Category: Jeffco HS GT Program

Jason Glass is a Fraud!

November 3, 2017 / ijsadmin

The dictionary defines “fraud” as:

a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

Using that definition, Jason Glass is a fraud.

Jason Glass arrived in the District with great fanfare as someone who would listen to everyone in the District and bring the District together.

He has done neither of those, actually quite the opposite.

Jason Glass, it seems, only wants to listen to those people who praise, support and agree with him.

Community Critic. I was personally taken aback when on only his second day on the job Jason Glass labelled me “community critic” here:

You can see the original exchange here: https://storify.com/COJasonGlass/profile-of-an-ideal-graduate-twitter-conversation

While I don’t necessarily mind being labelled a “critic”, I was shocked that someone only on the job for 2 days, with a stated intent to listen and unify, called someone who expresses their opinion (and I was advocating for a focus on College and Career Readiness in the tweet exchange) “community critic”. What, am I the only person in the community who thinks that Jeffco schools can do better? Do you get labeled “critic” for not accepting mediocrity? Do you get labeled “critic” for not bowing down to the new King of Jeffco schools? Was that an attempt to silence anyone else who might be looking for some accountability from our school District?

It certainly sent a pretty strong message – “Agree with me or you too will be labelled “critic”. Is that what you would expect from someone who states they will listen and unify? Not in my book! Was this intended to be a message to anyone else who might think a bit differently? I think so!

2. Listening Tour. Did Jason Glass really get an opportunity to listen to everyone during his initial “Listening Tour”? I think not. His Listening Tour was held during a summer business day when many working people weren’t able to attend. What he got were teachers, stay-at-homes and retired people. Nice idea, not well thought out and certainly not representative of the District.

3. Deleted Tweets. Over the course of the next several months Glass and I engaged in several other twitter exchanges. On several instances his tweets, some of which could have been interpreted as a bit testy, were soon deleted. Not exactly full transparency there.

4. Failure to investigate allegations of lying by Cabinet Member. Through Glass’ blog, twitter and email I have made allegations of repeated lying by a District Cabinet Member to the Board, teachers and parents. I have offered to meet with him and provide supporting evidence of that to Glass. He has completely ignored my allegations and requests to meet. This is not the definition of “listening” that I would expect. (https://advancejeffco.blog/2017/05/24/3-questions-jeffco/)

5. No record of moving education needle. Glass doesn’t like it when I bring this up, but the truth of the matter is that his record of academic growth and achievement in Eagle County is worse than Jeffco’s own mediocre record. How is he supposed to be the great Jeffco savior when he couldn’t bring any great academic growth to a district 12 times smaller over the course of 4 years? (http://improvejeffcoschools.org/index.php/2017/05/05/a-different-perspective-on-jeffco-schools-new-superintendent/, http://improvejeffcoschools.org/index.php/2017/05/21/disappointed-in-the-hiring-of-dr-glass-as-superintendent/, http://improvejeffcoschools.org/index.php/2017/09/11/the-board-failed-on-its-most-important-task-hiring-a-superintendent-who-could-move-the-education-needle/)

6. Vision statement. Let’s be clear. Glass replaced the collaboratively developed, community driven Jeffco 2020 with a Vision that he singularly (well, with help from his Assistant Tom) developed. Yes, he will say it was developed with community input. But what community input did he listen to and totally disregard just because it didn’t fit into his ‘vision”. Early on he was engaging me in an attempt to get someone to mention Entrepreneurship so I know he always planned to include that, no matter what he heard from the community. Jeffco 2020 was a community Vision, Jeffco Generations is a Glass vision. That seems to be a big difference to me.

7. Involvement in Board campaign. One second Glass writes: “As a public servant, I’m prohibited from encouraging any vote for or against any issue or person on the ballot.” But hadn’t he already started his “On the Issues” series on October 17^th, late in the campaign season and addressed issues that supporters of challengers for Board seats were talking about. Was that a coincidence? Why did he feel he had to address those issues at that time? Shouldn’t he have shown some restraint until after the election to eliminate any appearance to partiality? Absolutely. But he didn’t in only a thinly veiled attempt to provide assistance to the incumbents. I also asked him why he didn’t include a rebuttal to the current Board members’ lies regarding how compensation increases slowed teacher turnover. His response, no longer available, was for me to stay tuned.

