Improve Jeffco Schools

A different perspective on the current state of Jeffco schools

Category: Financial (Page 6 of 6)

Kevin Carroll’s meeting with the HS GT Community was Horrendous

July 6, 2017 /

I laughed when a Board member recently told me that Kevin Carroll had told the interim Superintendent that a May meeting with the District’s HS GT community “went well”.

I was at that meeting. I don’t know whether Kevin Carroll is delusional, from another planet or wanted his boss to believe something happened that didn’t happen. But calling what transpired during that meeting as “went well” is far from how the GT parents and students would characterize that meeting.

Maybe if you want to define “went well” as having the opportunity to present a completely misleading and intentionally deceptive set of SBB numbers to the HS GT community, but from the first question onward, “went well” is not how I would describe that meeting.

Maybe Kevin doesn’t quite grasp the concept that there is a high probability that GT students have intelligent parents. Maybe Kevin doesn’t understand that these parents are not going to be fooled by some attempted slick presentation and they will call him out for attempting to intentionally deceive and mislead them with a set of SBB numbers that don’t match the reality of what actually happens at a school. He was called out for that attempt by a parent.

But, that’s not all.

Kevin was called out by a student for his continued attempts to mislead and deceive everyone he talks to about how the HS GT program is similar to “the other 15 GT programs in the District” with regard to services, educational opportunities and support when it isn’t. The student told Carroll that the elementary and middle school GT programs he attended were just advanced learning programs, and that the high school GT program was the first time he had ever experienced social-emotional support and the autonomous learner model.

Kevin even upset my meek and mild-mannered “on-the-spectrum” daughter, who also has ADHD, with his comment that money earmarked for the high school GT program might be better spent on students “who have real needs.” Really, Kevin? And you oversee the GT program? And Special Education? Do you understand who is in the GT program and what it does? Do you not realize that with their high probability of co-morbid developmental and mental health challenges, and with their different way of thinking and feeling, gifted students have “real needs” as legitimate as those of special education students? He should be fired for incompetence for that comment.

Kevin was told straight up by one parent that he wasn’t trusted, nor was the District. After his presentation, it was easy to see why.

Another parent asked why, if the program is such a success, the District would seek to pull money from it instead of investing more into it like a successful business would. No answer to that question.

Kevin was also called out for making this presentation without including the school’s School Accountability Committee, and doing it at a time when the school essentially didn’t have a principal to refute his numbers. That felt pretty sneaky. I guess that’s one way to ensure only one side of the story gets told.

The parents and students at that meeting weren’t fooled by Kevin and his misleading, manipulative and deceptive SBB numbers, and trust me, they let him know that.

For him to go back and tell his boss that the meeting “went well” is just another in a long line of statements by Kevin Carroll that just aren’t true. We don’t need or want Cabinet members like Kevin in our District!

To put it simply – this meeting couldn’t have been much worse! And the high school GT community deserves better.

Good riddance, Terry Elliott

July 1, 2017 /

It’s a great day in Jeffco knowing that Terry Elliott has left the District. You’d be hard pressed to find anything he has done that is either ‘Innovative’ or ‘Effective’ as one would be led to believe from his title ‘Chief Effectiveness Officer’ in charge of the Innovation and Effectiveness Team.

He’s certainly no friend to the District’s highly successful HS GT program either. From putting program de-funding in Phase 1B (certain to be implemented) of the Cabinet’s January 26th proposed budget recommendations, to not taking a collaborative approach to finding a sustainable funding solution as interim Superintendent, to a back-door cut to the program with an Alternative Pathways Budgeting For Outcomes (BFO) recommendation, it seemed he did everything in his power to hurt the HS GT program. In addition, he refused, or ignored, multiple invitations over multiple years to visit and get an understanding of the program.

The District is better off today. Good riddance!

Be careful, Jeffco Voters and Taxpayers!

