present as well as Mr. Gegenheimer and Dr. Palaniuk contributed and had a chance to raise objections to any particular question or the survey as a whole, it was "our survey." And so, for me, Mr. Gegenheimer's attempt to castigate Mrs. Crouch and throw her "under the bus" was malicious and cowardly. In addition, the failure of many of my fellow board members to defend Mrs. Crouch and chastise Mr. Gegenheimer for his actions is also at best an act of cowardice and at worst an act of malice (as if she had it coming). Mrs. Allen, to her great credit, in response to Mr. Gegenheimer's charge that Mrs. Crouch wrote the survey, stated that "we also all talked about it and agreed upon it."
Here is where the remainder of the apology comes in. I attempted to explain to those present that the proposed parent survey was not the work of some "lone" board member, but rather a product of collaboration of the board, Mr. Gegenheimer, and Dr. Palaniuk. (That we failed to include the teachers in this collaboration was a collective failure not a failure of one individual). What I failed to do, however, was to explain to the teachers present that contrary to what was presented to them both before the meeting and at the meeting, Mrs. Crouch was never "out to get them." Truth be told, Mrs. Crouch is one of the most ardent supporters of our classroom teachers. So, it would be a tragedy if the teachers or anyone present came away from that spectacle with the wrong impression. Again, I apologize, this time for a sin of omission rather than one of commission.
In the end, the spectacle was a display of cowardice and, potentially, malice. I hope we are teaching our children better than this.
[Edited to provide background information.]
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Mutual Respect
There are two main groups of people that make up the management hierarchy of a school district in Illinois. The board of education and the administration (superintendent and his or her team of principals and other administrators). Under Illinois law (see here for certain relevant provisions of the Illinois School Code), the school board is charged with the overall administration of the district but really has four main functions: approving the budget and the tax levy (with recommendations and input from the superintendent), approving the textbooks and courses of study (again with recommendations and input from the superintendent), hiring and evaluating the superintendent, and directing the overall management of the district through policy and strategic plans. The superintendent (along with the rest of the administration) is charged with the day-to-day management of the district in accordance with board policy and directives.
In order for this system to work, each group needs to respect the legitimate obligations and authority of the other group. Obviously, I am a board member and so come at this with the perspective of a board member. I respect the administrators' authority to do their job as far as the day-to-day management of the district, but in return I expect that the administrators respect the board of education's authority to do its job (especially regarding what I believe are the four main functions of a board of education). In return, I also expect the administrators to respect each individual board member's right as an elected official to advocate for his or her positions and to either agree or disagree with other board members or administrators.
In addition, each board member should respect the right of other board members, as fellow elected officials, to agree or disagree with their fellow board members and/or administrators without being subjected to harassing, intimidating or otherwise disrespectful treatment. Whether board members agree with one another's position or not, board members should always stand up for their fellow board member's right to express an opinion without being subjected to disrespect by either a fellow board member or an administrator. In short, in order for a board member to earn their right to advocate for their position, they should defend the right of other board members to advocate for their position regardless of whether they ultimately agree or disagree with one another. (The oath that all board members take actually addresses this when it states, in part: "I shall encourage and respect the free expression of opinion by my fellow board members and others who seek a hearing before the board, while respecting the privacy of students and employees.")
In order for this system to work, each group needs to respect the legitimate obligations and authority of the other group. Obviously, I am a board member and so come at this with the perspective of a board member. I respect the administrators' authority to do their job as far as the day-to-day management of the district, but in return I expect that the administrators respect the board of education's authority to do its job (especially regarding what I believe are the four main functions of a board of education). In return, I also expect the administrators to respect each individual board member's right as an elected official to advocate for his or her positions and to either agree or disagree with other board members or administrators.
In addition, each board member should respect the right of other board members, as fellow elected officials, to agree or disagree with their fellow board members and/or administrators without being subjected to harassing, intimidating or otherwise disrespectful treatment. Whether board members agree with one another's position or not, board members should always stand up for their fellow board member's right to express an opinion without being subjected to disrespect by either a fellow board member or an administrator. In short, in order for a board member to earn their right to advocate for their position, they should defend the right of other board members to advocate for their position regardless of whether they ultimately agree or disagree with one another. (The oath that all board members take actually addresses this when it states, in part: "I shall encourage and respect the free expression of opinion by my fellow board members and others who seek a hearing before the board, while respecting the privacy of students and employees.")
Friday, October 17, 2014
Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is
Wednesday, October 22, 2014. The Committee of the Whole Meeting starts
at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The Committee of the
Whole Meeting will be followed by the regular Board Meeting at 7 p.m.
