A (open) letter to the Board: K. Daniel (9/27/2010)

Each of the board members acknowledged the receipt of 18 to 20 e-mails at the last board meeting. A fellow teacher on my campus shared hers with me as well, and with her permission, I share it here:

September 27, 2010

Dear Board Members:

In the first unit of the 6th grade Lit book the Big Question is" HOW DO WE DECIDE WHAT IS TRUE"  Students are taught to confirm, determine, examine evidence, test and investigate to determine what is true.

In chapter 8 lesson 9 of the math text the title is Misleading Statistics.  Students learn to identify biased displays and misleading statistics.

HOW DO WE DECIDE WHAT IS TRUE?  That is the same question I'm asking of you now.  

How do you explain an average third year projection that is 540% off?    How do you reconcile the enrollment numbers?  We know exactly how many students are filling the seats of our classrooms. Do you?

We have an 18% reserve, far more than needed.  And finally, the Job's bill is coming.

All these facts can be checked and verified as being true. It is wrong to lie to us or at the very least "Handle the truth recklessly", as my mom would say.

At times it seems that you forget or lose sight of the fact that you are dealing with educated, intelligent and articulate people.  How is it that the students of Lowell Joint became "Distinguished"?

It is your responsibility to check and verify the facts , as we have done,  Stop taking Dr. Howell at her word.  She doesn't tell the truth. She is building an enormous reserve on the backs of dedicated teachers.  This will not stand.

Thank you for reading this letter.

Kari Daniel

A New School Year: A Kite in the Wind...

A kite in the wind… that’s my personal metaphor for the new school year.

You might ask, “How’s that working for you, Don?”

And I might answer with a sigh.

I see the wind: the superintendent continues her “spinning” ways, for example… at the “Welcome Back” BBQ she mentioned that if the current budget crisis continues, we could end up with a state appointed administrator who would cost the district $150,000!

I did the math. At a board meeting last year, the Los Angeles budget guru gave the formulae for the cost of a state appointed administrator: 80% of the district’s superintendent’s salary.

$165,000 x 80% is $132,000 not $150,000.  Simple math, simple fact, and simply not $150,000.

It made me think: If that simple number is being erroneously presented as fact, what other numbers are?

(What new “dots” have shown up on your radar?) The wind continues to blow.

Here’s another dot on my radar:

The state rejects our district’s budget and tells us to refigure it without the COLA. The district recalculates the budget and the only thing they do is take out the COLA… it still gets rejected. Of course it does! But now the district can say, “We tried twice!”

 (The second try was not a try, it was a ruse!) At least that’s what it looks like to me… up in the sky… trying to maintain a kite-like perspective.

Is the district administration so bereft of ideas that all they can do is continue to blame the economy and the teachers’ union? (And misrepresent fiction as fact!)

Here’s an idea:

Have the superintendent take a “temporary” pay cut to $50,000 a year. Not only would that demonstrate her commitment to share the economic pain, but it might make it difficult to find someone willing to work for 80% of $50,000 which is… see if you can do the math!

(Or… take a cut to $1 a year… it’s been done before… who would take the job for 80 cents?)

The only problem with this scenario is that, unlike the temporary pay cut that the teachers took, I doubt if the superintendent would be willing to make it permanent, like she’s asking the teachers to do.

Another “aha” moment for me: I suspected the Memorandum of Understanding which made the last two years of temporary cuts temporary would mean that my pay would be reinstated with a restored step and column. The district would never say so, but that’s just what happened.

Of course teachers are being warned not to spend their reinstated salary increases, because a new contract will probably be negotiated that involves retroactive pay cuts to the beginning of this school year. (Actually, the pay cuts will be retroactive for two years… because what was promised to be temporary will become permanent… in violation of the MOU.)

Forthrightness, honesty, clarity… too much to ask? No.

Too much to expect? Yes, as long as the School Board continues to allow this wind to blow unchecked.

In the mean time…. Class sizes are up, budgets are down, and teachers are being asked to do more with less… with more less to come.

Good kite flying weather.

Sigh.

Shameful Behavior: The Three-Minute Rule and the Gavel of “Shhh!!!!”

The June 21st Board of Trustees meeting was an interesting, though long affair.

The meeting began on time at 7:30 with an overflow crowd of District staff and some parents attending.

