Category: School Board (Page 6 of 8)

Our School Board has failed!

October 18, 2017 / ijsadmin

You only have to listen to the incumbent Board members tell us what they have accomplished in the last two years to realize that they have failed.

What do you hear them say most often?

They have returned civility to the Board room.
They hired a new Superintendent.
They have slowed teacher “churn”.

However, it’s especially disappointing that you never hear them talk about the improvements in education they have fostered in the District. But with 68%% of Jeffco grads not College and Career ready and more than 55% of 3^rd Graders (in 2016) not meeting state standards, I guess they can’t really do that. In addition, removing incentive based compensation from the new Superintendent’s contract certainly isn’t an indication that education is a primary focus. Actions speak louder than words in my book.

They also don’t talk about their failure to get needed Mill levy and Bond measures approved by the voters last November, the only major school district in the state that didn’t get tax measures approved. 3A and 3B were messes and the incumbent Board oversaw and approved those.

Still, I think it is important to examine what the Board has been touting as their accomplishments:

It is misleading at best when the incumbent Board members talk about returning civility to the Board room. Wasn’t it their supporters and the pro-recall organizers who created the most disruption in the Board room? I’m not sure this really qualifies as an “accomplishment”.

I won’t disagree that the Board hired a new Superintendent. But, the real questions are ‘Why did the Board hire a new Superintendent? And “What was wrong with the previous Superintendent?” Unfortunately, again it doesn’t appear that the primary reason was to improve education in Jeffco. If you compare either Jeffco’s education achievement or growth results with Eagle County (here, here and here), where the new Superintendent came from, the Jeffco results are better. We didn’t get someone who has a history of moving the education needle. By education performance measures we didn’t get someone who was better. In addition, the incumbent Board candidates like to continually remind us that they think it is important to have “continuity” in the Board and District leadership positions, but it looks like that only applies to their positions as they were the cause of a drastic change in “continuity” in the more important Superintendent position.

Finally, the Board members like to talk about how they have reduced teacher “churn”, the turnover of teachers each year, a result of their nearly $40M in teacher compensation increases over the past two years. Unfortunately this claim is mere speculation as the District does not conduct exit interviews of teachers. Every year teachers, like many people, change jobs for a wide variety of reasons such as retiring, moving for family reasons, pregnancy, changing careers, and yes, moving for compensation reasons. But, to claim that the $40M in compensation increases had a direct impact in reducing teacher turnover is completely unsupportable and misleading, and demonstrates that the incumbent Board members don’t really understand the number they are using (http://improvejeffcoschools.org/index.php/2017/06/26/the-continued-spreading-of-alternative-facts-regarding-teacher-turnover/).

For these reasons, and others, I think it is time for a change in the composition of the Board. We need a Board that is focused on student achievement, a Board that is focused on accountability and a Board that doesn’t try to avoid and mislead us about what they have done and “accomplished”.

It is time that we have a more balanced Board that actually listens and better represents the diversity of thought in our District.

I will be voting for that change by voting for Erica Shields and Matt Van Gieson for School Board in November.

Why wasn’t the decision to close Pleasant View revisited after state funding was more than anticipated?

October 10, 2017 / ijsadmin

I don’t understand why the decision to close Pleasant View, and the other February budget cuts for that matter, were not re-examined after the final state funding was more than originally anticipated earlier this year.

According to District budget documents, the saving from closing Pleasant View was $663,000. Yet, the Board decided, without reviewing prior budget cut decisions, to allocate the additional state funding to:

$3.7M in Additional SBB Allocation for One-time use
$600,000 for Alternative Pathway Factor
$412,000 for IT Funding for School & Community Engagement
$669,000 for Support for High School Athletics & Activities

I’m not saying that any of these allocations were not needed or a good use of the funding (other than the $600k in Alternative Pathways funding).

But, shouldn’t there have been a discussion on revisting the cuts of February 9^th and a complete weighing of options?

There certainly should have been!

For example, is $412k for IT Funding for School & Community Engagement more important than saving Pleasant View?

To the Cabinet and Board it is!

Once again, the Board blindly went with the Cabinet’s recommendations and went forward with their plans to close a “community school”, similar to the Jefferson “community school” that Ron Mitchell likes to claim he and the Board supported.

