Author: ijsadmin (Page 11 of 12)

Does the School Board even care about improving education in Jeffco? It doesn’t seem so.

June 13, 2017 / ijsadmin

Recently there was a Question and Answer article in the Canyon Courier with school Board president Ron Mitchell.

I found Ron’s answers to the questions to be disappointing and disturbing. Not once did he mention improving academic performance or growth. They are certainly not in his list of accomplishments or even in his list of items that need work. Transparency is a nice goal, but shouldn’t education performance be first and foremost? And as for his desire to “examine early childhood education”, that realistically is not going to happen unless a boatload of money miraculously falls from the sky. This Board just doesn’t seem to care about improving education in the county. Even as their words say this is true, their actions speak even louder. The absence of any performance-based compensation incentive in Dr. Glass’s contract is a pretty strong indicator that improving education is not their first priority.

In addition, in a February 21^st response to a letter I had previously sent to the Board, Amanda Stevens wrote:

“ As a Board of Education we have set priorities based upon three main objectives:

competitive compensation to keep and attract quality staff,
maintaining school funding levels through student based budgeting (SBB) while trying to preserve critical programs and services for students; and,
ensuring school facilities are warm, safe, and dry.”

There it is. Three Board objectives and not one of them is to improve academic performance or growth. These are quite similar to Ron’s comments with no mention of what should really matter – Students and Education.

Something is very, very wrong with the Jeffco school Board. It’s time for them to rethink their priorities and objectives and truly focus on students and improving education in Jefferson County.

3 Questions for Jeffco

June 7, 2017 / ijsadmin

Dr. Glass recently solicited feedback for 3 Questions from the Jeffco community. Below is my input to him:

Dr. Glass,
Here are some different thoughts from what you have already seen:

Teachers. I’m not going to wade into the minefield of teacher compensation, but I will discuss the bell curve of teacher quality. Yes, there is a range of teacher quality in Jeffco, they’re not all extremely good as some would have you believe. I know this quality range. My kids have had a few really great teachers, but they have had an EQUAL number of absolutely horrendous teachers. I suggest that you propose to the JCEA (union) a yearly bonus to identified GREAT teachers (1% or 2% of total teachers) in exchange for a streamlined process to rid the district of the horrendous teachers (they’re out there and they truly negatively impact education). There should be no bonuses without a corresponding streamlined firing process. I’m suggesting that this be an All or Nothing. Let’s see if the union is willing to partner to improve education. Yearly bonus should be something substantial ($4,000 – $5,000). Parents can help you identify both the great and the terrible teachers.

District Staff. The District Staff should be dedicated to education and the improvement of academic performance in Jeffco. They should demonstrate integrity and ethics. They shouldn’t invoke the Urban Dictionary definition of Educrat – “It describes a special kind of person in the education: pinheads who are so process-oriented that they are more excited in the process of learning than the myriad wonders that can be learned.”

Staff members shouldn’t be more concerned about dollars than students.

Unfortunately, we have more than our share of Educrats. While I didn’t vote for him, one of Trump’s mantras – ‘Drain the Swamp’ could be appropriately applied to what is needed at Denver West.

We have Cabinet members with titles with words such as “Innovation”, “Success” and “Effectiveness” in them who certainly don’t exhibit any desire or ability to live up to those titles.

We have Cabinet members who intentionally deceive and lie (and I don’t use that word lightly) to the Board, teachers and parents.

Restore some community trust in Denver West by getting rid of the people there who have forgotten who their real constituents are – the students.

Note: I can back up my accusations of intentional deception and lying with documentation and evidence and would appreciate a meeting so I can give that to you.

Is the Board capable of thinking out of the Box? Or, Why is the Board not capable of any real discussion?

June 6, 2017 / ijsadmin

Over the course of the past 6 months, in response to District staff financial recommendations, I have sent what I think were well researched and well thought out alternatives to several of those recommendations to the Board. There has never been a discussion on any of my alternatives. I am only left to wonder ‘Why?’

The first was in response to the Cabinet’s budget reduction recommendation to cut funding to the District’s HS GT program at Wheat Ridge. In this case I recommended that the Board look at the following alternatives and proceeded to outline why those were worthy of a discussion:

Here are 4 options I suggest you consider to save the HS GT program:

Cut one additional Achievement Director than has already been recommended. This program with 14 current Directors can easily support a reduction to 11 or even 10.
Use some of the $17.5M in Materials and Supplies Contingency that is hidden in the budget. In 2016-2017 this is actually a $7.5M increase from 2015-2016.
Reduce the amount of savings you’re looking for. Only one year after negotiating a new contract with the teacher’s union, it is extremely hard for most people to comprehend the need for another $25M in compensation increases. Spending a little less would still be an improvement for teachers.
Determine if some of the $24M in 2015-2016 budget surplus is sustainable and use some of the sustainable surplus to fund high school GT.