The meeting began with well wishes from Jan Averill who said how glad she was to have so many attending, despite busy summer schedules.

How ironic that the District staff had closed many of the normally open rooms to keep people in the audience from getting themselves chairs to sit on: for over two and a half hours.

How ironic, that though an overflow crowd was expected, no attempt was made to provide a sound system to aid the hearing of those in the room, in the hallways, or in the lobby. Not even the microphone on the speaker’s platform was operational, nor a microphone for the Board President. How ironic? How shameful! (Perhaps it borders on intentional and sinister.)

Perhaps you think I’m overreacting? Well, I was informed that a district custodian was stationed in the main hallway with directions from the district, not to allow chairs to be brought out for those attending to use. How welcoming? (Or not.) How shameful. (How hypocritical! “Glad to see you… please remain standing…”)

Probably 95% or more of the audience was there to speak to Item 9 on the Agenda: Other Topics. (One set of parents, Mr. and Mrs. Bakis did question why the district was starting school so early this year, and why the District was making Thanksgiving a whole week of vacation.)

After waiting patiently for over 1 ½ hours the “welcomed” public was allowed to speak to Item 9: Other Topics. How welcome were the opinions, cares, and concerns of these Lowell Joint “family” members? The Board chose this night to enforce the three-minute-rule via a three-minute timer and a gong (I mean gavel.) Really?

I understand the need to keep the long-winded under control. I understand the need to keep a long meeting from getting epic. I understand Robert’s Rules of Order. What I don’t understand is how a school board that says, “We value you; You are important; You are appreciated;” could, through its actions, say, “Shut up. Sit down. We’ve heard enough. Your words aren’t worth more than three minutes: exactly!”

Researchers tell us that most people fear public speaking more than they do death, yet this night a dozen people had prepared remarks, come early, signed up to speak, waited their turn, only to be cut-off as they were in the process of making closing statements. REALLY???

Who would do that? Why would they do that? If actions speak louder than words, then the Board made clear that they are not interested in hearing from their “family” of employees, both classified and certificated. From their position of elected authority, they repeatedly issued a loud “Shhh…” via the sound of a bell and a gavel.

How bad was it? Mrs. Averill imposed the three-minute gavel on Mrs. Mayer, the president of the classified union, who had more than a dozen unit members standing while she made her remarks. (12 x 3 would be 36 minutes, but Ronnie was given three. She only needed six. She was reading her speech.)

The district is calling for “civility” in our exchanges, yet they gave an institutionalized “Shhh” to the head of one of the unions? It was shameful, and I said so when my turn came to speak.

Another member of the audience turned in a request to speak and then granted her minutes so that Mrs. Mayer could complete her remarks. She did so in less than three additional minutes. Could the board not give six minutes to the head of a bargaining unit with so many of the unit members in attendance? Really? (How unwise. How shortsighted. How rude. How uncivil.)

In another post I’ll share a bit about what each of the dozen speakers said, because it will not show up in the “In the Know.” Why not?

Because the Board demonstrated that it is not interested in any other opinion other than its own, nor is it interested in listening to the other stakeholders in the district, at least not to the workers.

What stakeholders will they listen to? The voting public! The informed and questioning public!

(And I’ll bet that they are a lot less likely to impose a three-minute rule on them when they speak at a Board Meeting. Just ask the Bakis family: they asked questions, they got answers, and they did not get the gavel.

The gavel was reserved for others. The gavel-of-shame was wielded to quell the speech of those who also asked questions, but got no answers. Who shared concerns, but got no response. What did we get? The gavel.

(We didn’t even get rollover minutes from the many who spoke in less than three-minutes.) AT&T gets it. Why doesn’t our Board?

Shame on them.

Majoring in the Minors: CPN... A sad sample of misguided priorities.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson

As I noted in an earlier post, I believe that the District has proposed adding language into the current contract that would disallow the use of Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN) before or after a contractual holiday.

You might think I'm exaggerating when I talk of Majoring in the Minors, but I'm not. A good example of this is the recent case of Mrs. Herman, a third grade teacher at El Portal. Mrs. Herman had scheduled herself to compete in the Paris Marathon during Spring Break. Her doctor suggested that she should allow several days to acclimate, and as a result Mrs. Herman used her two contractual CPN days to arrive early enough to acclimate prior to competing. So what's the problem?

