In this era of school reform, school district watch groups serve an important purpose. They can be a godsend to the otherwise uninformed parent and public. However, they must be ready to give an unbiased and informed opinion.
They call themselves the District Watch Group (DWG). They are influential amongst parents and teachers and they meet every week to discuss the Agenda for the upcoming BOE meeting; to catch up on “news” from folks in the trenches; and to plan their “problem solving” for presentation at the next BOE meeting.The founders of the DWG, "Sherry" (Sharon&Terry) are retired District 150 teachers and they are well known throughout the community. At the BOE meetings, when they step up to the podium, you can visibly see BOE members bristling (some more than others).
After they are finished speaking, they want immediate feedback from the Superintendent and BOE members. If every issue raised is not addressed (and even when they are), the real talk begins on the blogs and the issues not directly addressed at the BOE meeting, seem to instantly become fact.
Lately, the Superintendent and BOE members appear to be doing some push back on the negativity. However, when BOE members comment on the blogs, all it appears to do is open up a new can of worms. Civility is sparse, condescension is rampant, the answers never appear to be enough and the rumors continue to morph.
One of the founders of the District Watch Group, recently posted here that Dr. Lathan, District 150's Superintendent, has placed a personal call to her. Apparently, Dr. Lathan has even pulled other top level Administrators in on a conference call, in an effort to address DWG issues and to put a stop to the negative information that is circulating, but unfortunately, the answers never appear to be enough.
Watch Groups are nothing new and they really can serve a purpose of keeping citizens informed and officials on their toes. What is new are blogs. Blogs bring a whole new level for folks to get their message across. Unfortunately, the message is all to often off putting and in many cases nothing short of bullying of whatever official, or issue that may be on the "Agenda".
What should the District and BOE do? Can they afford to not publically respond to mis-information that may be circulating on blogs? If the District and BOE does publicly respond, how exactly should they do that, without appearing to be susceptible, when their answers simply won't suffice? At what point should they just throw up their hands and let it go?
60 comments:
I think the "DWG" has been a very valuable vehicle to address concerns that many have had regarding district issues.
Dr. Lathan deserves a great deal of credit for responding to these concerns during the meetings and I am very impressed that she would take the time out of her schedule to phone people to clear up any misunderstandings. Jim S. and Laura P. also should be thanked for addressing these issues on the blogs.
Yes, the conversations can become heated but at least communication is taking place. I believe that things will continue to improve as long as these conversations take place.
Those that know who I am know that I have not always had a positive opinion of the district. I have to say I am impressed with Dr. Lathan and some of the Board members addressing these issues.
If that idiot board and Ken Hinton hadn't tried shortening the school day there wouldn't be a DWG. They only need look in the mirror and the crazy decisions they made over the last year or so to find their answer to the problem. Has there been alot of complaining? Yes, probably too much. But, I, as a taxpayer, am thankful these people stepped up to the plate and took action on things that were not right with our district. I love it that Dr. Lathan is calling people! I love it! Is she making "It's not my job to talk to my constituents, Wolfmeyer" make phone calls? God, I hope so! And they got rid of Dimke. That's another improvement! Things are looking up!
Sherry! LOL
try this one
Sharon Crews & Terry Knapp
Sherry Crapp
Keith - it would also be "valuable" if you post your wife's deposition. In the interest of full disclosure, of course.
First of all, I had absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the District Watch group--I was invited to attend a meeting after the group had already organized. The group was really begun by parents who were upset with the proposed loss of 45 minutes per day. I barely knew Terry (other than in his role as union president).
I don't know that we ever asked for immediate feedback--at least, all my questions are rhetorical. I did hesitate to tell about the phone call to me on the blog, but I thought it would be good for people to know that Dr. Lathan is willing to take that step to communicate. She could very well have waited until the next board meeting to inform everyone that I had raised an issue about a policy that doesn't even exist (anymore). By the way, her purpose (what she told me) for the conference call was to prove to me that there was not a district tardy policy--I believe she thought I would not accept her word alone. The call was not made to appease me in any way.
I was appreciative that Dr. Lathan was willing to "just visit" about the tardy issue. She was very candid and friendly. Remember that not too many people on Wisconsin Avenue know much about 150 history.
As I see it, those of us willing to bring up controversial issues at board meetings help to inform the BOE and administration of the undercurrents out in the public.
Emerge, I would like to hear your definition of a rumor. I probably should stop using the word so much--as most of what I say on blogs is not rumor, at all. Mostly I bring up things that are happening in the district--some that the district might prefer to be secrets--certainly not open for discussion.
As for the tardy policy. Nothing I said at the board meeting was rumor (even though I called it that). Teachers had been told that there had been a change in the policy--that tardies were no longer counted. I didn't know how widespread that announcement had been. On the way home from a Richwoods swim meet--and I am going to pause to brag about Mahliyah's awesome diving at tonight's meet, Jeff and I were recalling the time when one of my students (and Jeff's friend) had been suspended because he had accumulated so many tardies--that was in 89 or 90. We both recall that the tardy policy--18 tardies could lead to expulsion--was in the Manual handbook passed out to students even since Jeff has been teaching and just before I retired in 2005. As I told Dr. Lathan, I really believe that many teachers are still under the impression that the policy still exists. By the way, I, also, told her that there is no way that I would believe a student should be expelled because of tardiness--I doubt that has ever happened. Students who are tardy that much probably violate many other rules.
Emerge, there are times (rarely) but there are times that I feel that you lack in civility in responding to people--so I hope you consider the possibility that you, too, may come off that way to some people who read your comments on your own blog and on other blogs.
Also, I believe that very few DW attenders (and we have no "members"--all are welcome) write on blogs. Very few use their own names (very few bloggers, in general, do), so I have no idea how you would know that they aren't civil, etc. Or can I assume that all those negative comments are directed at me?
Excellent post! Though I am glad citizens of the community came forward to challenge the decision of the shorter primary school day, I think many of the DWG activities center around looking for things to peck away at that, in the end of the day, will not create wholesale educational reform. Even more discerning is that I see this group thwarting needed change within the District that the BOE strives to make.