The second was in response to the Cabinet’s equal allocation of additional Alternative Pathways funding instead of equitable funding made on May 4^th. In this case I recommended that the Board look at the following alternatives:

How about considering these ideas:

Create competition. Have schools submit Alternative Pathways program proposals. From this competition allocate additional funding for the best of these.
Allocate $20,000 to all 17 schools and keep the IB and GT Center funding in place.
Keep the IB and GT Center funding and allocate $50k in additional Alternative Pathways funding to just the 12 schools which have total matriculation rates below 72%, FRL rates above 14% and 4 year matriculation rates below 55%.

Yet, not one of these reasonable alternatives was even discussed. Surely, if the Board members were really doing their jobs at least one member would have found one of these alternatives interesting enough to warrant a discussion.

But there never was a discussion. It’s baffling to me.

In addition, I’ve heard other community members present reasonable alternatives at Board meetings, but again never any semblance of a discussion on community proposed alternatives.

When you are in a fiscally constrained environment shouldn’t you listen to and evaluate every single idea?

Having worked in resource constrained startups, that is certainly the characteristic that I saw that led to survival.

Yet, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of that type of thinking or behavior to me with the current Board.

Actually, all I’ve seen is an arrogant, we know best, and uncreative herd mentality.

Educrats rule Jeffco. Board drinks the Kool-Aid and fails to ask a single meaningful question.

June 5, 2017 / ijsadmin

At the June 1^st Board meeting multiple District Educrats (Urban Dictionary defines Educrat – “It describes a special kind of person in the education: pinheads who are so process-oriented that they are more excited in the process of learning than the myriad wonders that can be learned.”) presented their efforts at ‘Continuous Improvement’ to the Board. They based their Continuous Improvement efforts on the ‘Methodology of Improvement Science’ and the ‘Six Core Principles of Improvement’:

Make the work problem-specific and user-centered
Variation in performance is the core problem to address.
See the system that produces the current outcomes.
We cannot improve at scale what we cannot measure.
Anchor practice improvement in disciplined inquiry.
Accelerate improvements through networked communities.

If you’re ready for a nap you can view this from 1:51 – 2:41 of the June 1^st livestream https://livestream.com/accounts/10429076/events/3542310/videos/157394871

In my opinion, this 50 minute presentation and question session was the embodiment of Eduspeak. My eyes glazed over and I asked myself ‘Are these people more concerned about the process or education?’ I may be too simple of a person, but when people spend more time talking about the process than what they’ve accomplished it worries me. The first thought that came to my mind is that these people were merely attempting to justify their jobs.

On the other hand, I also recognize that the programs that were discussed could actually have real value to education in the district.

However, we’ll never know that real value as the presenters never addressed, nor did the Board ask the key questions which are necessary to assess that value. Those questions include:

What were the total required resources for this program? What are the real and projected costs?
Is this program repeatable at scale?
Is this program sustainable as people move on and change positions?

Without knowing the answers to these questions the District and the Board can’t assess the real value. They cannot compare the cost and value of different programs and the District will just continue to spend valuable resources on programs that may or may not be worth those resources.

It’s time for the District Staff and Board to ask the right questions so that they can spend our valuable tax dollars in an efficient and effective manner that positively impacts education in the District.

Colorado Inside Out does not give ringing endorsement of Dr. Glass

June 2, 2017 / ijsadmin

Colorado Inside Out commentators do not exactly give a resounding endorsement of Dr. Glass or his contract – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUuSadStYlg.

They do not even discuss the absence of performance based compensation, the 7% annuity worth $18,550, $9,000 in yearly car compensation and 9 additional days of vacation (worth $25,000) which makes his compensation even more costly.

His performance definitely needs watching.

Another blow to Transparency in Dr. Glass’ Superintendent’s Contract?

May 31, 2017 / ijsadmin

In what is yet another blow to transparency within the school district Dr. Glass’ contract contains a sentence not included in previous contracts with regard to his yearly evaluation:

The Superintendent’s evaluation shall be kept confidential to the extent permitted by Colorado law.