The Superintendent decided that this was an opportunity to invoke disciplinary action! So she did.

A letter was written admonishing the teacher, and the letter was placed in the teacher's personnel file.

But Mrs. Herman is not easily intimidated, bullied, or mistreated. She filed a grievance. (Not allowing evil to triumph sometimes requires that we learn what are rights are, and how to stand up for them. Go Mrs. Herman!)

Mrs. Herman also responded to the Superintendent's letter with one of her own, which was also placed in the personnel file.

In the end, the Superintendent agreed "to remove the formal discipline notice and Ms. Herman's accompanying response from Ms. Herman's personnel file effectively this date, May 24, 2010."

This all transpired just before the District supplied their final contractual offer before declaring impasse. In that new "offer" --  new language was added trying to codify the Superintendent's stamp of disapproval regarding the use of CPNs. Majoring in the Minors... at the expense of employee good will.

At the bottom of this post, I'll supply the text from all three pieces of correspondence. Mrs. Herman was willing to share them with us in hopes that this too will help us "connect the dots" and bring into focus some of the problems haunting Lowell Joint... behind closed doors.

Before the letters, how about a bit of irony...

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." -- Thomas Jefferson

On the two days in question, I believe the Superintendent was on vacation, so she could spend some time with her husband, whose Spring Break did not line up with Lowell Joint's.

(Per her contract, she has vacation days that can be used at her discretion: no questions asked.)


"When people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have liberty" - Thomas Jefferson

* * * * * *
In reverse chronological order:

"Decision of Principal, Department Head or Next Level Supervisor:
     On May 24, 2010, the parties met to consider Teresa Herman's appeal and request to have the formal discipline notice and her accompanying response removed from her personnel file. In question was Ms. Herman's use of Compelling personal Necessity (CPN) on April 8 and 9, 2010, for travel to Paris, France, in order to compete in the Paris marathon. At issue was the interpretation of Article XXIII, Section F(1) of the Lowell Joint Education Association (LJEA) Contract regarding Personal Necessity that states: 'Personal Necessity Leave may be utilized by a unit member who has sufficient unused sick leave credit for circumstances which cannot be dealt with during off-duty hours and that are serious in nature, that is which cannot be expected to be disregarded and/or which necessitate immediate attention... Each unit member may use two (2) days of leave, under this provision, per year for personal reasons other than concerted activities. This day shall be deducted from the unit member's sick leave, and the reason for absence shall be Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN.)'
     It is Ms. Herman's contention that she was not in violation of the above referenced Article. It is the District's contention that while CPN days may be used for personal reasons, given that the days are entitle as Personal Necessity days, the personal reasons for the use of CPN days must fall within the description of Personal Necessity days as included in Article XXIII stated above, and that vacation days do not comply with the description as stated in the LJEA Contract. There, Ms. Herman's use of CPN days for vacation time was a violation of Article XXIII.
     During the conference on May 24, 2010, the Superintendent shared three areas that were of concern: (1) Ms. Herman's principal, as her direct supervisor, had approved the use of the two CPN days prior to April 8, 2010, knowing that Ms. Herman was planning to leave early for France. (2) While the District had not proposed deducting salary for the use of two work days, the Superintendent has determined that under the previous superintendents(s) Article XXIII, Section F(1) was not consistently interpreted and applied. (3) While Ms. Herman and the Superintendent have differing views as to the interpretation of the definition of a CPN day, it is clear that both LJEA and the District need to work together to further define the use of a CPN day and both parties need to be diligent in education the unit members and the administrative team regarding contract language.
     Therefore, the Superintendent agrees to remove the formal discipline notice and Ms. Herman's accompanying response from Ms. Herman's personnel file effectively this date, May 24, 2010."

***********************
Reading between the lines (where I added bolding above), I see that not all previous Superintendent's agreed with Dr. Howell's interpretation, and that -- by golly -- we need to add language to the contract (Further Define), so that Dr. Howell's interpretation will prevail! And be taught! And be adhered to! (Grrrr....)