What’s so different about Pleasant View and that community?

I don’t know, but it doesn’t look good to me.

Board didn’t ask single question on accountability when approving $600k in additional Alternative Pathways funding

October 6, 2017 / ijsadmin

Let me be clear, I think that Alternative Pathways funding is needed and is a great idea.

However, the allocation of that funding is inequitable and there is no District accountability for that funding.

In essence, the District doesn’t know if this money is being spent at the school level on Alternative Pathways or toilet paper. Don’t you think that if you are allocating $2M for a specific purpose during a Board described “budget crisis” there should be some accountability that the money is actually being spent as intended? I would hope so.

But let me talk about equity first. The Alternative Pathways funding is equal, not equitable. Every HS gets the same amount. Yet, aren’t our High Schools different sizes? Don’t our High Schools have different needs?

For example, does Conifer with fewer than 800 students, a 75% matriculation rate and 14% Free and Reduced Lunch rate have the same alternative pathways needs as Alameda with 1300 students, 41% matriculation rate and 84% Free and Reduced Lunch rate? I doubt it, but the Board’s “equalization” of this funding says they do.

For this reason alone this allocation is just poorly thought out.

And what about accountability? There is none!

In response to a CORA request I submitted the District responded:

The District has not requested or collected information on the pathways funding expenses. Schools allocate the budgets, there could be multiple lines and staff, and it is unknown.

There it is! No accountability. No budget line, no tracking, no accountability! No understanding if there even was a need for additional Alternative Pathways money at a school, or if the money previously allocated was used for its intended purposes.

And, to make this even worse, no Board member even asked a question on how schools spent the previously allocated $65k. They blindly, with complete disregard of taxpayer money, approved another $50k to each High School.

This is just one of the reasons the taxpayers in this county don’t trust the Board to be good stewards of our money and why we need change on the Board.

Does the Teacher Union “own” the School Board? Follow the Money!

October 3, 2017 / ijsadmin

During the last Board election in 2015 the National (NEA), State (CEA) and local (JCEA) teachers unions provided nearly $275,000 in support to get the current “clean slate” Board members elected.

National Education Association, $150,000
Colorado Education Association, $113,500
Jefferson County Education Association, $20,000

Was that money well spent?

First, the teachers were immediately rewarded with a new 5 year contract that included more than $20 million in one-time and ongoing raises in May of 2016.

But then, only one year after signing that new 5 year contract the Board fabricated a “budget crisis”, which included school closings and cuts to programs to generate an additional $19.5M in teacher compensation increases beginning in 2017-2018..

Even with all of that, Jeffco staff and Board members are already saying that the current salaries are not competitive for mid-career teachers.

I don’t see that when looking at the 2016-17 salary graphs here.

But, I guess that’s what you have to say to try to get people to support additional budget cuts or tax increases if you want to try and push through another big compensation increase for your employees and supporters!

Anyway, you can decide for yourself on the reasons for what’s transpiring.

But, as they say on the TV crime shows – “Follow the Money”.

Brad Rupert’s definition of “fiscal transparency” is not real fiscal transparency!

September 22, 2017 / ijsadmin

From his comments at the SJK Candidates’ Forum in Wheat Ridge last week, Brad Rupert wants us as taxpayers to believe that because of the size of the District, the District’s budget gets very complicated, very quickly. He was implying that either we wouldn’t understand the budget or the District doesn’t want to take the time to explain it to us.

With that comment, Brad also demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of budgets.

The fact of the matter is that school districts, no matter the size, have similar expenditures and line items. It is only the numbers in those line items that get bigger. Read the budget Brad. There is very little broken down by school and even in that case smaller districts would just have fewer schools. There’s nothing complicated about that. That’s just an excuse.

Brad also wants us to believe that the Financial Oversight Committee has responsibility for ensuring budget transparency. Really? Is this the same Financial Oversight Committee that approved a staff recommendation to use reserves to fund up to 1% of compensation increases this year if state funding was not what was anticipated? No organization funds on-going expenses with reserves unless it is a dire emergency. And Brad expects us to trust the Financial Oversight Committee? Sorry, I can no longer trust them.

But let’s talk about what real fiscal transparency looks like.