As a parent, the DWG does not represent my views, nor do I believe it necessarily represents those of the majority of families in the District. I think Dr. Lathan has been hired for her expertise and she and her staff should be focused on the big picture instead of spending time placating the DWG.
If you come to class unprepared, you are disrespecting your teacher and classmates. If you spread harmful rumors, at board meetings, on blogs, etc., without doing some basic homework, then you are disrespecting all of the people involved, including the community.
It's no wonder that Dr. Lathan asked those interested parties within the schools and community to follow a chain of command - to effectively respect the process and the people involved. Yes, there are instances when you need to go outside of that chain, but those instances are rare. Some of the allegations are very serious - all the more reason to get your ducks in a row, so to speak, before speaking.
I appreciate the fact that Dr. Lathan has responded directly to some allegations - and I don't try and draw too many conclusions if she doesn't respond to every one - it's a near impossibility for her to do so. I suspect that she will judiciously continue to respond verbally only to certain complaints. Further, when multiple complaints are determined to be invalid, the person making the complaint loses credibility.
I would hate to see Dr. Lathan spend too much time responding to every question/complaint from "Sherry", especially when the answer can be easily obtained with minimal effort and expense. For example, I'm tired of hearing how "Sherry" and Elaine are concerned about how the charter school is going to be funded if there aren't 225 students every day at the school. Get a copy of the contract - that's an FOIA that takes about 5 minutes to fully complete. I've done so and the answer to the question is pretty simple, especially in year 1. Or, you could continue to derisively question it until someone else spoon feeds you the answer.
So many people lament the entitlement philosophy and unrealistic expectations put on teachers and public schools and yet many of those complaining fail to see that they are doing the same thing with the board and administration. I was particularly appalled at Sharon's depiction that Wolfmeyer, Stowell and Parker are planning to "cut and run". Wolfmeyer will have served a full 5 year term. Stowell, if elected to city council, will have served at least 4 years and 11 months and Parker will have served 3 1/2 years.
Some people would, it seems, prefer to throw everything possible against the wall to see what sticks. That might be good when you're brainstorming for positive ideas. When everything that is thrown is negative, there are many people harmed in the process.
There is no doubt the DWG has done some good things and will likely continue to do some more. I wish some people would be more conscious of their actions before they criticize (what benefit is there to saying Greeley is a dumping ground? What are the negatives of doing so?) And, yes, I fully recognize that I am doing the criticizing right now.
Jon, you are still missing the point. I asked at the BOE meeting if the tardy policy had been changed (the implication was recently). Apparently, no one at the horseshoe knew that there was no district tardy policy. It took Dr. Lathan two days to find out that there was no tardy policy.
That was not her fault. There are people on the board now who voted for that change in 2005--why didn't they speak up? So please tell me who came to the meeting unprepared?
Admittedly, I have not had any reason to think about a tardy policy since I retired in 2005--which is when the new attendance policy went into effect. It simply didn't occur to me that the policy would be eliminated.
Jon, you are right. I probably shouldn't have used the term "dumping ground." I believe, on occasion, Martha Ross has used that term when talking about a potential alternative school--and I have assured her that I do not want an alternative school to be a dumping ground. I agree though that Greeley is well-suited for a very special group of students. Again, things may have changed, but I think it used to be for students who had been expelled but that they could not have the opportunity to continue in school unless they sign a pledge against drug use, etc. I personally can think of, at least, two of my own students who benefitted greatly from the Greeley program--as a place to "regroup" before returning to regular school.
Jon and Frustrated, nobody said that everyone's interests would be served by District Watch. Actually, I am somewhat amused that a group with no organization whatsoever would get so much attention. We are just individuals interested in 150 issues; at no time do we function as a group. Terry and I speak the most often, but we represent only ourselves, not a group. All we really do at meetings is eat pizza and visit--in a public place to which you are all invited.
Undoubtedly, it is to Dr. Lathan's credit, but I did not feel at all that she was pushing against negativity when she called me. There was no argument involved at all.
Frustrated, I am not as concerned about the IB program as you are, but I certainly don't want it dropped. Jon, you completely miss the point about our interest in the charter school--because you favor charter schools. I find it amazing that nobody was going to report publicly that 94 of 315 chosen students decided not to go. Also, in my own case, I don't usually stand up to spread any rumors; I usually present facts that I have learned through FOIAs. They might not interest you, but there are people for whom they do have interest.
I don't think Dr. Lathan will waste too much time putting out DW fires. However, I hope all of you will feel free to point out misinformation that I write on blogs. So far, I think must of our disagreements involve opinions--which are a matter of preference, not fact. Jon, I just don't have any idea what interest you have in 150. I get the idea that you feel like defending it--but from afar more than with any personal zeal--more just philosophical and mostly just the opposite of anything I say. Curious!
Emerge, I personally believe much of this particular post of yours is off base. Certainly, saying I was a co-founder isn't based on any factual information.
What I really don't understand: Why don't any of you or other strong supporters of District 150 come to meetings to speak out as a counter-balance to what you feel is our negativity?
Emerge, I am doing something wrong--don't know why duplicates of my posts keep popping up--one is enough. Ha!
Did you see what I wrote about having unrealistic expectations? You want to question one item that was once in a 500+ page district policy book that seems to have been removed 5 years ago - and you expect someone to be able to address the issue immediately?
Yes, some good has come from this. However, there was a much better way to go about it - without trying to make people/district look bad. You didn't merely ask about the tardy policy. You made assumptions about what it would mean, "wanted to see that vote", etc. That's not working WITH the board - it's working against THEM - albeit for a shared goal of better communication about the policy (district wide or school level).
It's the same with the charter school. Instead of simply reporting that 94 children chose not to go, you had to add your opinion as to why those 94 chose not to go. For what purpose? And why continue to derisively ask how the enrollment is going to affect payments to the school? If you truly want the answer, do a little work yourself (and it's one that doesn't involve several hours of research by the district to fulfill an FOIA)
Jon, have you ever heard of "word search"? I found out in 2 minutes that there was no tardy policy by searching the word "tardy" on the online document on 150's website.