***********************


"May 6, 2010

Dr. Patricia Howell
Lowell Joint School District
11019 Valley Home Avenue
Whittier, CA 90603

Re: Use of Compelling Personal Leave

Dr. Howell:

This letter is written to inform you that my use of Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN) leave on April 8 and 9, 2010, was not in violation of the current collective bargaining agreement and does not constitute cause for disciplinary action. There, your recent letter I received on April 29, has no place in my personnel file.

Your contention that my use of Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN) leave on April 8 and 9, 2010, was in violation of the current collective bargaining agreement represents your misunderstanding of the collective bargaining agreement.

The District's contractual agreement with the Lowell Joint Education Association (LJEA), Article XXIII, Section F(1), states the following concerting Persona Necessity (PN) and Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN) days: 'Persona Necessity Leave may be utilized by a unit member who has sufficient unused sick leave credit for circumstances which cannot be dealt with during off-duty hours and that are serious in nature, that is which cannot be expected to be disregarded and/or which necessitate immediate attention. A leave of absence for personal necessity may be granted to a unit member, for no more that twenty (20) days in each school year. Additional leave may be grated at the discretion of the Superintendent. Such leaves shall be deducted from a unit member's accumulated sick leave benefits for those situations necessitating the unit member's absence from duty. Each unit member may use two (2) days of leave, under this provision, per year for personal reasons other that concerted activities. These days shall be deducted from the unit member's sick leave, and the reason for the absence shall be Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN.)'

The language is very clear. Your contention fails to recognize a unit member's right to 'use two (2) days of leave per year for personal reasons other than concerted activities.' You further fail to recognize that 'the reason for the absence shall be Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN).'

Your assertion, per our conversat6ion on April 29, in the presence of Kim Likert, my school site administrator, and Tom Hollister, my representative from the California Teachers' Association, that CPN days were to be used for private matters such as psychological counseling and the like, implies that the collective bargaining agreement allows you to determine the scope of what is 'compelling, personal, or necessary' for any and all unit members. Clearly, such determinations are outside your purview. The CPN box checked serves as all that is required as a  reason. Please note that while it is not necessary for me to obtain the approval of my site administrator to take CPN days, as you know, my principal was aware of my plans, and substantiated my course, and validated my right to utilize my CPN days.

Furthermore, your practice of asking site administrators why teachers are taking CPN days, as you admitted to in our conversation on April 29, is emblematic of how you endeavor to overstep the boundaries stated in the collective bargaining contract. Frankly, it smacks of bullying and intimidation and undermines the professional relationship otherwise enjoyed by the teachers and site administrators of Lowell Joint.

Allow me to explain how this practice of yours is playing out across the district. When one of my colleagues heard last week about how disciplinary action was the topic of my conversation with you last Thursday afternoon, she responded with, "'I was planning to take my CPN day to attend a church function next month. I guess I should call in sick instead." Dr. Howell, is that the kind of work environment you wish to create? The fall-out of your management style is an unhealthy work environment. Teachers in Lowell Joint are feeling intimidated into reporting they are sick, instead of exercising their right to use CPN days, as afforded by the collective bargaining agreement. Be aware of that.

Your letter states: 'Your conduct is also in violation of Board Policy 4219.21 - Professional Standards. The policy states: ""The Board of Trustees expects district employees to maintain the highest ethical standards, follow district policies and regulations, and abide by state and federal laws. Employee conduct should enhance the integrity of the district and advance the goals of the educational programs. Each employee should make a commitment to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to fulfill his/her responsibilities and should focus on his/her contribution to the learning and achievement of district students. The Board encourages district employees to accept as guiding principles the professional standards and codes of ethics adopted by professional associations to which the may belong."

Your proclamation is puzzling to me. To my mind, training for and completing a marathon exemplifies goal setting and self-discipline, two of the character traits addressed in our District Character Education Program. I proudly teach these character traits and endeavor to reflect them in my professional and personal life. I recognize and take very seriously my responsibility to lead by example, and to that end, I was proud to share my experience of running the Paris Marathon with my students. I dare say, they shared my pride and were genuinely happy for my accomplishment. One student shared as we discussed my fitness goals and progress toward them, 'You've gotta go, Mrs. Herman. You've trained hard for it and it is your dreams.'