Both meetings are open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to
attend. You can find the agenda for each of the meetings here.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Common Core: The More You Know, The Less You Like
An interesting thing is happening. The more Americans learn about Common Core, the less they like it (see here, here and here). At this rate, it won't be that long before Common Core is in the dustbin of history (you can read my prediction for the Common Core here). Unfortunately, in the meantime, it will do untold damage to our children's futures.
Friday, October 3, 2014
The Most Recent Budget Vote
At the recent Minooka CCSD 201 school board meeting on September 24, the board considered the district's proposed FY 2015 budget (see here). My thoughts regarding this proposed budget are detailed in a previous post (see here). I made a motion to approve the budget with the following modifications: (1) the expenditures in the Education Fund be revised to match the projected revenue in that fund (still more than a $1 million increase from the previous year); (2) the expenditures in the Operations & Maintenance Fund be revised to match what they were in 2014 (still representing a more than $300,000 deficit); and (3) that the expenditures in the Tort Fund be revised to match the projected revenue in that fund. Adopting a budget with these revisions would still have left the district in a position of deficit spending but would have represented a significant move in terms of controlling expenditures and reducing the deficit over time. The motion "died for lack of a second." Subsequently, it was moved and seconded that the proposed budget be approved as presented, and, after some discussion, the board voted to approve the proposed budget by a 4 to 2 vote (Hannon was absent). Those voting "yes" were Skwarczynski, Clucas, Allen, and Satorius. Those voting "no" were Crouch and Martin.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
School Board Nominating Petitions Available
If anyone is interested in serving on the Minooka CCSD 201 school board,
nominating petitions are now available for the April 7, 2015 election.
Four full terms will be open on the Minooka CCSD 201 school board. The
terms of the following board members expire on April 7, 2015: John Clucas, Kevin Hannon, Al Skwarczynski, and Kristan Crouch. Candidates elected
on April 7, 2015 will serve a four-year term ending in April 2019. Completed nominating petitions must be returned no earlier than 8am,
Monday, December 15, 2014 and no later than 5pm, Monday, December 22,
2014. Click here to be taken to the District information release regarding the nominating petitions.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting and Budget Hearing
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is
Wednesday, September 24, 2014. The Committee of the Whole Meeting starts
at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The Committee of the Whole Meeting will be followed by a Budget
Hearing at 6:45 p.m. in the gymnasium. The Budget Hearing will be
followed by the regular Board Meeting at 7
p.m. Each of the
meetings is open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to attend.
You can find the agenda for each of the meetings here.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is
Wednesday, September 17, 2014. This is a special meeting to discuss and possibly adopt a new strategic plan for the district. The Board Meeting starts
at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The meeting is open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to
attend. You can view a copy of the draft strategic plan here. Additionally, you can view a copy of the draft action plan here.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Once More Unto the Breach: The Budget Deficit
At its most recent meeting, the Minooka CCSD 201 school board
considered the district's preliminary budget for the current school
year. Once again, the district budget calls for deficit spending (see here
for the proposed FY 2015 budget). And, once again, I called for the
district to tackle the deficit problem by controlling spending to
eliminate, or at least reduce, the deficit.
The response from the superintendent was that we cannot possibly cut the deficit (even though his proposed budget calls for a $2.4 million increase in spending in the operating funds). To put this into perspective, let's look at some data. Last year, the district spent $28.6 million in its operating budget (which consists of the Education Fund, the Operation and Maintenance Fund, the Transportation Fund, and the Working Cash Fund). The proposed budget for this year calls for spending of almost $31 million (after adjusting for certain flow through payments), an increase over last year of $2.4 million or approximately 8.4%. The projected budget deficit for this year is just over $2 million.
What I am advocating is a balanced budget, which would allow for an increase of $400,000 rather than an increase of $2.4 million. An increase of $400,000 would still represent an approximately 1.4% increase from last year's spending. So, in reality, I am not advocating a cut in spending. I am merely asking for a smaller increase in spending. In addition, if we drill down into the separate funds that comprise the operating budget, we would see that the budget for the Education Fund could increase by $1 million (a 4.3% increase over last year's spending) and achieve balance in this fund. Balancing the budget in the Operations and Maintenance Fund and the Transportation Fund would be more difficult, calling for reductions from last year's spending of $330,000 and $700,000 respectively.
Now, I understand that student enrollments are going up. They are not, however, going up as fast as the district's spending. As of August 19, 2013 (the beginning of the last school year), district enrollment stood at 4,175 students. As of August, 12, 2014 (the beginning of the current school year), district enrollment stood at 4,248 students. So, student enrollment from last year to this year has not gone up by 8.4% or even 4.3% but rather 1.75%.
The superintendent would have everyone believe that the only way to erase the deficit by controlling spending would be to cut teachers and harm the academic program. This is really just a scare tactic and is wrong for a number of reasons.