My point is that an impartial Superintendent, which is what we should have, didn’t/couldn’t remain impartial and used his voice and the power of the District’s communication distribution system to publish material unequivocally supporting the Board incumbents. Legal, but is that what you would expect? Not me.

8. Accountability. I found it extremely disappointing and discomforting to learn that Glass’ contract did not contain any incentive based compensation tied to academic performance and achievement similar to Cindy’s and Dan’s contracts. I don’t know if the Board or Glass suggested this, but I have my suspicions. I do know that when I walk in to a job I relish the opportunity to earn more money by meeting certain, well spelled out goals and objectives. I have confidence I’ll meet them. From Glass’ perspective I would even worry about not having the same type of contract structure as my predecessors as this may not be the impression I would want to make. But I guess Glass has a different outlook than me and values money, and his bargaining ability, more than the perception he creates. Certainly, based on the academic performance record he had in Eagle County, if I was him, I wouldn’t want performance based compensation in my contract either.

9. GT Program Funding. I have been a long-time and vocal advocate for creating a committee to discuss sustainable funding for the District’s HS GT program as directed by the Board in February. I engaged Glass on this immediately after his Listening Tour. After initially saying that he would bring this up with his Cabinet he then put this off for 2 months, ostensibly so that another HS GT parents’ meeting could be held in late September. He also asked for recommendations for the composition of that committee. The suggestions, from not just me, included a parent, a GT Teacher, someone to represent the non-GT students at Wheat Ridge, a representative of the SAC, a representative of JAGC, someone who was familiar with the creation of the HS GT program and several District people. Yet, the final committee was made up of parents selected by Glass (not by parents similar to the process the District uses to select new principals), and a community member who happens to be a member of both the SAC and JAGC, but who was not selected by the SAC or JAGC to represent them and who does not even have a child attending WR. This, in effect, shut out voices that loudly advocated for the committee and for Wheat Ridge and its issues while providing Glass with the cover to say that various groups had representation (although they may not have represented the views of various groups). The end result of this committee also happened to make the GT community happy, but only at the expense of other students at Wheat Ridge, kids who didn’t have a voice on the committee. Once again, Glass attempted to manipulate the composition of the committee to exclude voices he knew would be difficult to manage.

10. Block on Twitter (you can see some of this in 7 above). A key component of Glass’ “aura” and appeal is his supposed willingness and desire to listen and communicate. Nearly everyone loves him for this. He blogs and tweets during the business day and encourages people to engage with him on the District website–

Jeffco students, parents, families, staff, and community members may engage with Dr. Glass via Twitter @COJasonGlass.

Unfortunately, his actions speak louder than words. When he doesn’t like what people are saying he merely blocks them. People can’t see his posts and he can’t see theirs.

You are blocked from following @COJasonGlass and viewing @COJasonGlass’s Tweets.

I can understand some of the reasons for blocking people. I’ve done it myself when people have sent me racist tweets and sexually explicit pictures. However, I’ve never done that with Glass. I’ve advocated for 100% College and Career Readiness, I’ve compared the mediocreJeffco academic growth and achievement scores with the even worse growth and achievement scores in Eagle County where Glass had 4 years, in a District 12x smaller to make improvements. I’ve questioned his ability to find $300k for an assistant and consulting company when only a few short months ago a school was closed in an effort to save only twice as much money. I’ve questioned his ethics in getting involved in the campaign. I questioned why he doesn’t have pay based on performance in his contract. For that I was blocked. And, I’m not the only person that’s been blocked as Glass attempts to project an image of “listening” while also attempting to protect his personal brand and avoid listening to all views. If he’s going to say he is willing to engage, then he should engage, with everyone, particularly if he offers that opportunity on a District web site and uses business time to tweet.

Jason Glass is a fraud.

He wants everyone to think one thing, that he listens to everyone, but his actions, toward people that have differing perspectives, is quite the opposite.

Has Jason Glass met with anyone who might disagree with him? Quick Answer: No!

September 7, 2017 / ijsadmin

Support Jeffco Kids (SJK) has recently written about how many groups and individuals Jason Glass has met with in his first 39 days as Jeffco Schools Superintendent. Well, Congratulations!

