There's a lot happening right at the end of the year and as usual, attendance at 9-R's budget hearing was sparse. Three people testified on June 10 - Mimi Thurston, Vickie Gallegos and Bliss Bruen. It's a $39 million budget. Surely more attention should be paid.
The 9-R website still isn't terribly user friendly but to hear testimony and download the budget summary - a very thin document given what $39 million looks like - first find Board Docs
Choose "Enter Public Site" - find June 10th and go to "Hearing."
Next Tuesday night, June 24, the board has to approve the 2008-09 budget. Billed as "preliminary," it typically changes very little between June and October when the final "count" of students is taken.
Now is the time to speak up, if you have any thoughts at all about how you'd like to see $39 million spent.
While the board president a few years ago described it as a "moral document," 9-R consistently keeps budget information and budget hearings under the radar. We remarked that they made no mention on their website, nor any Education Brief and thus should not have been surprised to find almost no one in attendance. This is in contrast to the City of Durango which had a full house at its last budget hearing. Kudos to them.
The new superintendent plans to involve the community in creating a strategic plan which will allow for much more insight (and oversight). You should be interested to know that the District plans to place a mill levy or bond on the 2009 ballot. Before going to the voters, the board must demonstrate it has thoroughly explored other alternatives. That was the tone of the public's contributions and to their credit the board was attentive. They were working with the same slim documents available on the website.
RE: questions asked: superintendent's reference to "declining grants" in her introduction was explained as costs going up and grants staying steady - then why state it that way? Are we getting the whole story about federal grants? Word around town says 9-R is required to pay back funds resulting from mistakes of past years. It's much better to come clean, if that's the case. Again, voters increasingly demand transparency and tend to understand when honest mistakes are acknowledged.
9-R's expanded afterschool program, Kids Kamp's financial challenges - the superintendent says overruns will be taken care of by raising fees and better collecting from parents. The suggestion for a conversation about getting more partners and support... whether it might not be worthy of some level of subsidy was ignored in her response. Given that afterschool care was suddenly thrust on parents last year with the Friday early release time, this isn't just "babysitting." And it's been a huge task to get up and running.
Big news in the budget narrative is that we are getting a second high school -via the transformation of Durango Academy into a "Big Picture School" in 2009 ... as an alternative "at-risk" school. When did we get to discuss this? But more important, if the board approves the budget as presented what commitment does this mean they are making for Durango Academy as it moves into its third and fourth years? Tracking the money of the past two years at some $600,000 a year, what should we expect in 2009? Will there be minimums set for the number of students served? Most important, why this model and not another? We've waited a long time for a second high school and a community process might well have found support for an entirely different model.
The budget approval is the first step in launching this new entity. There are questions still to be answered about this and also about whether sufficient resources are being allocated for DHS to succeed as it creates four new schools within its school. For more on that read June 8 story in The Oregonian: "After four years, Portland and Hillsboro academies find no more progress than the big high schools they replaced"
The task of creating small schools inside a big large school may have its own problems.
Last chance for public comment is next Tuesday, June 24, at 5:30 p.m. at the Adminstration Building on 12th Street, across the street from the Durango Public Library. Walk up the steps and board room is straight ahead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
On page 4 of the preliminary budget report it says: "The district expects to spend more than $275,000 on special education services......the Federal government will provide about $261,000 in special education funding". That's a $14,000 difference, but the report goes on to say how non core academic programs like art, music, or PE may face reductions to provide funding for special education.
I don't like the tone or the suggestion that because of special ed and gifted and talented students, there will be budget reductions on the arts. We are talking about a $14K difference here, the district throws that away in Kids Kamp, the Durango Academy and people who don't pay their lunch bills. Why don't they collect money when they are meant to, save money on running a school that hosts less than the amount of people they enforced EXCEL to have in order to keep their doors open, so that all our children can still enjoy and learn from art, and music and stay healthy through physical education?
The irony of course, is that the children who will lose out the most, are the special education children. It is the arts, that they are generally fond of and in some cases excel at -- that's the glue that holds these particular students together and keeps them in school.
Why don't they ask the community to fund raise for the arts? Instead of removing them and blaming the special ed and gifted and talented students? Or just close DA and save that money? It's like a private school for 38 students, or however many are left, just for the sake of some ego.
They are also doing away with 3 special ed. aides in the class room and replacing them with one social worker.....who can help the behavioral problems students get because they didn't actually get an education!!!
Over 80% of youth in prison are illiterate. We are going to need more than one social worker to compensate for the behavioral problems that will expose themselves when the one thing the special ed. children can "escape to" is about to be reduced in order to pay for the $14K difference.