First, the largest projected deficits by percentage are in the Operations and Maintenance Fund (the fund out of which utilities and the upkeep of schools are paid) and the Transportation Fund (the fund out of which busing is paid), not the Education Fund (the fund out of which teachers' salaries and benefits are paid). The current projected deficit in the Education Fund is 4%. Meanwhile, the current projected deficit in the Operations and Maintenance Fund is 25%, and the projected deficit in the Transportation Fund is 19%. So, the big deficits (by percentage of spending) are not being caused by teachers and, therefore, cannot be addressed by cutting teachers. In other words, cutting teachers or academic programs, such as P.E. or Music or Art, will do very little to address the deficit.
Second, I am not advocating reducing the per pupil operating expense (which is the amount of operating money that is spent on each student) but rather controlling its increase. Therefore, as student population increases, spending would also increase. For example, if we assume the district's per pupil operating expense were held at $8,000, adding 100 students would call for an increase in operating spending by $800,000. What it would not call for is adding an additional $1.6 million of spending over and above the $800,000 and raiding the district's "rainy day" funds in order to pay for the additional spending.
Third, these measures to control spending could be (and could have been) phased in over time. Over the last seven years, the district's per pupil operating expense (as reported to the Illinois State Board of Education and calculated using average daily attendance rather than actual student population) has increased from $5618 in 2007 to $8477 in 2013, a 51% increase. Now, admittedly, I have only been advocating controlling the increase in spending since I became a board member in 2009. However, had the district limited the increase in the per pupil operating expense over the last seven year period to approximately 40%, we would have a balanced budget today. A 40% increase in spending per student over seven years hardly seems draconian.
In response to my calls for cutting the deficit by controlling spending, I was also told by the superintendent that because we currently have large fund balances, it would be irresponsible to cut the deficit right now. I find this to be somewhat baffling. It is true that we currently have fund balances (excess money in our bank accounts). These fund balances, however, amount to less than what the school district spends in a year. What is more, the money in the Working Cash Fund (half of the current fund balances) is used to even out seasonal cash flow and so is not really available to be spent. In addition, we are depleting those fund balances each and every year that we run a deficit. At current spending rates, those "large" fund balances will be completely erased in 3 to 5 years. So, now is exactly the time to control spending. Had we been doing a better job of controlling spending over the last seven years, we would not have a deficit today. Problems don't get better with age, especially spending problems. As I have been stressing for the last five years, small steps early allow one to avoid large sacrifices later.
Ironically, in our discussion of the budget, the superintendent made the remark that we could not look to the State of Illinois to bail out the district because the state was bankrupt and we could not look to the Federal government to bail out the district because the Federal government was bankrupt. My response was: the reason that they are bankrupt is because they did exactly what the district is doing right now--they spent more than they took in. And they kept doing it, year after year, even in the face of numerous calls for them to balance their budget.
I think it is irresponsible to continue to deficit spend in the hopes that someday soon the taxpayers will agree to provide more money through a referendum, which is what the current administration is counting on. I also think that it is irresponsible for the current school board to completely deplete the district's fund balances. At the end of my term on the board, I do not want to vacate the seat in favor of a new board member and tell them "good luck, we spent all the money, now you get to deal with the consequences."
The motion to approve the preliminary budget passed on a vote of 6 to 1 (I, of course, voted "No").
The response from the superintendent was that we cannot possibly cut the deficit (even though his proposed budget calls for a $2.4 million increase in spending in the operating funds). To put this into perspective, let's look at some data. Last year, the district spent $28.6 million in its operating budget (which consists of the Education Fund, the Operation and Maintenance Fund, the Transportation Fund, and the Working Cash Fund). The proposed budget for this year calls for spending of almost $31 million (after adjusting for certain flow through payments), an increase over last year of $2.4 million or approximately 8.4%. The projected budget deficit for this year is just over $2 million.
What I am advocating is a balanced budget, which would allow for an increase of $400,000 rather than an increase of $2.4 million. An increase of $400,000 would still represent an approximately 1.4% increase from last year's spending. So, in reality, I am not advocating a cut in spending. I am merely asking for a smaller increase in spending. In addition, if we drill down into the separate funds that comprise the operating budget, we would see that the budget for the Education Fund could increase by $1 million (a 4.3% increase over last year's spending) and achieve balance in this fund. Balancing the budget in the Operations and Maintenance Fund and the Transportation Fund would be more difficult, calling for reductions from last year's spending of $330,000 and $700,000 respectively.
Now, I understand that student enrollments are going up. They are not, however, going up as fast as the district's spending. As of August 19, 2013 (the beginning of the last school year), district enrollment stood at 4,175 students. As of August, 12, 2014 (the beginning of the current school year), district enrollment stood at 4,248 students. So, student enrollment from last year to this year has not gone up by 8.4% or even 4.3% but rather 1.75%.