Your letter further states: "your duties as a professional education and your responsibilities to the students in your classroom are of utmost importance. As a teacher you are expected to serve as a role model for students in the district. Knowing that El Portal Elementary School and the District have been stressing the importance of student attendance every day, it is disappointing that you would knowingly miss two days of school for your own personal vacation time. This misconduct constitutes ground for discipline under Education Code Section 44939, and justification for withholding compensation under Education Code Section 45055."

Your hurtful accusation and question of my integrity begs the questions:


How do you then justify the District's proposal for the elimination of instructional days for the 2010-2011 school year, when such a proposal knowingly denies all students of Lowell Joint School District of education days?

How do you account for the fact that a Lowell Joint School District Board member took her child out of school early in recent years to head for a European vacation, and was congratulated and encouraged by District Administration for such an educational endeavor?

Why do you assume that my Compelling Personal Necessity was for my "own personal vacation time" when in fact an arrival time two nights prior to the Paris Marathon was necessary for adequate rest and adequate time to adjust to the vast time difference? Such preparation was vital to a healthful and successful completion of the marathon. French law mandates that all marathon participants provide a medical release form signed by a medical doctor in order to take part. I received this approval from my physician, with the understanding that I would have adequate time in Paris prior to the race to rest and adjust to the time difference. It should be noted here that these facts are again, outside your purview and only addressed here to respond to your false assumption.

Have you reviewed my Lowell Joint School District Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness on file as you attacked my Profession Standards? They speak for themselves.

How do your practices of question site administrators about teachers' use of CPN days and intimidating teachers into being fearful of exercising their right to CPN days "enhance the integrity of the District?" You cited Board Policy 4219.21 - Professional Standards. Ironically, I believe you need to question your own behavior, as District Policy clearly refers to all District employees, not just teachers.

As you attack my right to take my CPN days, have you, at all, considered the fact that I worked a full day, each Saturday and Sunday, at my school site, for three consecutive weeks to prepare for our visit by the committee evaluation our school for the California Distinguished School Award? My colleagues and I wanted to make sure we were presenting our school in the most favorable light possible as we applied for that prestigious award. The extra time that was required was given freely by each of us. As professionals, we recognized the need to go the extra mile in order to earn this honor that bodes so well for Lowell Joint. We are so pleased and proud to be recognized as a California Distinguished School.

Your accusations are hurtful and unfounded.

The education Code Section you cite reads: "Except as otherwise provided in this code no warrant shall be drawn in favor of any teacher, unless the officer whose duty is to draw the warrant is satisfied that the teacher has faithfully performed all the duties prescribed."

You believe, as discussed in your letter that "the use of a CPN day must fall within the description of a PN day" does not line up with the contractual agreement. Quite simply, Dr. Howell, if CPN days needed to fall within the description of PN days, the CPN provision would not exist. To that end, when I checked the box "Compelling Personal Necessity" on my leave report, my report was complete and in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. The "Brief details" referring to items 'a' through 'h' under this policy refer to Personal Necessity. Compelling Personal Necessity is clearly delineated in both the collective bargaining agreement and the Lowell Joint School District Leave Report. Disciplinary action and/or a letter in my personnel file are inappropriate. I have and continue to perform all duties of my position in accordance with the LJEA contract, Board Policy, and the Education Code regulations, including properly utilizing CPN and PN days.

Sincerely,

Theresa Herman
Teacher"

(The letter was cc'd to the principal, the LJEA co-presidents, Tom Holister - CTA rep, and all members of the school board. I hope they read it.)

******
A bit more irony?  Dr. Howell not only holds a Clear Administrative Credential, but she holds a teaching credential: Authorized Subject?... wait for it... Physical Education (by examination), with a supplementary authorization in Introductory Mathematics. C'mon!

Holder of a PE authorization, disciplining a marathon runner? She can't validate the endeavor? Really?

******

My hands are tired so I'm not going to retype Dr. Howell's entire two-page letter. The majority of it is quoted in Mrs. Herman's letter. I'll just give you the final two paragraphs:

"You are directed to perform all duties of your position in accordance with the LJEA contract, Board Policy, and Education Code regulations, including properly utilizing CPN and PN days."

"Your failure to comply with these directives could result in disciplinary action. Moreover, the District does not intend to impinge upon your right to participate in activities protected by law; however, your conduct as described above is not protected by law and should not be repeated."


******
Grrr...!!!

******

Nothin' better to do than sniff out such non-violations? Really?