June 27, 2017 /

Susan Harmon and Brad Rupert don’t think that $20 million in one-time and ongoing teacher raises for 2016-1017 and $19.5M in increases for 2017-2018 are enough!

Recent articles in the Canyon Courier regarding Susan Harmon’s run for re-election (June 14, 2017) and Brad Rupert’s run for re-election (June 21, 2017) give us the following quotes:

Brad Rupert – “…I think we’ve made progress – although perhaps not as much as I’d like – in being competitive with regard to our teachers and their compensation packages…”

Susan Harmon – “Additionally, the school district still isn’t competitive in the market for teachers, so I want to work on that.”

These seem like code words to me of another budget ‘crisis’ and an attempt to raise taxes, the Board’s continued neglect of facilities maintenance issues that only continue to get worse, or closing more neighborhood schools.

I realize that teacher compensation is a touchy subject, but when I graphically compare 2016-2017 teacher salaries to cherry-picked neighboring districts I don’t see the discrepancies that people talk about.

BA Salary Comparison 2016-2017

MA Salary Comparison 2016-2017

 

Yes, there are cherry-picked points where Jeffco salaries may be less than the other large districts, but across the spectrum, Jeffco salaries seem to me to be pretty competitive. We also have to keep in mind that these graphs only compare salaries in select adjacent districts (well, Cherry Creek is not exactly adjacent).

 

I’m happy to support compensation increases, and even a tax hike, if it can be proven to me that there truly is a compensation gap. However, my graphs don’t show that across the board and combined with the fact that the District doesn’t collect any exit survey information to prove their theory that teachers are leaving for more lucrative teaching positions I’m just not drinking the Kool-Aid. As they say in Missouri – ‘Show me!’

It will be interesting to see how these graphs change for 2017-2018 so I’ll update them when that data becomes available.

In the meantime, keep an eye on Brad and Susan and the rest of their compatriots!

Transparency in Jeffco? Only if repeating the word counts.

June 14, 2017 /

Recently, at the June 1st Board meeting, the District staff egregiously concealed changes to an Alternative Pathways Budgeting For Outcomes (BFO) recommendation in order to obfuscate the impact to Wheat Ridge High School and the District’s HS GT program.

It is true that changes to the dates were needed to correct poor staff work as these dates were initially written as “2019-2018” and generated confusion even among Board members.

However, the changes went far, far beyond just correcting the dates as Terry Elliott wanted the Board to believe. Terry Elliott described that these changes were made to make the BFO clearer. But, what these changes actually did was hide the fact Wheat Ridge HS would, in effect, either lose $50,000 in relation to other district high schools for Alternative Pathways programs or lose $50,000 in funding to the District’s HS GT program. I have included the original text and the now ‘clearer’ text of the BFO below so you can see for yourself.

More disturbing is the fact that the changes to this BFO were NOT placed in the June 1st Board Docs, as were all other changed Budget documents, but the changed BFO was hidden in the May Board Docs. This prevented anyone knowing about these changes prior to the Board meeting and prevented anyone from signing up to comment on the changes at the meeting. The only way these changes were even known is that the CFO, Kathleen Askelson, happened to mention that the changed BFO was placed in the May Board Docs section.

Finally, in any truly transparent organization, changes to documents would be re-signed with the date of the changes to accurately and transparently reflect those changes. This again didn’t happen with this BFO as the document was changed but not re-signed.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

In this case, if it looks like the District staff is trying to hide something and they blatantly attempt to hide it, then the District staff truly is hiding something – the real impact to Wheat Ridge HS.

I have sent a letter to the Board requesting that they admonish the District Staff for this blatant act of concealment in addition to issuing a public apology for the staff’s complete and utter disregard for the Board’s stated goal of complete transparency.

We’ll see what response that gets.