Page 17 says "our district wide student to teacher ratio is 14 to 1."
How is that possible?
Page 5 tells us: "average elementary class size is 21 students" and "average middle school class size is 24 students" and "average student to teacher ratio at DHS is 18 to 1".
Did someone make a typo in my copy of the book?
Can the board clarify whether we have a 14 to 1 ratio, or is that "old".
What happened to the funding grants? I heard we were paying back $42K a year? Is this true? Why are we repaying grant money? Is this mentioned in the budget?
I've just written to CDE to ask them. I asked the board two days ago, but so far, no response.
My interest is in early language acquisition and global education. What would it take to develop a staged approach to Mandarin? Pre-K, K-3, etc.
Can we restore the international focus underway DHS Abroad was canceled in 2001? Add that to the mix for the strategic plan. I look forward to a big open planning process that Keith Owen described in Pueblo. Could give us a chance to link our aspirations to the otherwise arcane budget document. (so many numbers and so little time - maybe our questions will help overworked administrators focus on which parts to describe in a narrative?)
Until then, we do have a mission statement that could be a lens for viewing the allotment of resources. (But now I can't find it on the 9-R website - I know it's there, but...could someone post it?)
The U.S. Department of Education has released proposed regulations under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The regulations propose to change how states and districts calculate and report graduation rates — these changes shortchange students with disabilities.
The Administration must hear that the proposed graduation rate calculation creates the potential for states to pre-determine which students may or may not graduate within four years and effectively remove these students from the graduation rate accountability system. This is particularly troubling given that students with disabilities have one of the highest dropout rates among student groups. We know that making any kind of pre-determination about students' futures does not make sense and making schools responsible for this in the context of promoting better outcomes is a recipe for disaster. Therefore, policies that allow either individual students or entire categories of students to be prospectively removed from the four-year accountability system are inherently damaging to the positive education outcomes so vital to all students.
NCLD has proposed an alternative that would create a calculation and reporting system that allows schools and districts to be held accountable for increasing the number of students who graduate in four years and for increasing the number of students who graduate in any given year (whether the student is a 4, 5 or more year graduate). Please endorse NCLD's recommendations and let the Secretary of Education know her proposal will not provide a better future and more opportunities for students with disabilities.
Below I've provided a basic letter for you to use and instructions on how to submit your letter to the Department of Education. Please feel free to submit this letter as is, or to personalize your message. We encourage you to ask your friends, family and colleagues to do the same.
Now is the time for you to let the Bush Administration know how these regulations will negatively affect students with disabilities and that there is a better alternative. We must act together and let our voices be heard or changes will be implemented that put the future of our kids at risk.
The public only has until June 23, 2008 to submit comments!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directions for Submitting Comments to the Department of Education
There are several steps to submitting comments to the Department of Education. All steps must be completed to ensure submission. Please don't be deterred — together, we have a voice.
Go to: http://www.regulations.gov/;
Go to: "Comments and Submission" and type into the box ED-2008-OESE-0003;
On the next screen, under "Commenter Title I" click on "Send a Comment or Submission" (check to make sure ED-2008-OESE-0003 is listed);
On the next screen, fill in your personal information;
Once you get to the section for comments, cut and paste your comments into the text box provided;
Then click on the "Next Step" button;
Review your comments and then click on the "Submit" button;
Wait for your "Comment Verification Note and Tracking Number;"
Click on the "Next" button;
Your comments have been submitted.
Please note: You must receive the 'Comment Verification Note and Tracking Number' to ensure submission is complete.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggested Letter Text:
Dear Secretary Spellings:
I respectfully submit my comments and recommendations on the proposed regulations of: Title I Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, ED-2008-OESE-0003.
Calculating Graduation Rates
Schools need incentives to ensure students with disabilities graduate from high school and students deserve every opportunity gain a regular diploma. I urge you to replace your proposed graduation rate regulation that allows a pre-determination to be made about student graduation outcomes with the alternative that allows schools and districts to be held accountable for increasing the number of students who graduate in 4 years and for increasing the number of students who graduate in any given year (whether the student is a 4, 5 or more year graduate).
Minimum Subgroup Size
You must ensure that each State's justification for selecting its minimum subgroup size used in calculating and measuring proficiency against state standards includes as many students as possible balanced with maintaining privacy. I urge you to consider adding additional elements to the State’s explanation of how the subgroup size intends to ensure accountability for as many students as possible.
I endorse the comments submitted to you by the National Center for Learning Disabilities. I believe these comments provide the best foundation for positive change for students with disabilities and urge you to take them under consideration.
Thank you for allowing me to submit my comments today.