The superintendent would have everyone believe that the only way to erase the deficit by controlling spending would be to cut teachers and harm the academic program. This is really just a scare tactic and is wrong for a number of reasons.
First, the largest projected deficits by percentage are in the Operations and Maintenance Fund (the fund out of which utilities and the upkeep of schools are paid) and the Transportation Fund (the fund out of which busing is paid), not the Education Fund (the fund out of which teachers' salaries and benefits are paid). The current projected deficit in the Education Fund is 4%. Meanwhile, the current projected deficit in the Operations and Maintenance Fund is 25%, and the projected deficit in the Transportation Fund is 19%. So, the big deficits (by percentage of spending) are not being caused by teachers and, therefore, cannot be addressed by cutting teachers. In other words, cutting teachers or academic programs, such as P.E. or Music or Art, will do very little to address the deficit.
Second, I am not advocating reducing the per pupil operating expense (which is the amount of operating money that is spent on each student) but rather controlling its increase. Therefore, as student population increases, spending would also increase. For example, if we assume the district's per pupil operating expense were held at $8,000, adding 100 students would call for an increase in operating spending by $800,000. What it would not call for is adding an additional $1.6 million of spending over and above the $800,000 and raiding the district's "rainy day" funds in order to pay for the additional spending.
Third, these measures to control spending could be (and could have been) phased in over time. Over the last seven years, the district's per pupil operating expense (as reported to the Illinois State Board of Education and calculated using average daily attendance rather than actual student population) has increased from $5618 in 2007 to $8477 in 2013, a 51% increase. Now, admittedly, I have only been advocating controlling the increase in spending since I became a board member in 2009. However, had the district limited the increase in the per pupil operating expense over the last seven year period to approximately 40%, we would have a balanced budget today. A 40% increase in spending per student over seven years hardly seems draconian.
In response to my calls for cutting the deficit by controlling spending, I was also told by the superintendent that because we currently have large fund balances, it would be irresponsible to cut the deficit right now. I find this to be somewhat baffling. It is true that we currently have fund balances (excess money in our bank accounts). These fund balances, however, amount to less than what the school district spends in a year. What is more, the money in the Working Cash Fund (half of the current fund balances) is used to even out seasonal cash flow and so is not really available to be spent. In addition, we are depleting those fund balances each and every year that we run a deficit. At current spending rates, those "large" fund balances will be completely erased in 3 to 5 years. So, now is exactly the time to control spending. Had we been doing a better job of controlling spending over the last seven years, we would not have a deficit today. Problems don't get better with age, especially spending problems. As I have been stressing for the last five years, small steps early allow one to avoid large sacrifices later.
Ironically, in our discussion of the budget, the superintendent made the remark that we could not look to the State of Illinois to bail out the district because the state was bankrupt and we could not look to the Federal government to bail out the district because the Federal government was bankrupt. My response was: the reason that they are bankrupt is because they did exactly what the district is doing right now--they spent more than they took in. And they kept doing it, year after year, even in the face of numerous calls for them to balance their budget.
I think it is irresponsible to continue to deficit spend in the hopes that someday soon the taxpayers will agree to provide more money through a referendum, which is what the current administration is counting on. I also think that it is irresponsible for the current school board to completely deplete the district's fund balances. At the end of my term on the board, I do not want to vacate the seat in favor of a new board member and tell them "good luck, we spent all the money, now you get to deal with the consequences."
The motion to approve the preliminary budget passed on a vote of 6 to 1 (I, of course, voted "No").
Friday, August 15, 2014
Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is
Wednesday, August 20, 2014. The Committee of the Whole Meeting starts
at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The Committee of the
Whole Meeting will be followed by the regular Board Meeting at 7 p.m.
Both meetings are open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to
attend. You can find the agenda for each of the meetings here. Information for the Committee of the Whole Meeting (including the proposed budget for the 2014-2015 school year) can be found here.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Minooka 201 Salaries, Benefits and Contracts for 2014-2015
The Minooka CCSD 201 salary, benefit and contract information for 2014-2015
(including collective bargaining agreements) is now available.
Click the following links to be taken to this information: support personnel contract, teacher contract, superintendent contract, and administrative and non-union salaries.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is
Wednesday, June 25, 2014. The Committee of the Whole Meeting starts
at 5:30 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The Committee of the
Whole Meeting will be followed by the regular Board Meeting at 7 p.m.
Both meetings are open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to
attend. You can find the agenda for each of the meetings here and here.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Two States Leave the Common Core
Recently, the legislature of Oklahoma voted by overwhelming majorities to end Common Core in Oklahoma (see here), and Governor Mary Fallin signed the bill into law (see here), thus removing Oklahoma from the Common Core. Governor Fallin, by the way, is the current head of the National Governors Association (the purported force behind the Common Core).