Before moving to Jefferson County we lived in New York state. Our school district was struggling financially, unlike the self-induced and mismanaged “fiscal crisis” our Board wanted everyone to believe we had this year.

In an effort to collaboratively look at the issue my NY District held 2 budget discussion/working sessions open to all members of the community. One session was held in the evening, the other on a Saturday to allow maximum attendance. Several members of the Board, the Superintendent, members of District finance and at least one member of all district departments attended each session. The District handed out line item copies of the District budget and then presented a high-level overview of the budget, why the district was struggling and financial alternatives.

Approximately 50 members of the community attended the same session I did, and this was from a district much smaller than Jeffco.

After that, community members could ask any question they wanted. It is my recollection that questions as mundane as reducing the frequency of landscaping during the summer were asked and answered.

The Board and District staff stayed until EVERY question was asked and answered.

That’s what real fiscal transparency is, Brad!

That’s what true collaboration with the community looks like.

It was a far cry from the “people can access the budget online” fiscal transparency that Brad Rupert wants us to believe is transparency. It was a Board that truly wanted to collaborate with the community instead of merely doing their “job” of boringly listening to 3 minute-constrained community members during public comment and then completely ignoring them.

Susan Harmon is just as bad. Her comment that she “think(s) that transparency is there” completely misses the point. It is even more disconcerting when she says that she “relies on the District’s presentations at the Board table”. Hey Susan, I want independent thinkers on the Board. I want someone that is at least mildly interested in the details. The District staff has repeatedly shown that they make poorly thought out recommendations and can’t be trusted (http://improvejeffcoschools.org/index.php/2017/02/14/jeffco-board-of-education-should-be-embarrased/ , http://improvejeffcoschools.org/index.php/2017/05/31/another-poorly-thought-out-recommendation-by-the-school-districts-staff/) . Board members need to do what they were elected to do and provide some true oversight.

And, you can add Ron Mitchell to the group of Board members who have no clue about fiscal transparency as he joined the crowd when he merely toted the thickness of the budget book he has.

Guess what incumbent Board members? Fiscal transparency is in the details, not in the “thickness” of the document.

You and the District staff aren’t providing real fiscal transparency, so stop claiming that you do!

Matt Van Gieson is right and Brad Rupert is wrong regarding Jeffco Budget transparency

September 19, 2017 / ijsadmin

Publishing a budget so that people can read it does not make the budget transparent.

For example, I doubt that anyone, other than someone in District finance, can answer the following budget related questions:

Under what budget line item are the salaries for the 2 HS GT Teachers that were targeted for elimination under the January recommendations?
What is the line item “Offset Budget Adjustment” under “Materials and Supplies” for Elementary, Middle and High Schools that mysteriously appeared in the budget this year?
Why was there a $6.7M Contingency budget for Elementary School Materials and Supplies in 2015-2016 when the entire Materials and Supplies budget was only $13M? Why was the Contingency line item raised to $13M in 2016-2017 when only $4M in total was spent on Materials and Supplies in 2015-2016?
Why couldn’t I get the 2015-2016 budget Actuals when I CORAed for that information in February 2017, 7 months after the close of the fiscal year?
Why did several 2016-2017 Adopted budget lines change from the 2016-2017 budget to the 2017-2018 budget?

I can’t answer questions 2, 3, 4 and 5, but the answer to question number 1 is that it is part of the Elementary School Contingency funds. Transparency would have that line item easily identifiable under the District’s GT budget. If you think that is transparent, then you must be blind. Note: I only know this because I had to file a CORA request to get that information.

There are just too many inconsistencies and unknowns to call the District’s budget “transparent”.

Let me talk about some of these issues and their lack of transparency to support Matt Van Gieson’s point and to contradict Brad Rupert’s blindly believing everything the District staff tells him.

“Offset Budget Adjustment” – This line item mysteriously appears on pages 85, 86 and 89 of the 2017-2018 Adopted Budget Web under Materials and Supplies for Elementary, Middle and Senior Level Detail. $4.4M, not an inconsequential amount. What is that? Is it being used to hide the enormity of the Contingency line item I will discuss below?
Materials and Supplies Contingency. This seems like a slush fund to me. $10M budgeted in 2015-2016, with none used as reported in the 2017-2018 Budget. After years of budgeting it is ridiculous that 41% of the schools’ 2017-18 Materials & Supplies budget is Contingency. 10% to 20% would be conservative with years of budgeting data. This appears to be a non-transparent slush fund if you ask me.