Sincerely,
Your Name
Address
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your continued support on behalf of those with learning disabilities. Your voice always makes a difference!
Sincerely,
Laura Kaloi
Director of Public Policy
National Center for Learning Disabilities
It was too simple; on the front page at http://www.durangoschools.org/
All students realize their personal potential.They graduate with the knowledge, understanding, and skills to be effective and responsible local and global citizens. They employ critical, independent, and collaborative thinking to apply what they have learned. All students show evidence of reasonable growth each year toward meeting or exceeding all state and district standards.
Can someone please explain to me why Kids Camp (or whatever they call it these days) is even part of the budget? Why are the employees part of 9-R? Kids Camp is a babysitting service that should not be part of the 9-R budget. I understand that women feel they have to work outside of the home, but I do not feel that I should have to foot the bill. Kids Camp should be a self-sufficient program separate and apart from 9-R. The pre-schools should also be separate and apart form 9-R and should be self-sustaining. If there's a shortfall, parents who use the service need to be responsible for it because these programs are not part of the public school system.
The arts programs should not be cut unless the sports programs are also cut equally.
Our school board should stop squabbling and trying to silence Paddy Lynch and get to work on what's important: the education of our kids. They spend so much time bickering they can't solve problems. It's ridiculous.
So Mary thinks "malicious blogging" is trying to influence the outcome of the board and superintendent...if only it were that easy. Of course, she also thinks the malicious discourse that she and the board conduct about either their fellow board members, the community or even the "malicious bloggers" is a "vigorous and enlightened debate".
She has always been great at twisting words and reality. Thankfully, no more.
The latest 9R ruse is to tell us all that we "teach our students to aspire to this level of discourse" and "we should practice what we preach".....sadly, that's not true either.
The funny thing is though, blogging wouldn't be taking place if just one person in administration or on the board (actually a couple do listen) would listen to the community.
The only way to get there attention is to stand outside DHS or 12th Street with posters and banners requesting the removal of the former DHS principal and the superintendent. Tell me again, why didn't she get an extension on her contract? Oh, yes, because the "malicious football parents" went to Office Depot and made giant signs letting the board that would not listen, get a visual taste of what the community thought.
The funny thing is though, blogging wouldn't be taking place if just one person in administration or on the board (actually a couple do listen) would listen to the community.
The only way to get their attention is to stand outside DHS or 12th Street with posters and banners requesting the removal of the former DHS principal and the superintendent. Tell me again, why didn't she get an extension on her contract? Oh, yes, because the 'malicious football parents' went to Office Depot and made giant signs letting the board that would not listen, get a visual in front of their nose taste of what the community thought about the superintendent Dr Mary F Barter.
Oh My!
Malicious Bloggers? The need for this website came about because of the inability of Mary Barter to listen to anyone with a different point of view. Why did we not renew her contract? The School Board and community were loud and clear on why. Thankfully the SB did the right thing by not renewing her contract. Professional Develepment, Early Identification, Appropriate Remediation, Assistive Technologies, High School Remediation for Students who struggle with Reading and Writing. This is a short list of the concerns Parents have had for many years. In the past 2 years we finally see progress. Why? Because Mary Barter felt she had no other choice but to try and save her legacy. Too little, too late. Because of Parents pressure and loud voices our children across the spectrum may now be acquiring the skills necessary for proficiency. Thank God for Sandra B LaFrance. She has stayed the course and made it her job to listen to Parents and outside professionals when it comes to RTI, LMB, and hopefully very soon the experts in Assistive Technologies. Now if we can just get rid of the PIO we may see Parents coming back to School Board Meetings and showing a greater interest in the lives of their children and Public School.
I am surprised that Mary's last big communication to the community was spent taking pot shots at the community.
God forbid we have "special interests".....I mean how many non readers do we need to make it not a special interest? The NIH says 15-20%. Surely nearly one fifth of our student population is worthy of Mary's and the school board's attention?!!! Oh my. Silly me. Special interest.
What Mary and the PIO never saw in their lack of visionary projection, was the COST of these children, not only to our community, but to our state, and to society as a whole. The drop out rate crucifies this state. A prison cell costs 3 times as much to the tax payer than a seat in a classroom. They never once saw the huge cost to our community, nor the big picture.
Happily Keith Owens does. And I am so, so, so, looking forward to having him become our new superintendent. Hold on to your hats, we are about to fly academically in the right direction.
"Mary's Farewell" is a disturbing, disingenuous but revealing piece. "Malicious bloggers" take heed. The Constitution guarantees all of us the right to free speech. The site manager has done an excellent job keeping this forum under control, yet giving everyone a fair chance to speak their opinions, which of course, we all have a right to.