Also, Governor Nikki Haley recently signed a bill to remove South Carolina from the Common Core (see here).
Also, Governor Nikki Haley recently signed a bill to remove South Carolina from the Common Core (see here).
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Results of 5 Essentials Survey
Last year, each public school district in Illinois was required to participate in something called the 5 Essentials Survey. This was a survey created by the University of Chicago to measure schools and districts along five factors that were found by their study to be essential to the success of a school district. (You may remember this survey since teachers, students and parents were asked to participate.) The survey responses were used to evaluate districts and schools in the following five areas: Ambitious Instruction, Effective Leaders, Collaborative Teachers, Involved Families, and Supportive Environment. The following rankings were applied to each area: Very Strong, Strong, Neutral, Weak, Very Weak, and Low Response or N/A.
Click here for the results of the 5 Essentials Survey for Minooka 201. Overall, Minooka 201 was rated "Neutral" in the area of Ambitious Instruction, "Weak" in the area of Effective Leaders, "Neutral" in the area of Collaborative Teachers, "Strong" in the area of Involved Families, and "Neutral" in the area of Supportive Environment. For more information (much more information), please take a look at the entire results for Minooka 201.
Click here for the results of the 5 Essentials Survey for Minooka 201. Overall, Minooka 201 was rated "Neutral" in the area of Ambitious Instruction, "Weak" in the area of Effective Leaders, "Neutral" in the area of Collaborative Teachers, "Strong" in the area of Involved Families, and "Neutral" in the area of Supportive Environment. For more information (much more information), please take a look at the entire results for Minooka 201.
Friday, May 23, 2014
Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is
Wednesday, May 28, 2014. The Committee of the Whole Meeting starts
at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The Committee of the
Whole Meeting will be followed by the regular Board Meeting at 7 p.m.
Both meetings are open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to
attend. You can find the agenda for each of the meetings here.
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Is CVA the Public School of the Future?
Take a look at Columbia Virtual Academy (see here). CVA is a public K-12 virtual school in the State of Washington. There are no brick and mortar buildings. There are no school buses. There are no passing periods.
There are of course advantages and disadvantages to everything, but here is one striking advantage to virtual schools: cost! Familiarize yourself with a typical public school's finances, and you will see that a significant portion of the money spent is not spent IN the classroom. It is spent ON the classroom and on transporting the students TO the classroom. Minooka 201, for example, spent roughly $7,500 per student per year, but only about $3,700 of that (slightly less than half) is spent in the classroom. The remainder is spent on operations and maintenance, transportation, etc. (essentially, maintaining the brick and mortar buildings and transportation to the brick and mortar buildings). When you take into account all expenditures (including construction and debt service), Minooka 201 is currently spending roughly $10,500 per student.
Given the above financial advantages of virtual schools and the lean budgets that each state is experiencing, it is easy to see why virtual schools like CVA are being started and why they are expanding to deliver educational services to an increasing number of students.
There are of course advantages and disadvantages to everything, but here is one striking advantage to virtual schools: cost! Familiarize yourself with a typical public school's finances, and you will see that a significant portion of the money spent is not spent IN the classroom. It is spent ON the classroom and on transporting the students TO the classroom. Minooka 201, for example, spent roughly $7,500 per student per year, but only about $3,700 of that (slightly less than half) is spent in the classroom. The remainder is spent on operations and maintenance, transportation, etc. (essentially, maintaining the brick and mortar buildings and transportation to the brick and mortar buildings). When you take into account all expenditures (including construction and debt service), Minooka 201 is currently spending roughly $10,500 per student.
Given the above financial advantages of virtual schools and the lean budgets that each state is experiencing, it is easy to see why virtual schools like CVA are being started and why they are expanding to deliver educational services to an increasing number of students.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
Minooka 201 Considering New Math Program for 6th, 7th and 8th Grades
Minooka CCSD 201 is considering adoption of a new math program for 6th, 7th and 8th grades. The program is called "Digits" and is produced by Pearson Publishing. More information can be found at their website. (You can even view the training videos that show how a sample lesson proceeds as well as see how the program incorporates technology.)
While a perusal of the Digits website shows a program with highly integrated use of technology, the program is not without its detractors. Click here for an article about another school district's adoption of Digits.
In addition, this brochure and summary of a controlled trial were provided to Minooka CCSD 201.
While a perusal of the Digits website shows a program with highly integrated use of technology, the program is not without its detractors. Click here for an article about another school district's adoption of Digits.
In addition, this brochure and summary of a controlled trial were provided to Minooka CCSD 201.