Secondly, I didn't embarrass anyone by my comments at the board meeting. Because the comments aren't televised, it was more or less just the board, a few administrators, and me. Emerge was probably the only person in the audience besides the group with whom I was sitting.
First of all, I do expect board members to know what is in their own policy, especially, about an issue such as tardiness. Now that I know that the policy was eliminated in 2005, I truly wonder why one of the board members didn't pop up with that information right then and there. (I still would like to see that show of hands.) On several occasions, Jim has attacked comments made by a speaker during the time allotted for board comments at the end of the meeting.
Jon, you are a great apologist for District 150--you really need to get to board meetings to show your support for them. I don't know of anyone else on the blogs who always supports 150, no matter what issue is brought up.
As for the charter school, I don't think I asked the question about payments in my comments at the BOE meeting. Maybe I have mentioned payments on the blog--not sure. I do want to know (but haven't asked yet) who turns the per pupil money over to the charter and if the money returns to the district each time a student leaves Quest and returns to 150. If you know, why not just part with the information.
If you found it in 2 minutes - WHY didn't you research it BEFORE you bring it up at board meetings and on the blogs?
Remember Emerge's post about "Your School Board and You", which is taken from the ISBE? It talks about how you get better results, and is fairer to all involved, to work through the system. How, if you don't find what you need, eventually you'll get to the board, and that you should request putting the topic on the agenda so the board can be prepared about it?
I guess you're also saying Laura, for example, should have known what was or wasn't a board policy on tardiness and should have spoken up. I mean, it doesn't really matter when it was changed - each person should know exactly what it is or isn't, right?
I would like to go to board meetings more often but I usually have scheduling conflicts. It's a shame you think I support everything the district does, no matter what. I do believe you mostly find fault, but I recognize that you sometimes have good things to say.
About the charter school, you, Elaine and Terry have each brought it up either at a board meeting or on the blogs. I've told you before, I'd rather not just give you the fish, but this time I'm so inclined.
There is a flat payment in year 1 of $728,325. If all 225 students were there every day, the amount per student would be about 1/3 of what the average per pupil cost is for the rest of the district. In future years, it is 85% of the per student “tuition”, as calculated by School Code, and it is paid out in 4 installments. One-quarter of the amount for the number of students enrolled on Aug 1, Nov 1, Feb 1 and May 1. Those amounts are adjusted based on the actual average daily attendance records.
Jon, my comments at the BOE meeting weren't about the specifics of a tardy policy. Frankly, not even in my wildest dreams would I have thought that the tardy policy had been eliminated. For me, it was sort of like checking to see if there is still a Pope. After all, the district had a tardy policy probably since I was in high school and before until I retired.
Only after my first conversation with Dr. Lathan--when both of us were making the assumption that there was a tardy policy--did I decide to check out if the specifics had been changed. During our first phone call, Dr. Lathan had told me that she was going to send out a memo to clarify that she had not changed the tardy policy.
As she told me during our second conversation, when she started to write the memo, she, also, decided to look at the policy--and, at that point, could not find it. I am not sure if anyone but Martha was on the board in 2005, but I would have hoped that someone present at the meeting would have helped Dr. Lathan out after my comments (after the meeting, at least). Whether or not they claried it for me is irrelevant--Dr. Lathan deserved their input at that point. I have fairly good reason for not knowing the tardy policy, but frankly I believe all board members should know whether or not the district even has a tardy policy.
I am glad Dr. Lathan called me. I am glad she is more gracious than you are. If she was irritated with me, she was kind enough not to reveal that emotion. I will quite possibly feel freer to communicate with her by e-mail in the future (I will not bother her by phone; her time is more valuable than mine).
I will continue to find out information through FOIAs because I think there is info out there that people rarely look it carefully--than can or could shed light. Randy Simmons--currently having to gather info for a recent FOIA--told me last night that I am making him do more work now than I ever did when he was in my English class. I hope he was exaggerating--that he didn't sleep in my class, too, along with Jim--ALL MEANT TO BE FUNNY. I did think Randy had a secretary. I think I will start volunteering my time to help gather the information. Ha! (although I would). And I will continue to comment if I don't agree with the board or the administration. However, I am capable of criticizing decisions without hating the people who make the decisions.
Jon, just tell me one time that you have not sided with or made excuses for 150. I probably missed the post. OK, now I am going to get ready to celebrate my 73rd birthday at the 1990 Manual class reunion with Jeff (and Karen) and Scott Gore--and all those other wonderful 1990 graduates. Some things District 150 are wonderful--that would be my former students.
P.S.--Randy was being funny--but probably serious about my FOIAs. If I haven't made my point clear before, I will make it again now. Randy is doing a great job at PHS--he was handed a heavy-lifting task and I think he has come through for District 150 with flying colors.
Yes, I'm glad Dr. Lathan is more gracious than you, too, Sharon. And, by all means, comment about decisions you don't agree with. But please educate yourself on a topic before complaining about it. And please consider following the "chain of command".
You know Randy, Steve and Sharon, as well as most of the principals in the district. You stated you heard that two principals had told teachers that tardies won't be counted. Why would you not ask the principal directly? Why would you disrespect them by going around them?
I'm not enamored with the thought of putting Terri Dunn in an assistant HR role - it would seem her talents would be better suited as a school principal, even if she only did it for 2 years. I also suspect there are many reasons why they chose this path so I don't need to beat them up about it.
I didn't like the fact that there was a policy against letting in students into Washington Gifted in the 5th grade who did not go to a D150 school in the 4th grade, but the district changed that policy.
I don't like that all of the schools in the district are not fully choice. However, I typically approach that by saying I'd like to see more choice - and I have provided links to many articles on the benefits of choice, on site-based management, on performance evaluations that include achievement results, etc.
I was very vocal about the decision to close Woodruff and the timing of that decision. Most of that was because I felt there wasn't a good plan - not because we didn't necessarily need to close a school for financial reasons.
I've been critical of the fact that the district has such a high rate of IEP students - a rate that seems much higher than "normal" - even though I do expect it to be above the state average.