Not long ago I attended the DHS FFA Chapter's annual awards banquet where Dr. Barter spoke at length about the importance of ag programs to the district. Her farewell article contrasts starkly with the comments she gave that evening. She now says that the district's "historical agricultural community has given way over the years to ex-urbanites who enjoy SW Colorado's rural setting. These changes have forced the district to consider whether it should continue traditional programs that primarily have served the needs of the agricultural community or whether resources should be used for different programs." She goes on to say that "the board and superintendent have a responsibility to explore whether preserving tradition will negatively affect the district's ability to prepare students for work in the global marketplace and that the superintendent clarifies the conflict in values and financial, social and institutional ramifications of either course of action."
My translation: the superintendent must translate the social, economic and financial effect of these sorts of decisions for elected board members??? How about letting the community do that? How about board members reaching out to the community to specific affected populations for insight and opinion? How about the school board putting together meaningful, independent and effective advisory councils made up of people who actually engage in the affected industries to help guide them through their investment decisions? How about including graduates of the DHS welding, woodworking and automotive departments who would probably have the best insight about vocational program needs?
I am a determined advocate of the agriculture and trade vocation departments within the district. While it is true that land values and commodity markets have had a dramatic impact on production agriculture in this region, it is also true that we all (because we eat) have a vested interest in preserving our local agricultural industry. The same can be said for the rest of the vocational programs.
Not all children are destined for Ivy League institutions. Some will leave high school to go into vocational fields, thank goodness. If not, where will the next generation of construction, metal fabrication, steel workers, livestock managers and automotive technicians come from and will we outsource those services as well as all the others that have gone offshore in recent years?
The vocational and ag programs at DHS have historically been "under funding threats" for years, which has not permitted them to flourish and thrive. That's a true shame. For many reasons they have been positioned for failure, yet they have not. The construction project that left the kids in the welding department in harm's way is a great example. These programs have adapted to surviving on a shoestring and little attention, with parents managing many of the additional expenses and conducting fundraising events to support their kids. Close scrutiny of the budget demonstrates that the budget knife hasn't been applied equitably to all areas, including administrators and support staff.
I sincerely hope the district's leadership can now get past the mindset that generating effective, well-educated, blue-collar workers is something that should be hidden and forgotten. Rather, we should be investing in children with these interests equally and with just as much pride and fervor as the next generation of lawyers, scientists, doctors and athletes.
The budget issues at hand are going to take creative thinking by the school board and they call for a whole new solution-oriented approach. As I've said before on this forum, hiring a new superintendent and hoping for the best is not the answer. People will become engaged if they are listened to, respected and if their input is valued. Let's hope that as of July 1 the secrecy, spin and intimidation come to a screeching halt and that a whole new era of transparency begins where we can discuss openly and frankly the problems and arrive at reasonable solutions. Admitting there are problems is the very first step towards finding resolutions and that's something we haven't been permitted to do.
Oh groan. If you read today's Herald, you would be forgiven for remembering all the negative things that happened during the last 9 years. What on earth was that about?
To all of you with dyslexic children and children who were undiagnosed, I am sorry that the former superintendent Dr. Mary Barter didn't teach your children to read, write or spell above an elementary age grade level. I am sorry that she ignored us for 9 years, and made us change state law, just to stop her principals telling her staff to say: "We don't recognize dyslexia in the state of Colorado...sorry!" and consequently NOT teach them. I am sorry for all the high school drop outs who could not access the curriculum with a 4th or 5th grade reading age. I am sorry for all the students who failed their CSAPs, ACTs, and SATs, because Mary Barter didn't teach them to read, because as she once told the board: "I am not going to take advice from the experts in the field of dyslexia" (God forbid she should take advise from experts in a subject she knows nothing about, eh?), because if she had taken advice from the experts in the field of dyslexia, we wouldn't be witnessing the dumbing down of our children, day after day, after day. I am sorry that her staff only thought for the last 9 years that my son should only attempt 50% of the work. What a wonderful "lesson" they all taught him. "Lead by example" never felt so good Mary. I am sorry that dyslexic children think they are stupid, lazy and crazy, all because of this one woman's mission to not give a fig about their education.
I am very, very, very, happy that we will get Keith Owens. He was doing this 9 years ago in Pueblo 60, when Mary Barter was hoping we would all go away.
And, as for another person I will not name. She ruined our district with her spin and her lies. I do hope she will not be allowed to have such a dramatic effect on our new superintendent.
Wasn't it Einstein that said doing the same thing over and over with the same result is the definition of insanity?
The current school board, with the exception of Paddy Lynch, has GOT to wake up and break out of their rubber-stamp trance. I fear they are not going to and I see some things happening that tell me we're headed for the same old same old.