However, do you see any individuals or groups on this list who might possibly have a different perspective on education or the District than him, other than politicians? Has he reached out to anyone that might fit into that category?

I don’t see anyone that might fit into that category on the list that was so carefully curated by SJK.

Let’s start with the great “listening” tour. This tour was held during normal work hours for most working people (except the session late in the day in Evergreen) and during the summer. This conveniently brought out the teachers, stay-at-homes and retirees. Not a lot of working people made these meetings. When I brought this up to Glass during a Twitter exchange he said that he would consider holding meetings that might be more convenient for working people.

He may have considered holding additional meetings, but they certainly didn’t happen. In my opinion, he missed out on getting a different set of questions than he got from the teachers, retirees and stay-at-homes. Was this an act of omission or intentional?

What about the parents of the kid who was threatened at Governor’s Ranch Elementary School last year who would like a meeting with him to discuss? Glass’ schedule is SOOOO busy that he can’t fit these parents in until September 29^th. Really??

Request to meet with Superintendent

When asked if she planned to meet with the superintendent, the mom said she put in a request.

“Dr. Glass has yet to reach out to us,” she said. “We were told the earliest Glass could meet with us was Sept. 29.”

Should we really believe that his schedule is completely booked for over 30 days and he can’t find 30 minutes to talk with parents who have a real issue? I’m sorry, but real “leaders” make time to talk with people who have issues and problems and don’t let those issues fester.

Has he reached out to ANYONE who might not agree with the current District staff and Board? If he really wants to listen he should hear different perspectives. I personally don’t know these people, but has he reached out to anyone from previous Boards (he’s talked to former principals, why not former Board members? Speaking of principals, did Glass reach out to former Wheat Ridge principal Griff Wirth who ran a great school but had issues with the District?)? Has he reached out to anyone from (http://www.eyeonjeffcoschoolboard.com/), Jeffco Students First or people with similar views? Or is it more convenient for him to just wish that the current Board “wins” in November, as he stated during the August Board retreat, so that he doesn’t have to engage people who may not agree with him or the Board?

Glass also knows that I have my own issues with members of the District staff who have blatantly and repeatedly lied to the Board, teachers and parents.

I started with comments posted to his blog on June 2^nd and moved on to emails.

From his 3 Questions for Jeffco (https://advancejeffco.blog/2017/05/24/3-questions-jeffco/) blog I wrote:

“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.
Let’s talk when you’re settled in!”

He completely ignored this comment.

I reiterated my accusation in an August 10^th email:

“ I don’t know what xxx told you and I certainly don’t know what he expects to accomplish with another parents meeting. The first one was an absolute disaster as he did nothing other than present inaccurate, misleading and deceptive numbers, essentially lying to the group. He was insulting, and parents and students alike called him out on his lies and attempts at deception. … Why won’t he have a discussion with the principal and SAC? Most likely it is because they will tell him that the numbers he is showing to people are intentionally deceptive and therefore complete lies.”

Don’t you think if someone accused members of your District staff of lying you would want to hear more?

Well, not Jason Glass!

In addition he has delayed and avoided getting people to talk about sustainable funding for the District’s HS GT program. Granted the Board directed collaborative approach to finding sustainable funding was made in February before Glass became Superintendent, but he clearly stated that he had been briefed on the issue during his “listening” tour, very early in his tenure. He now “owns” that issue and shouldn’t try to disclaim responsibility. However, to date the only thing he has done is to delay holding a collaborative discussion to some unknown date in the future, inexplicably tied to another meeting with only one set of stakeholders – the HS GT parents. That’s certainly not my definition of “collaborative” or even “listening” to all sides of the issue. And that’s not even talking about how badly the last District held meeting with the parents went .

He states that he has listened to me on my issues:

The funny thing is, I did check my emails. On July 25^th he said that he was bringing the GT issue up to his Cabinet. Yet, his response to my follow-up inquiry of how the cabinet meeting went was to back track on getting people together to discuss the issue by holding another HS GT Parents’ meeting in September (still not scheduled by the way). And then, only AFTER that meeting get people to talk about the issue.

My question to him was WHY? Why not begin talking now with ALL of the stakeholders instead of just the HS GT parents?

There was no response to those questions.

Once again, it seems to me that he is delaying and avoiding a real discussion on difficult issues with people who may not agree with his views.