Enjoy your evening and birthday.
Jon, when did I say two principals? I must be talking in my sleep. I believe Terri Dunn is now the head of HR--isn't she? I complained because--at her high salary and with all the openings, an appropriate position should have been found for her last two years--now that's taken care of.
One of these days I'm going to keep my promise to myself and not engage in these futile discussions with you--but probably no time soon. Ha!
On Peoria Chronicle:
Sharon Crews
October 13, 2010 at 12:34 am
TR64–I have heard that two principals have already stated that tardies won’t be counted–I guess they can be recorded.
So, I guess I should understand that you're still going to spread rumors - and may even misstate the rumors in doing so?
Here's a few more of my favorite quotes from you on rumors posted on CJ's blog:
Sept 22, Sharon says:
"The truth is that I try not to spread rumors, but I do spread truth."
Just 3 days later:
"I am more than willing to put the rumors, etc., here (and take the blame) because I know that there are people who will readily clarify any information or present an opposite point of view."
Jon, you win on this one. I guess senility has set in. I didn't know about two--just one. I was right though--I do accept the blame and there are people who will readily clarify any information.
Jon, in the interest of self-preservation, I have to re-assess--thank goodness, others have a better memory than I do.
When I stood before the board, I didn't state a number or a principal--but by the time I posted on the blog, a second person had told me that his/her principal had made the same statement about the tardy policy. So "two" is the right number--I did forget about the second source of info.
I don't know and am not going to try to outguess why these people heard what they heard.
Now are there any other so-called rumors that I have to clear up? The last rumor that I stated a few days ago was that the special ed director had left--I knew it wasn't a rumor but called it as such--now there is no question; it is fact. Note that I didn't say anything about opinions as to why she left, etc.--just that she left.
You are right about this being futile. You don't seem to recognize at all what I am talking about.
You don't seem to understand at all about the chain of command. (I'll call 911 because I always get a response, even if it's not an emergency). You don't seem to understand how unnecessarily going outside of it is not only often inefficient but disrespectful to the people along the chain.
You don't seem to understand the harm of spreading rumors (nor even knowing what a rumor is) or criticizing things without having educated yourself. You don't seem to see a problem with effectively accusing someone/something and expecting the accused (or someone else) to prove their innocence - rather than you as accuser.
I can count dozens of times where you have said something to the effect of "I erred in saying..." or "I shouldn't have said..." (Greeley dumping ground, declaring why students didn't go to Qwest, etc.) - only because someone else had to point them out to you.
You don't seem to understand at all the greater benefit of working together with the district/administration, rather than against them.
You say you respect Randy Simmons so much, but you don't seem to have really reflected on what even he told you.
Yes, Sharon, you care and you want what you think is best for the district. I can only hope you'll stop and think a little - before you criticize/complain - about what damage your actions might cause - and how you might otherwise achieve your goals in a better way.
Jon, I am not an employee of District 150. I have absolutely no chain of command to follow. There is no correlation with calling 911. Also, it is not my job to solve the problems of District 150. I am quite free to call attention to the problems (and even to make a fool of myself) and hope that someone will find the solution.
Nothing I do is hindering that process--I am simply not that important. Obviously, I am not standing in the way of 150's progress--150 just sometimes sees progress differently than I do. I haven't stood in the way of getting rid of Edison or Johns Hopkins or closing Woodruff.
The truth is that no one in the district has asked me work with them--no one on Wisconsin Avenue asked when I was a teacher and no one is asking now. I did my job and loved it; I guess that was enough. No, I am not looking for a job or recognition.
That is my whole point in everything I say--the district needs to start asking teachers (NOT ME) to provide them with information about what is really going on in the district, but the district doesn't want to know (not yet anyway--maybe Dr. Lathan will be different). If I have a purpose at all, I think I do speak for some teachers; those for whom I don't speak need to find their own spokesperson. Remember teachers do not feel free to comment on 150--if they did, I would not have been the one to bring up the tardy issue.
All your warnings are futile, also--I haven't seen any carnage lying in my wake. I didn't even spread any rumors about the tardy policy--I was just five years too late; again I was spreading fact and didn't realize it.
I will continue to allow my conscience (not yours) to be my guide. I have read the posts of people who regularly impugn the character of others (as you regularly do try to do to mine)--I am not one of them. When or if I inadvertently become one, I will apologize.
And what on earth would you know about my relationship with Randy or about Randy--enough to interpret what he meant? You wouldn't even know what he said to me if I hadn't told you. I know what he meant (he meant that he wasn't happy with having to take the time to give me a report about class sizes and IEPs) and I know he feels free to say whatever he wants to say to me--that's what makes him different from you--we have history (student-teacher and then as colleagues at Manual). It will take more than a FOIA to destroy that.
I have to stop being so self-deprecating by apologizing (no, I probaby won't) and using the word "rumor." I probably did imply some underlying reason for students dropping out of Quest (Notice the spelling is not Qwest). I thought I said the students just said, "No, thanks."
Also, you are free to continue belittling my character, but I have a hard time being affected by someone whose own history I know nothing about--I let you in on much of my history but I know little about you. You have no sense of fair play. Last night at the Manual reunion, I inadvertently met a person who strongly criticized me over a short period a year or so ago on the blog--turns out she is rather a pleasant person. Should she ever choose to disagree with me again, I will have a point of reference--and she will be real to me.
Jon, I may be repeating myself--but Emerge's blog seems to have lost my latest post. I am not part of a any chain of command--and calling 911 is a bit of a stretch as a comparison.
You know nothing about my relationship with Randy--and you wouldn't know what he said if I hadn't told you. I know what Randy meant--he didn't like having to round up data about class sizes and the number of students with IEPs--and that is information that the public would never know--except as that faulty average on the Illinois Report Card that you are always citing. However, I don't think the FOIA has changed our history, etc. You truly are being presumptuous. The fact remains that I think Randy is the best person the district could have picked to solve the problems created by closing Woodruff. I am so glad that the PHS faculty spoke up when the district suggested trading him for $6 million. And that does not make him a $6 million man, as some have faceitiously suggested. It just means that the District made a smart decision.