 

Original BFO Explanation

Currently 4 high schools receive $50,000 for funding IB programs as an alternative pathway in their school and another high school (Wheat Ridge HS) receives $150,000 for GT center program pathway. Other schools are offering alternative pathways or are looking to expand their offerings, yet lack sufficient funding to support such initiatives. By increasing the SBB Alternative Education Pathway Factor a we can increase significantly resources for all schools and create greater equity for students throughout the district. IB high schools would receive the increased Alternative Pathway factor in lieu of the IB factor and WRHS would see a transfer of $50,000 of their GT center funding to their alternative pathway funding for the 2019-18 school year.

Changed BFO Explanation

Currently 4 high schools receive $50,000 for funding IB programs as an alternative pathway in their school and another high school (Wheat Ridge HS) receives $150,000 for GT center program pathway. Other schools are offering alternative pathways or are looking to expand their offerings, yet lack sufficient funding to support such initiatives. By increasing the SBB Alternative Education Pathway Factor a we can increase significantly resources for all schools and create greater equity for students throughout the district. Designated boundary/neighborhood high schools not currently receiving an IB ($50,000) or GT ($150,000) factor will be allocated an additional $50,000 for the 2017-2018 school year. Beginning in 2018 2019 there will no longer be an IB factor and all designated boundary/neighborhood high schools will receive $115,000 in Alternative Pathway dollars.

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

June 6, 2017 /

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 4th. 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.

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

May 31, 2017 /

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.

You don’t use financial reserves to fund COLA increases!

April 20, 2017 /

At a Special Meeting-Study/Dialogue Session of the Jeffco Board of Education on April 20, 2017 the Financial Oversight Committee (FOC) provided the following Advice to the BOE (document here):

The FOC supports the staff recommendation to fund up to 1% of the COLA increase, using reserves if necessary, in the event state funding falls short of providing the budgeted 2% increase.

Who funds COLA increases from reserves? Even if you fund that year’s COLA increase from reserves, where does this money that is now built into compensation come from in following years if reserves were used this year?

That is pure and simple fiscal mismanagement of taxpayers’ money.

It’s bad enough that the staff would even make that recommendation (although they do have a history of bad recommendations). However, what’s even worse is that the Financial Oversight Committee would even support that recommendation.

This is just wrong on so many levels. Another bad staff recommendation and a Financial Oversight Committee that is not doing its job for us.

Jeffco School District staff recommends cutting successful programs for kids at both ends of academic spectrum

February 5, 2017 /

On January 26, 2017 the Superintendent’s Cabinet, among other things, recommended:

  • Eliminating all (30) social and emotional learning specialists and a coordinator.
  • Eliminating all (20) literacy interventionists.
  • Eliminating four of 16 resource teachers who help support teachers of students determined to be gifted and talented.
  • Cut the 2 GT teachers who run the District’s only HS GT program at Wheat Ridge.

Let’s hope that the Board was as surprised by these recommendations as I was.

By all indications, these programs are successful and working to help our kids. Schools nationwide are investing in social emotional work, which helps students develop skills to manage their emotions, resolve conflicts and make responsible decisions. District research shows that the literacy interventionists are “closing the gap for our most highly impacted populations.” The targeted cut of the 2 GT teachers includes a 2017 Colorado Teacher of the Year Finalist.

All of these successful programs were designed to help students on the margins. It makes me wonder what message the Superintendent and his Cabinet is sending to teachers, students and the community with these recommendations?

The Board has an opportunity to show the community that it really does care about kids and their education by rejecting these recommendations and finding other ways to fund their desired compensation investment of $25M.

If the Board accepts these recommendations, we will be left questioning their priorities and reasoning, and an at-risk population will be deprived of vital resources. While I agree that compensation issues need to be addressed, the district and the teachers union just signed a 5-year agreement a year ago. A reasonable person needs to ask if there really remains an additional $25M need for increased salary, or if this is payback for the union’s support during the election?

The School Board needs to remember its responsibility to put the kids first!

Newer posts »

© 2024 Improve Jeffco Schools

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