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is
Wednesday, April 23, 2014. The Committee of the Whole Meeting starts
at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The Committee of the
Whole Meeting will be followed by the regular Board Meeting at 7 p.m.
Both meetings are open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to
attend. You can find the agenda for each of the meetings here.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
States Looking to Delay or Withdraw from PARCC Assessments
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Teacher Quits Over Common Core
Monday, March 31, 2014
The First State to Withdraw from the Common Core: Indiana!!!
With the stroke of his pen, Governor Mike Pence recently signed a law withdrawing Indiana from the Common Core (see news coverage here, here, and here). Will this open the floodgates for more states to withdraw from the Common Core and lead to an end to this attempt at national educational standards? Those of us who oppose a top-down, command-and-control model of education can only hope. It can also be said that this and other possible future withdrawals from the Common Core do not go far enough. Ultimately, responsibility for education should be in the hands of a child's parents, not a government bureaucrat (whether at the state or federal level).
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
At Some Point, Silence Equals Complicity
Recently, a letter from a parent to the administration at his child's school regarding high stakes testing appeared in the Washington Post (see here). This is part of a long-overdue national dialogue about high-stakes, standardized testing and the difference between education and schooling. As Illinois schools are set to transition from the ISAT to the PARCC test, it is time to talk about eliminating these tests entirely.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Opening on Minooka 201 School Board: Part II
This post is a follow up to my previous post regarding Don McKinney's resignation from the Minooka 201 school board (see here). As a result of this resignation, the Minooka 201 school board will be appointing someone to serve until the next school board election.
According to the District's news release, "[t]he Minooka School District #201 Board of Education will be accepting resumes to fill a vacant board of education opening (will serve until the next board election Spring 2015). The Board will accept resumes through Wednesday April 2, 2014 at noon. Resumes can be mailed or dropped off at the Minooka School District #201 superintendent's office, 30 W. Church Street (Entrance #12 located on the Massasoit Street Side), Minooka, IL 60447."
You can find more information regarding the opening on the Minooka 201 school board here.
According to the District's news release, "[t]he Minooka School District #201 Board of Education will be accepting resumes to fill a vacant board of education opening (will serve until the next board election Spring 2015). The Board will accept resumes through Wednesday April 2, 2014 at noon. Resumes can be mailed or dropped off at the Minooka School District #201 superintendent's office, 30 W. Church Street (Entrance #12 located on the Massasoit Street Side), Minooka, IL 60447."
You can find more information regarding the opening on the Minooka 201 school board here.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
To Criticize Your Boss . . . Or Not?
So, recently as part of the assessment of the GoMath pilot program, the teachers in the pilot program were asked to fill out a survey regarding their thoughts about GoMath and Saxon Math (see here).
Regardless of what you think about the merits of either math program, what jumped out at me upon reading these surveys were two things. First, teachers were required to put their names on these sheets. In other words, they were not anonymous. Now this was basically putting the teachers into a position of potentially criticizing the choice of their employer who was pushing for the GoMath program to be adopted district wide. There are very few employees who would feel comfortable criticizing the choices of their employers in such a manner and potentially being regarded as a troublemaker or being retaliated against. Many employees will simply not be honest under such intimidating circumstances.
Second, in the last question regarding making a choice between Saxon Math or GoMath, there is a phrase in the parentheses that reads “Only submit the comments you are willing to be accountable for.” This, of course, could easily be interpreted to be a veiled threat of retaliation if a teacher (who remember is identified by name) happened to disagree with the course of action that the administration wanted to see adopted and had the audacity to document such disagreement on the survey. Not surprisingly, a number of teachers chose not to write any comments in this section. I don't blame them.
I can tell you from personal experience that if you want an employee to give you honest feedback, you solicit such feedback on an anonymous basis and make it clear to them that there will be no possibility of retaliation for such feedback. As a person who has served over 23 years in the military and filled out an uncountable number of surveys created by the military, I have never seen a "command climate" survey (which essentially asks for feedback regarding the leadership abilities of a commander and his or her treatment of subordinates) or any other survey asking for feedback about some military program that was NOT anonymous. Why? Because when you want honest feedback from someone who is in a subordinate position (such as lower ranking soldiers to those of higher rank, or teachers to administrators or any employee to employer), you solicit anonymous feedback and make them comfortable that there will be no possibility of retaliation.
The only way to ensure that the teachers were honest in their opinions about the GoMath program was if they were not in fear for their jobs and/or of being retaliated against by having to submit their opinions with their names attached. Again, the teachers were asked to potentially criticize the choices of their employers and be in fear of their employers’ reaction.