My goals and the district's goals, so far, do not seem to be too related. My goal is for the district to be transparent (without my prodding, etc.) and to listen to its teachers--actually, to actively seek out the opinions and complaints of teachers.
If that were the district's modus operandi, I wouldn't have brought up the tardy issue. Teachers would have felt free to come to the podium themselves. If I have any motive, it is to speak for teachers who don't feel free to speak for themselves. I don't speak for all teachers; those for whom I don't speak are free to find their own spokesperson.
I do have to stop using the word "rumor"--most of the time that I use it, it is not a rumor. My comments about the tardy policy were not rumor--I was just 5 years too late and, in fact, was spreading fact, not rumor.
Continuation of previous post: None of us on the blogs are impeding the progress of District 150. Why? because the district is usually headed in a completely different direction, so they don't even notice the roadblocks. We did nothing to end the Edison or Johns Hopkins programs. We didn't keep them from closing a high school. We haven't been able to convince them to find a solution to the discipline problems--or even admit to them.
We aren't the ones who brought up changes in the dress code (enforcing the old one would have been just fine; and that didn't even realize that they were the ones who had kept the old one from working)--and they now think they have solved the problem, but if they would listen to teachers they would learn that little has changed--but they aren't asking. Just as I said at a board meeting, they thought they were solving the problem, but they lack an "end game" so the students are playing all the same games that they played with the old policy.
Jon, I don't think I have impugned the character of any individuals--I have read posts that do just that. Remember that "to err is human and to forgive is divine." I make no apologies for apologizing. I might wish I were perfect; then there would be no need for apologizing.
However, I don't regard the criticism of institutions (and the decisions of individuals carrying out the work of the institution) as being the same as harming the reputation of individuals. I believe I got through the whole Hinton era without ever attacking Hinton's character--and many on the blogs did just that.
The truth is that in some cases, I know only the public persona of people, not their personalities, etc. And it is their public persona and or actions that I criticize. Of course, because of my 150 history there are some that I do know as people. Public officials know coming in that they will be open to public criticism--it goes all the way to the President of the United States. It's part of the job description.
I am sure you can find some quote of mine that implies a reason for students dropping out of Quest (please note it is not spelled Qwest); I thought I stated they just said, "No, thanks." I have heard a few reasons that parents have given people that I know--but I don't think I repeated the reasons, did I? So what if I did.
My opinions are not going to change anyone's view of charter schools--neither are my FOIAs. Maybe the facts will--I can only hope.
Jon, I will probably continue to react to your criticisms of me since that diversion is more appealing to me than doing household chores. I think I must provide you with a favorite pasttime--I probably won't deprive you of that joy.
Jon - nice try! Denial is the river she travels along most often.
"I know only the public persona of people, not their personalities, etc. And it is their public persona and or actions that I criticize."
Sharon, I am only criticizing your actions and/or rationale. Who I am or what my history is should be of no concern. (I mentioned Randy because you seem so persuaded by the arguments of someone you know well) It is purely the argument that has relevance. What difference to the argument would there be if I was a former student of yours, the mayor, or a homeless man typing on a computer at the library?
You do recognize that by airing your concerns publicly, via board meetings or blogs, you also open yourself up to criticisms (as also applies to me). I've tried to be very fair, specific and logical in my criticisms.
The chain of command idea is not only a military or business concept, but a societal one as well. It's about following a process.
You say no one from the district has asked you to work with them, and yet you just received two personal calls from the superintendent. You seem to have regular conversations with at least Jim and Laura (who just said she tries to investigate many of the concerns brought up by the DWG). You spoke of the conversation during dinner you had with (if I recall correctly) Sharon and Taunya (and, yes, it was not a purely "business" meeting). In any event, someone always has to make the first move.
I'll leave you with this thought again - the last paragraph of my most recent comment:
Yes, Sharon, you care and you want what you think is best for the district. I can only hope you'll stop and think a little - before you criticize/complain - about what damage your actions might cause - and how you might otherwise achieve your goals in a better way.
Jon, yes, I do open myself up for criticism, and I accept your right to criticize me, but I don't necessarily accept your criticism. You follow your conscience, and I'll follow mine.
I have had further confirmation from teachers that they did not know that there was no district policy on tardiness--and that isn't Dr. Lathan's fault--and I will probably speak to that at the next board meeting. If all I did was lead to the further enlightenment of teachers, I am very glad I brought the subject up at a public forum.
Your chain of command argument is ridiculous as related to public opinions. That is exactly why the board has a public comment time--why isn't that following the chain of command? Yes, they would prefer that negative comments be dealt with in private--but we know by experience what happens to such communication.
"I see the press (Channel 25) is finally picking up on the fights at Peoria High." - Sharon Crews, on Peoria Chronicle.
Yea, this was after you started blogging about unidentified fights and problems at Peoria High - inviting even more rumors and suspicion.
But, hey, if this got the district talking about security at PHS, any collateral damage doesn't matter, huh?
As to the tardy policy, teachers are enlightened, but students, parents, teachers, district - all are harmed - because the implication YOU made was that there were NO tardies being recorded and NO consequences (and others have told you differently). All that has thus far been determined is that there is no district wide policy - not that tardies are not recorded or that there are no consequences.
Yes, it is good that the issue is clarified for everyone. But the whole point - was there another way - without the "commentary" of no record-keeping and no consequences discussed in a "gotcha" scenario?
Same story - the supposed ends justify the means.
Last year 1st semester, I believe that I am correct in saying there were no consequences for being tardy at Manual--then second semester, a tardy hall was begun (I've already stated that on a blog). I didn't realize at the time that there was no district policy. Many, many tardies at MHS were recorded (about 800 unexcused tardies for seniors in one semester) but no consequences whatsoever.
In context, I believe that I was speaking of the fights at the end of the day outside of PHS and maybe at the Central-Manual game. I didn't start that discussion and whatever I said didn't have anything close to the impact of the parents who started the complaint (my comment was not even a blip). You certainly are giving me far more power than I have or want.