Therefore, I don’t count what he is doing as real “listening”.

Glass knows how to contact me via Twitter, email or phone. I’m happy to make time to discuss my issues. Until that happens, count me as someone who isn’t buying the “listening” bill of goods he’s selling and SJK has bought.

If Glass is only going to listen to people who support him and repeatedly delays and avoids listening to all sides of hard issues, can he, or his supporters, really claim that he’s listening?

Not in my book!

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!

Should I embrace or be insulted by being labeled “Community Critic” by Jason Glass?

July 7, 2017 / ijsadmin

Or, should we all be more concerned when the new Superintendent, with the stated goal of bridging the divide in the community, 2 days into his position, labels someone with potentially different views than his “community critic”? This is what is most disappointing to me. If he truly wants to listen to all sides, then no one should be a “critic”.

In his blog, Jason Glass labeled me “community critic” while posting a twitter exchange we had regarding the Profile of an Ideal Jeffco Graduate.

Since I prefer to think of myself as a GT and education advocate, I was insulted when I read that label.

Yet, Dictionary.com defines “critic” as:

noun

a person who judges, evaluates, or criticizes.
a person who judges, evaluates, or analyzes literary or artistic works,dramatic or musical performances, or the like, especially for anewspaper or magazine.
a person who tends too readily to make captious, trivial, or harsh judgments; faultfinder.

Initially, I applied definition number 3 to the label. However, my wife counseled that definition number 1 may be applicable. The truth is, I don’t know what definition Glass applied to me. However, I do think that someone who loudly and proudly touts his 2 master’s degrees and PhD would understand that the word “critic” is ambiguous enough to mean different things to different people.

I would also think that someone who touts Deliberative Democracy would treat participants in his conversations with civility and respect (“Conscientious”) and labeling participants doesn’t necessarily meet that criteria.

The bottom line is that I’m extremely disappointed in Dr. Glass in his labeling of me as “community critic”. Am I the only “critic” in the community? I think not. Was his intent to intimidate anyone else with different views to keep those views to themselves for fear of also being labeled “community critic”? Again, I don’t know. But, I will say it is not going to intimidate me. Actually, it will have the opposite effect.

Therefore, I’ve decided that I’m going to proudly embrace the label, and role, of “community critic” until such time as we can truly and freely have real conversations about education issues in our district. The district is divided, and it will remain divided until both sides feel that they are being listened to, middle ground is found and compromises made. 5 – 0 votes with no real and meaningful discussion aren’t going to get us there. And, being ignored, as I feel I’ve been for 5 months after suggesting that a collaborative committee be formed to discuss sustainable funding for the District’s HS GT program, certainly doesn’t get us there either. The only thing that does is turn couch potatoes, like myself, into GT and education advocates and “community critics”.

Let the criticism continue!

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

July 6, 2017 / ijsadmin

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 / ijsadmin

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 26^th 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!

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.

Why doesn’t the Jeffco School Board want collaboration in developing a plan for sustainable funding for the District’s HS GT program?

April 19, 2017 / ijsadmin

Despite a public proclamation regarding finding a collaborative sustainable funding solution for the District’s HS GT program at Wheat Ridge during the February 9^th Board budget reduction Meeting, the District’s and Board’s actions since that time have been anything but collaborative.

Repeated emails to the Board and public comments at the past 2 Board Meetings requesting formation of a collaborative committee that included ALL stakeholders have been met with STONE COLD SILENCE! Since this has now been on-going for over 2 months, it leads one to believe that the Board and District staff have something to hide.

What the District is trying to hide finally came to light in a response to a letter from the GT parents from Kevin Carroll, the District’s Chief Student Success Officer. In discussing his Board directed conversation with the Wheat Ridge principal, Mr. Carroll wrote, speaking of funding after 2017-2018:

“Beyond that point, if the program is to continue at Wheat Ridge High School, it will do so leveraging the Student Based Budgeting (SBB) dollars that come with each of these students.”

“Our initial conversations this spring are not related to seeking alternative funding sources outside of SBB (Student Based Budgeting) dollars, but instead discussing current scheduling, staffing, and funding structures within the SBB framework, as was directed by the BoE.”