Let's Major in the Majors! And remove the "clarifying" language re: CPNs from the current "offer"! 

PS: Special thanks to Mrs. Herman for standing up for what is right, for allowing us to peak in behind closed doors, and for completing the Paris Marathon! Yowza.

Majoring in the Minors... CPNs.

Once upon a time, a decade or so ago, I had a boss who was fond of saying, "Let's not major in the minors." It's another way of saying, Let's make sure we are focused on what is of major importance, not on what is of minor importance.

I think a case in point is the issue of Compelling Personal Necessity days. The current contract allows teachers to take two days off a year for reasons of Compelling Personal Necessity, aka CPN.

Here's how the current contract reads: (Page 53)

"1. Personal Necessity Leave may be utilized by a unit member who has sufficient unused sick leave credit for circumstances which cannot be dealt with during off-duty hours and that are serious in nature, that is which cannot be expected to be disregarded and/or which necessitate immediate attention. A leave of absence for personal necessity may be granted to a unit member, for not more than twenty (20) days in each school year. Additional leave may be granted at the discretion of the Superintendent. Such leaves shall be deducted from a unit member's accumulate sick leave benefits for those situations necessitating the unit member's absence from duty. Each unit member may use two (2) days of leave, under this provision , per year for personal reasons other than concerted activities. This day shall be deducted from the unit member's sick leave, and the reason for absence shall be Compelling Personal Necessity (CPN). Other personal necessity leave under this policy shall be granted in the following situations:"

Then the categories for Other Personal Necessity are listed: Death of a Member of the Family, Illness in the Immediate Family, Accident of an Emergency nature, Danger to Home or Property of Unit Member, Paternity Leave, Funeral, Examination for Selective Service, Court Appearance, Graduation Ceremony of an Immediate Family Member, and Weddings of Immediate Family Members.

Here is what the Superintendent wants to change the contract to:

Something along the line: Compelling Personal Necessity cannot happen on a day proceeding or following a holiday or vacation. (Really?) 

Who would want to open that can of worms? Who would want to be so invasive into a worker's use of Sick Leave, when the current contract includes the language in order to give some Personal leeway? Who?

Someone who wants to major in the minors. Someone who wants to ignore all the personal sacrifice given by workers without pay for the good of the students and District. Someone who wants to be penny wise and pound foolish. Someone who discounts the value of the good will of their workforce. That's how I see it. And it's sad, but indicative of a management stance that needs to be altered.

Is this really an issue the District wants to raise a flag and die on? (School Board... do you need to advise your Superintendent and your bargaining team?)

This is of MAJOR importance? This is worth aggravating your self-sacrificing teaching staff over? (Really?)

It's insulting to me that the District would feel compelled to make this a contractual matter. I think it falls in the category of majoring in the minors. Teachers recently gave many extra hours, weekends, and money to help Lowell Joint win Distinguished School Awards. None of the teachers submitted a bill to the District. Teachers who feel valued often behave in self-sacrificing ways.

When I worked in business, there was something called, Compensatory Time Off. It was a matter of "You scratch my back: I'll scratch yours." It was a matter of helping each other get done what needed to get done and then repaying an unofficial debt. It was a way of saying, "I value you and your sacrifice."

It helped build morale. It built camaraderie. It demonstrated appreciation. It also gave my boss some unofficial flexibility: some employee good will. My boss couldn't always reward us financially, but he did reward us with the next best thing: time off. Some, if not most of this activity was "off-the-books." The company practiced a bit of "Don't ask. Don't tell." Why?

Because we were majoring in the majors, not the minors. Majors like getting the job done, respecting each other, valuing each other, and rewarding each other in meaningful ways, even if it meant bending some rules.

Why? Because in the arena of human cooperation: that's just good leadership.

Life at the DO

The following is a guest post from Melissa. She couldn't leave a comment, so she sent me an e-mail. With her permission, I share it with this reading community.

Thank you, Don, for the post on the definition of a Superintendent. I tried to post this reply on your blog, but don't have any of the accounts listed.