And, yes, I believe the WEEK news did bring about the efforts that have improved the situation at PHS--led to the signs controlling traffic about which the PJS reported last week, etc.
When I spoke about 2009 summer school not following the tardy policy that was presented to students, when I spoke at the board meeting recently, and when I spoke to Dr. Lathan, I stated that I believe that leading students to believe there are consequences when there are no consequences is dishonest. Of course, the students figure it out all on their own. This kind of duplicity, not its exposure, is what hurts the district.
PHS and RHS students do have consequences for tardies; at PHS I believe the consequences are going to tardy hall and earning demerits--which probably can lead to suspensions (round about way of getting there). I told Dr. Lathan that I didn't know about Manual and she said, "I guess I'd better find out."
Of course, we haven't even begun the discussion about middle school policy. My educated guess (because I have talked to some middle school teachers) is that there are no consequences for being tardy--and they change classes every hour, so they have plenty of opportunities to be tardy.
And, Jon, just what is your end that justifies your means? You spend considerable time trying to discredit bloggers with whom you disagree. You are a wealth of "from the book" knowledge but you seem to be only an observer in all things District 150. What is it that you do to help District 150--or are your attacks on me the extent of your good deeds?
What I do or don't do to make D150 better isn't really the issue - it's more of an issue that I don't do it much harm, if any. I believe I speak on issues, both on which I agree and disagree, fairly and after careful research. And if you feel my disagreements with you are good deeds for D150, then I guess I've made some progress :)
The blogs are generally a place full of contempt, particularly as to D150. Hopefully, I offer a different view - one I feel is based on facts and logic/reason. Again, you and others may disagree, just as I often disagree with you.
Interestingly, you now acknowledge that RHS and PHS, at least, record tardies and have consequences. Most people would view that as a positive - as opposed to no record-keeping and consequences at all - as you initially suggested. Odd it took you this long to come back to the blogs and clarify your previous mischaracterization. So much for wanting the truth to get out, huh?
I keep asking you if there was a better way to address this issue - without the negative insinuations and surprise attack - though you never answer. Perhaps that is because your real goal was, in addition to clarifying the policy, to show the district in a worse light than it is?
Do you see now how your initial comment about the tardy policy (not recorded and no consequences) at the board meeting was simply a rumor - that has since been determined to be false? But, hey, let's make another "educated guess" that there are no consequences for being tardy at any of the middle schools.
Educated guess - Jon just exposed Sharon's real goal, yet she still denies it to be true. Don't actions speak louder than words?
Ny exact words: I have heard that the district is no longer keeping tardy records for students—which would, also, mean no consequences for being late to class. Is this rumor or fact?"
I did say "the district," not the individual schools. That distinction might not mean anything to you, but if there is no district policy, that would mean the district has no interest in the number of tardies. I would assume if the district has no tardy policy, that, also, means they do not ask for schools to produce any official tardy records. Now I am asking a question that a parent or teacher might answer. Are the number of tardies still recorded on student report cards?
Also, this isn't the first time I mentioned the practices at RHS and PHS--and I did use the wrong word; schools do not make policies.
I erred again--I said Manual seniors had 800 unexcused tardies--I left out a column; it was 1194.
When I say educated guess--I guess I should say that teachers at some schools have told me. Anonymous--I have no guesses as to who you are but you obviously have some reason to accuse while being anonymous--that takes no guts at all. If either of you are people for whom I hold respect (and I may; I just don't know who you are), then I would definitely be more inclined to be concerned about your assessments of me. You are both defending a district that has often been less than honest with the public and that invites rumor because of its unwillingness to be transparent. On this particular subject, for years during my own career, I wanted to view the overall tardy records at Manual (because I felt they were much worse that the school acknowledged). Those records were closed to teachers and to the public. Now they aren't.
I was looking for the district's policy on clean restrooms, but couldn't find it. Should I take that to mean the district has no interest in cleaning restrooms or that they don't ask schools to keep their restrooms clean?
I already told you that Dunlap, for example, has no district wide policy on tardiness either. They leave it up to the schools.
Again, could there be a better way to resolve this issue? Or are you going to keep holding a grudge over things that happened years ago?
Not at all--and you call it a grudge (that's what you see, fine; that just isn't my stance). I have said over and over again, I just want all teachers to be informed as to what the district policy is or isn't--evidently the district policy is for schools to do whatever they want; I don't believe that all teachers know that. Then I want teachers to be asked how they think the lack of a policy is working. When that day occurs with regard to all policies, then I might remain silent.
Yes, there would have been a better way to resolve this issue--5 years ago when the policy was eliminated. I remember clearly when the attendance policy was revamped and why. I just am surprised about the lack of a tardy policy.
Funny that you should mention clean restrooms. There should be a policy or "best" practice. I have forever complained that students should be given soap and hot water. Maybe that has changed. Also, after having just visited Richwoods' newer or new restrooms with automatic flushing toilets, I wondered when PHS will be getting updates. The condition of the current restrooms are quite substandard--not the fault of PHS staff or custodians. Visit them--and you might get sick to your stomach.
Well, since you weren't involved with that decision 5 years ago, but you were the one who brought it up at the last meeting, do you think there was a better way you could have handled this issue (maybe without the assumptions, insinuations, rumors, etc.)?
I am satisfied with the way I handled it. I do know that in 2002 or 2003 I reproduced my attendance book (without names) and turned it over to Mike Bailey of the PJS and that he devoted a column to the information. I do know that some board members were astounded by the data. I do know that in 2005 the attendance policy for unexcused absences was changed. Was there a correlation--I don't know, but it was the board member who was the most astounded who was in charge of rewriting the change, etc. I trusted the judgment of that board member. I am, nevertheless, surprised by the elimination of the tardy policy--and there may be a very good reason that I could accept. I am just not sure how to assess the fact that there are veteran teachers who are surprised to learn about its elimination. Remember Dr. Lathan herself didn't know that there was no tardy policy and it took a couple of days for her to find out (absolutely no blame on her for that). The point is that it is not common knowledge even on Wisconsin Avenue.