In late February 2017 I sent a CORA request to the District requesting 2015-2016 Budget actuals for the fiscal year that ended in June 2016. Amazingly, Budget actuals were not available, 7 months later. Is that budget transparency? I think not. I don’t even know how you can form the 2016-2017 budget without having a good idea of the previous year’s actuals & projections, but to be well into the 2017-2018 budget planning cycle and not have actuals from 2015-2016 is just unfathomable to me.

There were several 2016-2017 budget line items that changed from the 2016-2017 Adopted Budget to the 2017-2018 Adopted Budget. These changes weren’t just isolated to the Contingency line item as the Total line changed by an amount different than the Contingency change. Note the changes in the Contingency Budget and Total Budget items.

What happened here? Again, where is the transparency with this process? Since the 2016-2017 Budget was approved, I even question the legality of these changes and where they carried over to. But, whatever happened, it certainly wasn’t transparent.

And these were just the things I found in a high-level overview of the Approved Budgets. I think it would be safe to say that if I could find these things that there are probably more. And, there are probably people that Matt has talked to that have identified others.

In addition, I’ve previously written about the non-transparent budget maneuverings related to the Alternative Pathways Budgeting For Outcomes (BFO) allocation. (http://improvejeffcoschools.org/index.php/2017/06/14/transparency-in-jeffco-only-if-repeating-the-word-counts/)

Why is all of this important?

This is important for several reasons.

First, people, including Brad Rupert, are saying that the District’s budget is transparent. The fact is, as I have proven above, this is not true. Yes, there is a published document, but looking closely at that document shows that there are some things that require further investigation as Matt insinuated. The key point is that there is not a process in place that would allow people to ask questions similar to what I’m asking. That means non-transparency in my book.

Second, the large Contingency “slush” fund is most certainly not transparent. It shouldn’t be that large ($10M plus $4.4M in Offset Budget Adjustment). If this slush fund was looked at in January what could have been saved from the Board’s cuts? Certainly, the $660k savings from the closing of Pleasantview could have been easily absorbed by just the Elementary Contingency funds. Did the Board even really care?

What is most frustrating for me personally is that my daughter made a public comment on these exorbitant Contingency funds at the February 9^th Board meeting and I wrote a detailed letter to the Board regarding them. Yet Brad Rupert and his fellow Board members did not even discuss using more than just a minuscule amount of these non-transparent, and exorbitant, Contingency slush funds to pay for their desired compensation increases, resulting in budget cuts.

Don’t tell me the Budget is transparent when questions like I have above can’t be answered. Don’t tell me the Budget is transparent when it is more convenient to ignore constituents than take a minute to even investigate what $17M (in the 2016-2017 budget) in Contingency funds are actually being used for.

Matt is right and Brad is wrong with regard to Jeffco Budget transparency!

Incumbent Board members violate District policy on electioneering

September 15, 2017 / ijsadmin

The incumbent Board members (Ron Mitchell, Brad Rupert and Susan Harmon) violated District policy by electioneering on District property at the candidate forum on September 13^th.

Yes, that’s right, the people who establish and approve District policies and definitely know better, violated their own policy by placing at least 4 sets of campaign signs on the Wheat Ridge campus.

Much like the District’s ignoring the compliance requirements of state law (SB 191 – https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2017/07/11/jeffco-public-schools-diverging-from-state-law-on-timeline-for-evaluating-teachers/) because it thinks the law is “ridiculous” and isn’t applicable, maybe the incumbent Board members feel that the District policy regarding electioneering on District property isn’t applicable to them. It makes sense since the culture within a District starts at the top.

I’d prefer to have a Board composed of members who don’t think they are above their own policies and follow the rules.

The Board failed on its most important task – hiring a Superintendent who could move the education needle.

September 11, 2017 / ijsadmin

Recently, there has been a great deal of self-congratulating on the part of our School District and Superintendent relating to Jeffco’s 2016-2017 test scores.

Most recently, we’ve seen an article published by the school district relating to CMAS Achievement.