As you may know I worked at the D.O. p/t from Nov 07 to June 09 as Rosie's Asst. Unfortunately, as I read all of the posts from the teachers and you, I am sad to hear that it wasn't only at the D.O. that morale was so bad, but that it has affected our teachers and staff at our schools so pervasively, as well. The stress level at the D.O. when I was there was palpable! We were all on pins & needles, and no one would speak out but for some, quietly, for fear of retribution. I have learned this sadly hasn't changed. It was virtually impossible to give your best there under such conditions no matter how hard you tried! This just shouldn't be, not when our kids are involved! Honestly, though I was there to help my family financially, I was so relieved to have been laid-off! It makes me angry that this is happening to our wonderful district with so many dedicated teachers and staff that have created and fostered this incredible district that has kept so many through the years moving to our area or transferring schools just to be able to attend us!

As examples, leaders, and mentors to our children, we must be able to make their school environment one that as a family continues to promote the joy of learning and discovery, but how it's so difficult to do in the midst of stress, strain, and frustration! I truly believe that with my experience working directly in the Supt's office, and being involved in the PTA at EP and now at Macy in various positions, and as a business owner, not to mention plenty of time on my hands right now, I can be a voice that stands against the injustices and help force a turn-around, taking back our great district and making right the wrongs that have gone on for too long now! We need to change the long-term effects as well as deal with the short-term issues by challenging and changing the manner in which we are currently governed. I hope to have the opportunity to lend my time and voice to this imperative task!

Thank you for your voice, Don.

Blessings...

Melissa Salinas
Macy Parent

(Thank you Melissa for providing a window into "Life at the D.O." It's not a pretty sight.)

What is a Superintendent to do?

What is a Superintendent to do? (I looked it up and created a list of three.)

1) To manage the school system and provide leadership according to the district’s vision.

2) Oversees employee relations in the school system.

3) Maintains open lines of communication and cooperative relations with a school staff, the School Board, parents, and the community at large.

Provide leadership? (Lead by example?) Really?

Oversee employee relations? (Promote employee morale?) Really?

Maintain cooperative relations? (Like keep promises, overlook minor faults, and negotiate fairly?) Really?

Strike one, two, three.

Really!

Bias in the news? In the Know?

Anyone think that In the Know might be biased? Really!?!

Some time ago I was trying to have a discussion with my cousin about Health Care Reform. In the past I have worked for Kemper Insurance in their claims office, worked for Santa Fe International in their Risk Management Department, served more recently on the District's health care/benefits committee, and have even done some online research accessing such publications as The Wall Street Journal (WSJ). You'd think my cousin would have listened to me... but...

He just called the WSJ a "right-winged, bogus, publication" and dismissed me completely (and loudly). The Journal has been around since 1889 and "The Journal has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the United States." In the Know 5/10/10. Didn't matter what I said or it said.

Does the WSJ have a bias? Sure. (Hey, some might say I too have a bias. And they are right. But shhh... don't tell anyone.)

So does the LA Times and Fox News. If you own the publication, you control the spin. That's journalism.

But what about In the Know where the footer states, "Published by the Superintendent’s Office."

Let's see...

In the Know has two main parts 1) Highlights of the ___________, Board of Trustees Meeting, and 2)We’re Proud That…

Who chooses the highlights? The publisher!

The District is currently in contract negotiations. Attendance is up at the Board meetings, in fact many teachers and parents have spoken! What have the said? Who knows? Let's look at the In the Know coverage, maybe it will put us "in the know"...

May 10

Topics Not on the Agenda
Two teachers and one parent shared their concerns about negotiations and the current budget crisis.

Mrs. Gayle Rogers announced her retirement from the Board of Trustees effective June 30, 2010.

April 9

Topics Not on the Agenda
Several teachers and one parent shared their concern about negotiations, the current budget crisis, and retaining quality teachers.

March 15

Topics Not on the Agenda
Two teachers shared their concern about class sizes being increased.

March 1, February 1, January 11, December 7 : None

November 2

Topics Not on the Agenda
Mr. Najera shared that the Lowell Joint Education Foundation fund raising event on Saturday, October 24, was a success. Many community members attended.

Dr. Howell stated that there is time to sign up for the November 7 Lowell Joint Education Foundation 3rd Annual Turkey Trot.

Mr. Barber extended his sincere appreciation for Dr. Karen Herbst, Director of Special Education, and Mrs. Sandy Jan, Special Education secretary, for their hard work behind the scenes on confidential student matters which may not be discussed.