Before Barter left, top administrators were given new one-year contracts so they would be "safe" with the new administration. That also prevented Dr. Owen from bringing in anyone of his choice. These sorts of actions on the part of the school board ENSURE that Dr. Owens' job is just going to be that much tougher.
I wouldn't spend much time worrying about what's been written in the Durango Herald the past few days about the Barter legacy. For the most part, the community knows the truth - particularly those who have children in the 9-R system. The community has been savaged so many times in the press by Barter and Uroda that it is something that's laughed about in the cafes and coffee shops of Durango.
The biggest worry we all have is whether or not the school board is going to step up and do their job, or if they will continue putting the same garbage in with the same garbage out. What I see so far is nothing different.
How can Uroda get away with commenting on how wonderful Mary Barter communicates with the public? Give me a break! I compiled a list of Task Forces and sent this to Chuck S yesterday I am familiar with and suggested he speak with some of these participants. Think he will get an entirely different story. Mary Barter's way or the highway. Did she learn this in her Doctorate Program? Anne, you are right on and it went on for 9 years. I would give her credit for trying to save her lagacy in the last two but this was just an attempt on her part to save face.
The many Task Forces created under Barter will be listed soon on this website. Deborah, you do not speak for anyone in the district anymore. Thank God!
Oh, did I mention, my sister teaches Public Information at Metro State and for major corporations around the state. Yes, and I have relayed the job opening to her so she can pass this on to her students or other major players on the front range. Someone with the education and experience necessary for this very important position within our district, wouldn't it be nice?
I really appreciate what Leesa has to say and how eloquently she says it.Free societies are societies in motion, and with motion comes tension,dissent,friction. Free people strike sparks, and those sparks are the best evidence of freedom's existence. Mary Barter never understood this, nor does she who will remain unnamed. What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.
Hopefully our new superintendent will actively and honestly engage ALL members of the community in discussions about education and it would help if he could bring himself to speak in a simple, uncluttered style.
One of the many problems faced by school administrators is that they have to report to people who know little or nothing about education - to wit, school board members and state legislators. Dr. Barter always played this to her advantage by using the horrible jargon of professional educators, being apt to carry on about "the comprehensive standards-based review proces," or "the strategic future-oriented planning process paradigm." This kind of language plays well with Leadership LaPlata but does diddly for your average parent.
I like Dr. Owen because he is not that far removed from the classroom. The way the system is set up now the only way a teacher can make more money, get more recognition and rise higher in the system is by becoming an administrator. So, year after year, a discouragingly high number of them go back to school and get advanced degrees in school administration so they too can become part of the school bureaucracy. Sadly too many of them suddenly cease being educators and start becoming politicians. Let's hope Dr. Owen stays true to his classroom roots.
The renaissance in public education will occur when we stop holding teachers accountable for standardizing students (remember "Celebrate Diversity?)and start holding them accountable for developing great human beings who will be contributors, not burdens, to society. Crafting an education system based on how students can jump over high-stakes hurdles is a terribly dangerous road to travel.
We must change what we try to measure. We must change what we hold teachers accountable for. If we want to attract and hold good teachers (poor teachers were cited as one of the reasons the "small schools" model failed in Oregon) we must give teachers control of the curriculum so they can decide, with parents and students, what subject matter content is best to help students develop their unique talents and gifts and encourage children's natural zest for learning. Positive reform should begin with dialogue involving administrators, teachers parents, and students, about the goals of education. This dialogue should examine present educational policy and practice to find what things contribute to self-confidence and growth and healthy connections among young people, and strenghten the relationships of schools to communities. This might include public hearings, at which parents and teachers and others are encouraged to state their views on appropriate goals for education, and to identify those things in their local school which support or retard these goals. Dr. Owen would have to be both leader and careful listener at such hearings. This would be more productive than the current 3 minutes of "public participation" allowed at our board meetings!.
If we can educate and mobolize this great community force, we can achieve a great deal.
Call me clueless, but in my opinion we never had a 14.1 student/staff ratio. I know I only spent 9 years in my son's classroom, but I never saw 14 students, except one time in a "SpEd" classroom at Escalante Middle School, and it was so miserable, one couldn't help but wonder a child not being forced into Resource wouldn't volunteer to walk over the threshold, that plus, the SpEd cuts, meant 8:1 was expected.
So, where did Dr Barter and the former PIO come up with the 14:1 ratio in the CDE figures? Did they include the janitors?
Maybe they used "staff to student" ratio, instead of teacher to students?
The figures just don't add up in my humble opinion.
Post a Comment