I don't think students should be satisfied with getting a D when they could get an A. It's like taking a test with 20 questions but deciding to only answer the 15 easiest, figuring that they had done enough (enough for a D). For whatever reason, they just won't answer those tougher questions. They just don't try or don't care.
Kinda reminds me of the lament that many 11th graders don't care about the standardized tests. Sure, you attempt to convince them that trying their best is good for the school, their classmates and their community. But nope, some just don't respect those things.
Jon, please just quit with the ridiculous analogies. Just say what you have to say without trying to be clever. By now, I would assume that you, Anonymous, and I (maybe Emerge) are the only ones interested in any of this.
Hmmm, how can I put this so you'll understand?
"I keep asking you if there was a better way to address this issue - without the negative insinuations and surprise attack - though you never answer."
or
"Again, could there be a better way to resolve this issue? "
or
"Well, since you weren't involved with that decision 5 years ago, but you were the one who brought it up at the last meeting, do you think there was a better way you could have handled this issue (maybe without the assumptions, insinuations, rumors, etc.)?"
I've suggested that you don't care what damage is done, or that you might actually want the district to look worse than the truth. Never in all of your replies have you disputed either notion. That might also explain why you don't want to answer the question (I didn't ask if you were satisfied)
I've learned a lot during this little conversation. Unfortunately, it's worse that I expected.
Jon, you may have taken on the role of judge and jury; you enjoy role-playing, so have fun. You are not part of my chain of command. But to answer your question, the damage is in your imagination. I'm not sure who or what you think I have damaged or how. Everyone that gives a hoot on the blogs now knows the truth and has read your opinions and can draw their own conclusions. There weren't that many people at the board meeting and it wasn't televised. Surprise attack is hardly an apt characterization. I just asked a simple question. I didn't attack anyone's character--as you regularly do.
Dr. Lathan now, also, knows the whole situation--she is free to follow through in any way she chooses.
Jon, I long ago found out that most of the time I don't understand your point of view--nothing has changed. We are on the opposite side of several camps--we are hunkered down. Ha! The truth of the matter is that you have never said much to give me any indication that you know any district employees from whom you can gain fact or perception. Most of your opinions are simply just the opposite of mine--and you usually don't express yours until I have given you the "fodder." Then you trot out all manner of research and data (that whole data-driven drivel that forgets all about human nature and just deals with numbers). My opinions are born out of many years of teaching experience in District 150, and my information comes from friends whose judgment I trust. I don't know you, so there is no way you could earn my trust and vice versa.
This is becoming ever more laughable. You say Wolfmeyer, Stowell and Parker are going to "cut and run" and claim I attack your character. That I disagree with your actions - yes. If you think that means I attack your character, so be it.
You're oblivious to the negativity you spread. Here's a reaction from a teacher, no less:
Fed up
September 24, 2010 at 10:09 pm
"Oh give it a rest…until you know the facts about something don’t start spewing your garbage."
and later elaborates:
#
Fed up
September 25, 2010 at 10:50 am
"And why I was so disgusted with Sharon’s post…
1)”I hear they want to give $900 to those that helped get a 4.8% increase” TOTALLY FALSE
2) “Manual has an extra $100,000 that they can’t find any other use for” TOTALLY FALSE the state is requiring it be used for teacher incentives, Manual, the union, the district had no choice
3) “The district wants to wrongfully only give credit to the 11th grade teachers” TOTALLY FALSE The state says the money must be used at Manual, every teacher, grades 7-12 is eligible for the incentive
I don’t mind if you disagree, Sharon. But please get your facts straight before you post."
and
also fed up
September 25, 2010 at 11:00 am
"Sharon refuses to get facts – as she has stated before – it is easier for her to make statements in error because “the internet will enable them to be corrected”. The legs on her rocker are broke and she doesn’t see it as a problem."
And I wish I could find those PJStar articles wherein you own former students have pleaded with you to stop bashing Manual.
But I gotta love your tirade of "data-driven drivel" - this coming from someone who FOIA's all sorts of data and presents it to the board. That's classic!
Now I lost my last comment - probably too large.
You've said a few times now that I attack people's character. If I point out what I feel is someone's hypocrisy, is that attacking their character? If I think someone's ideas are illogical, is that attacking their character? If I suggest that someone's actions are harmful and I disagree with the approach, is that attacking their character?
What if I say somebody is planning on "cutting and running" - is that attacking their character? Or if I were to say that some trots out research and data-driven "drivel" (which is to say it is childish, foolish, silly, etc.) - and ignores ALL human nature, dealing only with numbers - would that be attacking their character?
In other words, how do you separate the character of the person from their actions or words? And how do you distinguish yourself from me - as it relates to "character attacks"?
I said forgets "all about human nature," not "all human nature"--there is a slight difference. Again, Jon, I was not criticizing the character of board members when I said they were cutting and running. To attack their character, I would have to attack their motives, also, not just their actions. You definitely attack motives and predict outcomes by claiming I have caused harm. You might be able to speculate on what kind of harm could be done by my words--but it would be just that speculation with little proof. It could be that my words might even turn into something good--you are just don't know. They might even lead to a TV show that will make the district look good.
I guess that explanation makes sense, given your interpretation of rumor and not seeing any harm done to the district and all involved.
He said so and so was lying or cheating, but he didn't say why, so he didn't attack their character?
Or, it's OK to suggest that the board's motives in allowing for the charter school is to "break the union", but that doesn't mean anyone is attacking the motives of the seven people on the board who actually vote on district matters.
@Sharon: You said...
"It could be that my words might even turn into something good--you are just don't know. They might even lead to a TV show that will make the district look good."
So you are willing to take the credit for the District feeling the need to do a news show to counter negative and untrue stories. Is that something to be proud of?
No, Emerge, not really (the timing is interesting). I am amused by the idea, however--such a program from a district that won't televise its meetings in a timely fashion or allow public comments. I think that it is not to the district's credit that its history of not being transparent makes such a program necessary. Of course, a "staged" program will not lead the public to have any more trust in the district. Frankly, I don't think they will be countering negative and untrue stories--they will be putting a positive spin on things that some feel are negatives. This is all about PR--nothing more or less.