October 10

Topics Not on the Agenda
Mr. Najera shared that there is still time to register for the Lowell Joint Education Foundation’s upcoming fundraiser events for Saturday, October 24, and Saturday, November 7. Anyone interested may go online at www.LJEFonline.org to register for the events.

Mr. Barber shared that he had the privilege of meeting Mr. Jack O’Connell, California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction. Mr. O’Connell, while visiting school districts in the Whittier area, stayed for a meeting where the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) was discussed.

September 14


Topics Not on the Agenda None.

So what's my point?

Wow, so much effort in summarizing what Board Members say under Topics Not on the Agenda and so little effort on behalf of parents and teachers. Really?!?


That looks like... bias.

But wait...

To counter what is not seen in the minutes... In the Know does have room to publish this...

"Mr. Ken Shelton, Los Angeles County Office of Education Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, shared the importance of maintaining fiscal responsibility and commended the Board of Trustees and Administration for their diligence in maintaining the District’s budget during such difficult financial times. He also stated the current financial concerns are not because of mismanagement of the District, but rather the outcome of California’s state of education funding. Mr. Shelton also stated that the community is being well served by the Board of Trustees and Administration and commended the Board of Trustees for their willingness to face tough challenges with transparency."

Wow. Someone took really good notes! Really?!?

And Mr. Shelton was speaking as the invited guest of... who do you think he's gonna applaud? The guys who invited him. They like his bias.

Hey. I spoke at the April 19th meeting. It was really good. I guess the note-taker fell asleep. Really?!?

I'll bet those teachers and parents who spoke at the board meetings, who prepared long and hard to be heard, are happy that In the Know worked just as hard to make them feel regarded, heard, cared about. Really?!?

Because if you read In the Know, you'll never know the other side of the story: the thoughts and concerns of the parents and teachers who made the effort to speak out.

You won't be "in the know," you'll be in the dark... by design? by bias?

Ya think? Really?!?

I expect bias from my paper, TV, and what-not... but "Published by the Superintendent’s Office"? Really?!?

Wouldn't it be nice not to just get the edited/spun Highlights, but a complete copy of minutes of each Board meeting online in 2010 and going forward?

But don't forget... "Complete minutes of each Board meeting are available in the Superintendent’s Office for review."

Really?!?

Rubber-stamping!

This post is my second under the label: Really?

One definition of rubber-stamping is "To endorse, vote for, or approve without question or deliberation." A sample sentence? "Nearly 60 banks have rubber-stamped a refinancing deal."

On other posts I will be sharing about what is and what isn't on LJSD's web-site.

One thing that is there (and is kept current) is a publication from the Superintendent's office entitled, "In the Know."

One thing that is not there are full minutes of each Board of Trustees Meetings. (Really? In 2010 LJSD can't create a PDF and post it? Really?)

In the Know gives us the pasteurized version, the Super's version?

One thing I noticed,see if I missed something, but I looked through all of this year's In the Knows and counted all the Board votes that weren't 5-0.

What did I find?

All the votes noted were the strangely the same: 5-0. Really?

No dissension, over anything, all year? Really?

Or maybe that's just what the Super wants us to think. The publication is from her office. (So says the footer.)

We'll see if any mention is made in In the Know of the special board meeting where there was actually a difference of opinion regarding filling an upcoming vacancy. (Vote: 3-2) Wow! Really?

In the Know tells you how you can view a full copy of the minutes: "Complete minutes of each Board meeting are available in the Superintendent’s Office for review."


Really? We can't put those online like other Districts? Check out what another local district has done: Magnolia School District. They've got minutes online! Really!

But then, they have a Director of Technology and we... do too! (Really!)

Labels -- Finding What You're Looking For

This blog is, in some ways, a poor-man's web-site. Web-sites aren't easy to make, support, nor organize; therefore... labels.

Labels appearing at the bottom of a post serve to organize various posts under a topic. For example: Really!

Betty White was recently on Saturday Night Live. As a result I happened onto a segment called Really!?! with Seth and Amy. I enjoy humor, sarcasm, and poking fun at the obvious. So I'll be using a label called "Really"

Satire is at the same time funny and thought provoking. I may be pointing out some "dots" on this blog, but there's no reason I cant' have some fun while I'm doing it.

Right?

Really!