In order to ensure that this was a fair assessment of the GoMath program, the administration should have conducted a survey that was entirely anonymous, and it should have clearly stated that the administration sought the honest opinion of the teachers, both good or bad, and that they would not be subject to any sort of reprisal for their opinions. The fact that they were told to “Only submit the comments you are willing to be accountable for” makes the survey entirely suspect. This is simply not the way that an employer obtains the honest opinions of their employees.
If GoMath truly is the best math program for the students of District 201, there should have been no concern about obtaining the honest opinions of the teachers.
Regardless of what you think about the merits of either math program, what jumped out at me upon reading these surveys were two things. First, teachers were required to put their names on these sheets. In other words, they were not anonymous. Now this was basically putting the teachers into a position of potentially criticizing the choice of their employer who was pushing for the GoMath program to be adopted district wide. There are very few employees who would feel comfortable criticizing the choices of their employers in such a manner and potentially being regarded as a troublemaker or being retaliated against. Many employees will simply not be honest under such intimidating circumstances.
Second, in the last question regarding making a choice between Saxon Math or GoMath, there is a phrase in the parentheses that reads “Only submit the comments you are willing to be accountable for.” This, of course, could easily be interpreted to be a veiled threat of retaliation if a teacher (who remember is identified by name) happened to disagree with the course of action that the administration wanted to see adopted and had the audacity to document such disagreement on the survey. Not surprisingly, a number of teachers chose not to write any comments in this section. I don't blame them.
I can tell you from personal experience that if you want an employee to give you honest feedback, you solicit such feedback on an anonymous basis and make it clear to them that there will be no possibility of retaliation for such feedback. As a person who has served over 23 years in the military and filled out an uncountable number of surveys created by the military, I have never seen a "command climate" survey (which essentially asks for feedback regarding the leadership abilities of a commander and his or her treatment of subordinates) or any other survey asking for feedback about some military program that was NOT anonymous. Why? Because when you want honest feedback from someone who is in a subordinate position (such as lower ranking soldiers to those of higher rank, or teachers to administrators or any employee to employer), you solicit anonymous feedback and make them comfortable that there will be no possibility of retaliation.
The only way to ensure that the teachers were honest in their opinions about the GoMath program was if they were not in fear for their jobs and/or of being retaliated against by having to submit their opinions with their names attached. Again, the teachers were asked to potentially criticize the choices of their employers and be in fear of their employers’ reaction.
In order to ensure that this was a fair assessment of the GoMath program, the administration should have conducted a survey that was entirely anonymous, and it should have clearly stated that the administration sought the honest opinion of the teachers, both good or bad, and that they would not be subject to any sort of reprisal for their opinions. The fact that they were told to “Only submit the comments you are willing to be accountable for” makes the survey entirely suspect. This is simply not the way that an employer obtains the honest opinions of their employees.
If GoMath truly is the best math program for the students of District 201, there should have been no concern about obtaining the honest opinions of the teachers.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is
Wednesday, March 19, 2014. The Committee of the Whole Meeting starts
at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The Committee of the
Whole Meeting will be followed by the regular Board Meeting at 7 p.m.
Both meetings are open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to
attend. You can find the agenda for each of the meetings here.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Opening on Minooka 201 School Board
School board member Don McKinney has resigned from the Minooka 201 school board (see here). The school board now has 45 days to appoint a replacement. This typically involves asking interested persons to submit resumes and then conducting interviews.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Next Minooka 201 Education Committee Meeting
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 Education Committee is Wednesday, March 12, 2014. The Education Committee meeting starts at 5:00 p.m. in
the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary Center located
at 305 Church Street in Minooka. Education Committee meetings are open to
the public, so everyone is welcome to attend. You can find the agenda for the meeting here.
One of the topics on the agenda is a discussion of the Go Math pilot program. The administration is recommending that Go Math be implemented in every kindergarten through 5th grade classroom for the 2014-2015 school year.
One of the topics on the agenda is a discussion of the Go Math pilot program. The administration is recommending that Go Math be implemented in every kindergarten through 5th grade classroom for the 2014-2015 school year.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Opposition to Common Core Goes Way Back . . . to 1926!!!
I stumbled upon this gem. It is the Congressional testimony of Dr. J. Gresham Machen of the Princeton Theological Seminary with regard to the proposed creation of a federal Department of Education. This testimony was given way back in 1926, but some of his statements could very easily apply to today's Common Core State Standards. (Interestingly, a cabinet-level Department of Education was not created until 1979.)