Yet, Colorado Revised Statutes Title 22 Education § 22-9-109 clearly states:

(a) The evaluation report of the chief executive officer of any school district, as it relates to the performance of the chief executive officer in fulfilling the adopted school district objectives, fiscal management of the district, district planning responsibilities, and supervision and evaluation of district personnel, must be open for inspection by any person at reasonable times;

Since state law is very clear on this subject, why was this sentence even included in the contract?

Again, what are the Board and Dr. Glass attempting to hide?

Another poorly thought out recommendation by the School District’s staff

May 31, 2017 / ijsadmin

Recently the Superintendent’s Cabinet recommended allocating an additional $600,000, or $50,000 for 12 High Schools, in additional alternative Pathways funding. This will supplement the $65,000 each of 17 High Schools already receives for a total of $115,000 per school.

On the surface, this sounds fair.

It’s not.

Once again, this is an uncreative and poorly thought out recommendation by the Superintendent’s Cabinet. Here’s why:

There is no accountability for the already allocated $65,000. Some schools have instituted robust alternative pathways programs and use the money for its intended purpose, but others not so much. If there are schools that aren’t putting the current $65k to good use for alternative pathways why are they being rewarded with additional money?
High Schools are not the same and have different needs. Does Conifer (with less than 800 students, a 75% total 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) or even Lakewood (with 2100 students) or Columbine (with 1600 students)? The needs of these schools are different and in this case the proposed allocation of additional Alternative Pathways funds is Equal, but it is NOT Equitable!
The effective reduction in Alternative Pathways funding at the IB and GT Center schools in relation to the other 12 district High Schools does not really make sense. These 5 schools have Alternative Pathways programs that are working. In the case of Wheat Ridge, in addition to the GT Center, they are already spending over $90,000 on several extremely effective Alternative Pathways programs. With an overall matriculation rate of under 62% and a Free and Reduced Lunch population of over 46%, they can certainly use some additional funding. Yet, even with a proven track record, this BFO effectively reduces their Alternative Pathways funding by $50k in relation to schools such as Conifer and Evergreen which have high matriculation rates and low FRL populations. The same can be said with regard to the IB schools. They have excellent IB programs. Does this mean that just because they have a successful program, they couldn’t effectively use additional funding for other students?

I agree that additional Alternative Pathways funding can really make a difference and that it is a good use of funds. However, why not enact a process that ensures the money is really being used for its intended purpose. Make schools report back how that money is being spent and evaluate whether it is being spent for Alternative Pathways that make a difference as intended. Compare the value of those programs among the schools and reward schools that have effective, life-changing programs with more money. In effect, make schools earn the money. Don’t just give it away with no accountability whatsoever.

How about considering these ideas:

Create competition. Have schools submit Alternative Pathways program proposals. From this competition allocate additional funding for the best of these.
Allocate $20,000 to all 17 schools and keep the IB and GT Center funding in place.
Keep the IB and GT Center funding and allocate $50k in additional Alternative Pathways funding to just the 12 schools which have total matriculation rates below 72%, FRL rates above 14% and 4 year matriculation rates below 55%(see spreadsheet).

The Budgeting for Outcomes document states that the goal of this allocation is:

“To increase and bring equity to the SBB Alternative Pathway factor for all district managed neighborhood schools.”

Unfortunately, the uncreative allocation of this funding merely brings equality, NOT equity as is stated in the BFO Explanation. The goal of the District staff should be to Improve Jeffco Schools by effectively and efficiently using taxpayer money, not just give it away in an unaccountable and potentially inefficient manner.

Let’s allocate funds to where they will do the most good and make schools accountable for their use. Reward schools that are innovative and entrepreneurial and are really working for their students. Don’t reward schools that aren’t using these funds for their stated purpose.

Approving this BFO as written is inequitable and sends the wrong message.

Transparency, Trust and Voters – the losers in the selection process of Dr. Glass as Jeffco’s Superintendent

May 30, 2017 / ijsadmin

This past weekend the Denver Post published an article pointing to the hypocrisy in the selection of Dr. Jason Glass as Superintendent.

I agree.

The current Board of Education ran on a platform of Transparency and Trust. Yet, the selection process of Dr. Glass was, in my opinion, less transparent than that of Mr. McMinimee.

Yes, supporters of the current Board want you to believe that because they repeatedly cite the number of contacts, candidates and interviewees that the process was transparent.

Yet, only a sole ‘finalist’ was named.