Unfortunately, this is an Alternative Fact created by Mr. Carroll. The Board did NOT direct sustainable funding come solely from SBB, as Board Member Amanda Stevens clearly stated on February 9^th (summarized at: http://jeffcoschoolboardwatch.org/?p=4357):

Stevens: I’d like to revisit the GT issue and request that it be a shared cost model that isn’t requiring 100 percent school dollars or 100 percent district dollars. Says she wants to make sure that it doesn’t become a one or the other, where the program might get pulled out of WRHS and sent elsewhere if WRHS decides its SBB dollars aren’t sufficient to make it fully self-funding next year.

Mr. Carroll is clearly not following the direction of the Board and doesn’t seem interested in collaboratively attempting to find a solution with ALL of the stakeholders.

This is quite shocking since as Chief Student Success Officer, he oversees the District’s GT programs and is the person you would most expect to actually be leading the effort to do everything possible to support an indisputably highly successful and life-changing program. Yet, he is doing just the opposite – doing everything possible to cut funding. This is not the type of District staff leadership Jeffco needs or should want.

So, here’s one more public plea for the Board and School District to show the leadership the students and taxpayers deserve. Either the interim Superintendent should form, or the Board should direct the interim Superintendent to form, a committee with representatives from ALL of the stakeholders so that a full and open discussion of ALL of the issues (some of which are identified here: http://yourhub.denverpost.com/blog/2017/04/incompetent-management-in-jeffco-the-case-of-high-school-staffing/179765/) can take place. This should be followed by a public report back to the Board. This committee should include at least the following members:

Kathleen Askelson, Finance, Chair
Kevin Carroll, Chief Student Success Officer (oversees District GT programs)
Griff Wirth, Wheat Ridge HS Principal
One of the District’s HS GT Teachers
One member of the Wheat Ridge HS School Accountability Committee
One HS GT parent representative

If this committee is not formed in fulfillment of the Board’s desire for a collaborative solution, we can only believe that there really is something to hide. We can also believe that the Board is willing to say one thing in a public meeting but, through a total lack of leadership and opaqueness, allow something completely different to transpire behind the scenes. That’s not leadership, and it is a betrayal of the taxpayers’ trust.

Where is the Jeffco Board of Education’s Integrity, Respect, Transparency and Leadership?

April 13, 2017 / ijsadmin

At the Board of Education meeting on April 6^th I raised an issue regarding an inaccuracy in the February 9^th Board Minutes, prior to their approval.

You can imagine my surprise and shock when the Board instead approved the Minutes, failing to even consider my observation and request for a review.

I went into the meeting thinking that an honest mistake may have been made when developing the Minutes. I left thinking that the Minutes had been consciously written to change what really transpired in February.

As a taxpaying parent, I raised a legitimate issue with the February 9^th Board Minutes. The discussion at that meeting, surrounding the District’s HS GT program, did not direct that sustainable funding come solely from SBB (Student Based Budgeting), yet that is what was reflected in the Minutes. The Board completely ignored my observation and review request. This was blatantly disrespectful, not only to me, but also to the GT students and the HS GT program whose funding will almost certainly be affected by this change. The Board’s actions reflect poorly on the Jefferson Country Board of Education and breed distrust and an appearance of opaqueness.

What went on behind closed doors so that the Minutes were written in that manner?

When the Board decided not to discuss my point it demonstrated that:

They were lazy and/or tired.
They did not like who delivered the message or the manner in which it was delivered.
They were willing to say one thing at the Board meeting on February 9^th when they knew many people were watching, but hoped to hide a different message in the normally unread Board meeting Minutes 2 months later.
The Board was subsequently convinced of a revisionist history interpretation of what was said at the meeting by a District staff member.
Board members were afraid to say anything after the Board President called for a motion to approve. Or,
The Board thinks they know everything and don’t want anyone disagreeing with them.

None of these is a good reason to blatantly ignore a constituent who raised a reasonable request to review inaccurate Minutes surrounding a wide-ranging discussion. As elected public officials, they have a responsibility to ensure accurate Board Meeting Minutes. They failed to fulfill their responsibilities in this case!

This Board ran on a platform of trust and transparency. Yet, their actions as a Board on April 6th were disgraceful, disrespectful, show a complete lack of leadership and merely further the community’s distrust of the Board and the District staff.

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

February 5, 2017 / ijsadmin

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!