If you don't have the patience to read the entire testimony (which you should), I have extracted some highlights below:
"The department of education, according to that bill, is to promote uniformity in education. That uniformity in education under central control it seems to me is the worst fate into which any country can fall. That purpose I think is implicit also in the other form of the bill, and it is because that is the very purpose of the bill that I am opposed to it." (emphasis added)
"It is perfectly clear of course, that if any such principle of Federal aid in education is established, the individual liberty of the States is gone, because I think we can lay it down as a general rule, with which everyone who has examined the course of education recently will agree, that money given for education, no matter what people say, always has a string tied to it. That appears in gifts of money by private foundations, and it appears far more, of course, when the gift comes from the Federal Government, which has already been encroaching to such an extent upon the powers of the States. But this bill establishing a Federal department of education, which has in it the principle of Federal aid, is a step and a very decisive step in exactly the same direction, and it is for that reason that we think it is to be opposed." (emphasis added)
"It is to be opposed, we think, because it represents a tendency which is no new thing, but has been in the world for at least 2,300 years, which seems to be opposed to the whole principle of liberty for which our country stands. It is the notion that education is an affair essentially of the State; that the children of the State must be educated for the benefit of the State; that idiosyncrasies should be avoided, and the State should devise that method of education which will best promote the welfare of the State." (emphasis added)
"The principle of this bill, and the principle of all the advocates of it, is that standardization in education is a good thing. I do not think a person can read the literature of advocates of measures of this sort without seeing that that is taken almost without argument as a matter of course, that standardization in education is a good thing. Now, I am perfectly ready to admit that standardization in some spheres is a good thing. It is a good thing in the making of Ford cars; but just because it is a good thing in the making of Ford cars it is a bad thing in the making of human beings, for the reason that a Ford car is a machine and a human being is a person. But a great many educators today deny the distinction between the two, and that is the gist of the whole matter." (emphasis added)
"I do not believe that the personal, free, individual character of education can be preserved when you have a Federal department laying down standards of education which become more or less mandatory to the whole country." (emphasis added)
"I believe that in the sphere of the mind we should have absolutely unlimited competition."
If you don't have the patience to read the entire testimony (which you should), I have extracted some highlights below:
"The department of education, according to that bill, is to promote uniformity in education. That uniformity in education under central control it seems to me is the worst fate into which any country can fall. That purpose I think is implicit also in the other form of the bill, and it is because that is the very purpose of the bill that I am opposed to it." (emphasis added)
"It is perfectly clear of course, that if any such principle of Federal aid in education is established, the individual liberty of the States is gone, because I think we can lay it down as a general rule, with which everyone who has examined the course of education recently will agree, that money given for education, no matter what people say, always has a string tied to it. That appears in gifts of money by private foundations, and it appears far more, of course, when the gift comes from the Federal Government, which has already been encroaching to such an extent upon the powers of the States. But this bill establishing a Federal department of education, which has in it the principle of Federal aid, is a step and a very decisive step in exactly the same direction, and it is for that reason that we think it is to be opposed." (emphasis added)
"It is to be opposed, we think, because it represents a tendency which is no new thing, but has been in the world for at least 2,300 years, which seems to be opposed to the whole principle of liberty for which our country stands. It is the notion that education is an affair essentially of the State; that the children of the State must be educated for the benefit of the State; that idiosyncrasies should be avoided, and the State should devise that method of education which will best promote the welfare of the State." (emphasis added)
"The principle of this bill, and the principle of all the advocates of it, is that standardization in education is a good thing. I do not think a person can read the literature of advocates of measures of this sort without seeing that that is taken almost without argument as a matter of course, that standardization in education is a good thing. Now, I am perfectly ready to admit that standardization in some spheres is a good thing. It is a good thing in the making of Ford cars; but just because it is a good thing in the making of Ford cars it is a bad thing in the making of human beings, for the reason that a Ford car is a machine and a human being is a person. But a great many educators today deny the distinction between the two, and that is the gist of the whole matter." (emphasis added)
"I do not believe that the personal, free, individual character of education can be preserved when you have a Federal department laying down standards of education which become more or less mandatory to the whole country." (emphasis added)
"I believe that in the sphere of the mind we should have absolutely unlimited competition."
Friday, February 21, 2014
Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is
Wednesday, February 26, 2014. The Committee of the Whole Meeting starts
at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The Committee of the
Whole Meeting will be followed by the regular Board Meeting at 7 p.m.
Both meetings are open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to
attend. You can find the agenda for each of the meetings here.
Friday, January 17, 2014
Next Minooka 201 School Board Meeting
The next meeting of the Minooka CCSD 201 school board is
Wednesday, January 22, 2014. The Committee of the Whole Meeting starts
at 6:00 p.m. in the board room (the old library) at the Minooka Primary
Center located at 305 Church Street in Minooka. The Committee of the
Whole Meeting will be followed by the regular Board Meeting at 7 p.m.
Both meetings are open to the public, and everyone is encouraged to
attend. You can find the agenda for each of the meetings here.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Is Common Core the Best Homeschool Sales Pitch Ever?
Here is a link to an article from the Stop Common Core Illinois website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)