Where is the transparency in that?

Isn’t the purpose of the Colorado law requiring that finalists for positions be named 14 days in advance to allow proper vetting of the candidates? Isn’t the purpose of the law to give the people impacted by the selection a chance to evaluate and compare all of the finalists? Isn’t an implied purpose of the law to give citizens a chance to evaluate their representatives on the selection?

The answer to these questions is a definitive ‘Yes’ and as citizens we were deprived of our legal right to evaluate and compare finalists. We were deprived of our legal right to evaluate the Board’s selection against other finalists.

Naming a single ‘finalist’ may barely follow the letter of the law, but it certainly doesn’t follow the intent of the law.

Naming a single ‘finalist’ implies there is something to hide. What is this Board attempting to hide? Was there a better candidate? Was there a candidate who actually has a track record of improving academic performance? Was there a candidate who was Superintendent at a larger school district and might have more experience in public school districts than Jason Glass? We don’t know now and never will. Transparency is the loser here, exactly the same as it was in 2014.

Following the letter of the law, but not the intent of the law, is not transparent, no matter how many people say it is. This is what destroys trust in our elected officials. Why should we ever trust this Board again?

The other losers in this process are the voters who voted for this Board believing that they would bring increased Transparency and Trust to their positions. They didn’t and we shouldn’t fool ourselves that they are any different or any better in that respect than the old Board. In fact, this Board is actually worse since that was one of principles they ran on.

Finally, I know there are still people who believe that because candidate numbers were released that this was a more transparent process. However, here are the publicly available numbers provided by Ray & Associates in 2014:

257 individuals contacted by Ray & Associates, 63 completed applications, 11 candidates prescreened + 2 alternates, 6 candidates invited to interview, 5 participated with a candidate pool representing gender, racial and geographic diversity (California, Colorado, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington).

Sound familiar?

In addition, in 2014 Mr. McMinimee’s resume was posted on Board Docs. Not so with Dr. Glass’ resume.

Can anyone look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that the 2017 search was more transparent than the 2014 search?

Only if they are blinded by the light reflected by the opaqueness of this Board.

Is Support Jeffco Kids the pot that calls the kettle black?

May 24, 2017 / ijsadmin

Recently Support Jeffco Kids wrote a blog post tiltled ‘Can Jeffco Schools Be Purchased Again?’ with an opening sentence of ‘What if we told you that Jeffco Schools could easily be purchased and slip back to the same situation we were in before Witt, Newkirk, and Williams were overwhelmingly recalled? ‘

But isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?

Didn’t national and local teachers unions provide more than $265,000 to Jeffco United, a nonprofit group that served as a catalyst for the 2015 Board recall and subsequently broke the law in the handling of that money?

Who gave to Jeffco United?
• National Education Association, $150,000
• Colorado Education Association, $113,500
• Jefferson County Education Association, $20,000
• All other individuals, $3,115

The truth is that ‘dark money’, as Support Jeffco Kids puts it, supports both sides, not just one side as the article leads one to believe.

However, I do find it interesting that a principal supporter of the ‘new’ Board, runs a blog post titled ‘Can Jeffco Schools Be Purchased Again?’ when it appears to me that a whole lot of purchasing occurred in 2015.

The High Cost of Dr. Jason Glass

May 23, 2017 / ijsadmin

After reading the fine print of Dr. Glass’ contract, the Board of Education paid a high, and barely transparent, price to have him as our Superintendent.

At first glance the salaries of Dan and Jason appear relatively close – $220k + $40k bonus for Dan and a $265k salary for Jason. These are the numbers you are most likely to hear.

However, Dan only earned bonuses of $9k, $20k and $27k averaging to $238,667 per year for his three years as Superintendent, not close to $260k.

In addition, Jason was also given a 7% tax free annuity worth $18,550 in his first year, 9 additional days of vacation per year worth $11,942, a $9,000 yearly car allowance and a personal PERA reimbursement increase over Dan of $2,106.

That is a roughly estimated $67,932 increase in salary and benefits cost over Dan in the first year and doesn’t even include smartphone, tablet, laptop, associated monthly charges, yearly cost of living increases and uncapped moving and temporary housing expenses for up to six months (who agrees to a contract with uncapped expenses?).

That’s a really big increase for a Superintendent with a track record of under-achieving academic performance in Eagle County, a district 12 times smaller than Jeffco, and especially since the contract does not include any improvement incentives.

We can only hope he does better here.