While it is true that these results may be “all-time highs’, let’s be serious. Should we as parents and taxpayers be happy with results that show that barely 50% of our kids meet state ELA standards? It’s even worse with Math where only 40%, or less, seem to be achieving the state standards. That seems to be acceptance of mediocrity, at best, to me.

However, what is even more disconcerting is the comparison of Jeffco scores to those of Eagle County, where our new Superintendent was “Chief Learner” for 4 years and had plenty of time, within a small district, to make a real impact.

I don’t see that impact. In fact, NOT one Grade level or Subject in Eagle has scores better than Jeffco’s, most not even achieving the state “average”. What should we expect in the years to come in Jeffco? A regression to state averages?

What was the Board thinking when they hired someone without a proven record of academic related results? Did they hire a blogger/tweeter over someone who actually has a proven record? Didn’t the Board say that this was one of the most important decisions a Board could make? Did the Board even consider academic results or were they just bamboozled by a smooth talking social media specialist and “visionary”?

This Board didn’t do their job on their most important task!

We needed someone who could really move the needle with our kids. Eagle County’s results don’t indicate we got that. Those results point to the failure of our Board. We have a dire need for change on the Board to really move Jeffco forward.

Mere months after “budget crisis” and budget cuts, new Superintendent hires “Special Assistant”

August 25, 2017 / ijsadmin

What are we to think when only days into a new fiscal year and just days on the job, the new Superintendent commits the equivalent of a full-time teacher’s salary so that he can “supervise” a PhD Education Leadership resident?

Didn’t the District just have what the Board described as a “budget crisis”? Didn’t the District just absorb $10M+ in budget cuts? Didn’t the District just narrowly avoid closing 4 additional neighborhood schools and cuts to successful student-facing programs?

If the fiscal situation is so dire, where did the money for this “resident” miraculously appear?

I realize there is some “slush” in a $1B budget. But shouldn’t some of that “slush” have been found only a few short months earlier, before successful programs were recommended for reduction?

Why didn’t the District staff find that “extra” money then? Or is the new Superintendent such a financial wizard that he could identify it after only a few short days on the job? How did he find this money at the beginning of the fiscal year before under-spends could be identified?

I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that the optics of this immediate “hire” are not good. This “hire” makes me wonder the following:

Why does the new, highly paid Superintendent need a “Special Assistant”?
Where is this money really coming from? The response to the CORA request I filed stated it is coming from the (already reduced by $54,000 due to budget reductions) Superintendent’s Admin budget, or other unspecified accounts at management discretion. This means it is coming from some still unknown budget line.

Why should we ever trust the District/Board when they say there is a “budget crisis” if they can come up with the salary for one teacher equivalent just days into a new fiscal year? It makes me wonder where else they are “hiding” money.
What value is this “Special Assistant” really going to provide to the District, above and beyond staff that is already on the payroll and familiar with the District?
Why did the new Superintendent agree to this?

I’m sorry, but when the District keeps saying that they’re no longer going to fund successful and life-changing student-facing programs such as the District’s HS GT program, yet can miraculously and instantaneously find money for the Superintendent’s “Special Assistant”, I don’t think you can trust any future “budget crisis” or proposed budget cuts!

Board Members court Wheat Ridge only when they want something

August 4, 2017 / ijsadmin

I recently saw where the three Board of Education members up for re-election were going to hold their kick-off rally in Wheat Ridge. My first reaction was “REALLY”? In Wheat Ridge?? What a slap in the face!

These same Board members have shown nothing but apathy for learners in the Wheat Ridge articulation area. They have shown absolutely ZERO leadership in developing a long-term sustainable funding solution for the District’s HS GT program at Wheat Ridge HS, causing uncertainty and anxiety among the students, parents and Wheat Ridge HS. They essentially approved a back door cut of $50k to WR and the HS GT program with the recently approved Alternative Pathways BFO. They essentially put Pennington and Stober Elementary Schools at the top of the list for closure. They pulled money from hard earned reserves for new schools, but let the entire Wheat Ridge articulation area languish and deteriorate with one of the worst Facility Condition Indexes in the entire district.

And they want to launch their re-election campaign in Wheat Ridge? I don’t know about anyone else, but that certainly feels like they’re saying to Wheat Ridge, “We only care about you when you can do something for us.”