Jon, the purpose of the whole charter school movement has been to break the union--that's not my opinion; that's a fact. Also, questioning political motives is far different than questioning personal motives. I guess that you believe that public officials should be able to do whatever they please with public money without having any detractors. We are now in a political season where all manner of unfair statements are being made about public officials--that isn't anything close to who I am or what I do. Fair game is disagreeing with Obama's policies and political stands (although I don't disagree with him); unfair play is questioning his place of birth and his own profession of faith.
Emerge, do you think that you are always objective about all things District 150? You have made all manner of accusations about District 150 teachers without offering any proof. My focus is on administration; yours is usually on teachers--that is our prerogative. You have established a blog of your own just so that you can present your views and offer others the opportunity to offer theirs. I have accepted your attacks on me in return for the privilege of speaking for myself.
Emerge, you have yet to acknowledge that this whole post was based on a bit of misinformation--and you made no effort to check out the facts before writing the post. I was, in no way, a founder of District Watch. In fact, for, at least, a year after DW was begun, I didn't even speak at board meetings. I was writing to board members.
"I guess that you believe that public officials should be able to do whatever they please with public money without having any detractors."
Ughh, I've said, over and over, that's it's OK to criticize, speak at board meetings, etc. What I'm asking is that those criticisms be better informed, without conjecture and follows a process that is respectful and most helpful.
We disagree on how to best achieve those goals and the consequences of current actions.
OK, Jon, there was no conjecture about my comments. Essentially, I asked, is there a district tardy policy or isn't there? What on earth is conjecture about that? I was not asking if it was true that someone is beating his wife or stealing money, etc. I asked a simple question. Then I asked if students were being led to believe that there are consequences for being tardy? No one has answered that question yet? Obviously, I answered my own question--when 129 students were allowed to have 1100 tardies in one semester, I guess they know there are no consequences. I have no regrets for raising questions about something that important in a school district. Let me ask you, Jon, should students suffer no consequences for being tardy?
Also, why should I be more informed than the superintendent or the board is--obviously, none of them knew enough about board policy to contradict me right then and there when they had the chance. I think the district now needs to decide if policies or practices are going to be district wide or site based. Dr. Lathan is now trying to making reasons for suspensions uniform and they made the dress code uniform--but they have a tardy policy that is site-based. Do you see anything wrong with that picture?
I'll repeat it again. You said:
"Now for the latest 150 rumor. I have heard that the district is no longer keeping tardy records for students—which would, also, mean no consequences for being late to class. Is this rumor or fact?"
You didn't simply ask if there was a district policy. You suggested that there are no tardy records being kept and no consequences for being late to class. That was conjecture and it turned out to be false.
With as many policies, laws, requirements that ANY school district faces, it is near impossible for school personnel or board members to be able to address on the spot every single question posed to them.
First off - you weren't more informed as to any tardy policy (district wide or school based) at the time you asked the question. And obviously some teachers didn't know it either. (and it's not as if teachers haven't given out tardies) So, if you're a teacher and you don't know, you ask your instructional supervisor - and if that answer doesn't sound correct, you do a little homework and go back to your instructional supervisor for clarification, based on what you've learned. It's called communication and it's a two way street. And if you're still not satisfied, you go above that person and you explain why.
I stated before (on CJ's blog, at length) that I didn't see anything wrong with a site based tardy policy. I understand why suspensions should be more uniform (a lot of which has to do with the Illinois School Code) and, personally, I'd rather see dress codes site-based (just as I'd rather see a lot more decisions site-based and more choice) And, of course, there should be some consequences for being tardy.
@Sharon Crews said...
"I was, in no way, a founder of District Watch. "
I stand corrected, the fact that you are so vocal makes one feel like you were there from the start.
Emerge, please remember why I am so vocal--I have nothing to lose except criticism from you and Jon; those for whom I speak whether for two, ten, a hundred--number doesn't matter--do not feel that free.
I guess I should understand your "feel like" since Jon criticizes me because he thinks that I use feelings instead of facts on which to base my comments.
Jon, glad to hear some words that sound like agreement (consequences for tardies), but since some schools may not choose to have consequences, I think that site-based isn't working.
I wonder how long we can keep this worn-out discussion going.
By the way, Jon, a teacher did ask his/her instructional leader if tardies should be recorded--that's what prompted my comment.
Remember, also, that there are some new principals in the district--don't you think that by October they should have been informed about policies regarding attendance, tardies, and discipline by now--we're talking about some very important issues. I would think these issues would have had top priority at one of the first principals' meetings.
To correct an error - Sharon states - "from a District that won't....allow public comments". That is just wrong. Not rumor. Not conjecture. More like a lie she wants to perpetuate. Comments are always welcome, just not currently being broadcast live.
Dist 150 parent (maybe--identity withheld), I did err grammatically. Instead of such a program from a district that won't televise its meetings in a timely fashion or allow public comments.: I should have used the word "televise" twice to state "or to televise public comments." As an English teacher, I certainly should be more careful to say what I mean (as my students used to say and I will use the same excuse, "but you knew what I meant." Equating this with a lie is a stretch.
So, what is the point of all this... (above discussion)?
Are we as residents, parents and teachers not allowed to criticize a system that is failing to meet its obligations to the students it was chartered to serve?
Public schools were created to serve "All the Children of All the People".
Charlie, is that really the conclusion (not allowed to criticize...) that you came to?
I accidentally hit enter on that last one - j is Jon
I think the point was that Jon feels that Sharon's approach to some D150 issues is rushed. He wants Sharon to at least try to contact the district employee first before she goes straight to the board and airs her concerns. As a current teacher, I appreciate that we have a retiree that can advocate for us, but I do see Jon's point. I believe that Sharon might be just as effective if she would use her earned clout to first contact Wisconsin ave. first about some issues. The tardy issue would be one such issue.
Sharon, I really do appreciate your advocacy, but sometimes your methods are the equivalent of backing a student into a corner. You will get the result you want, but then there is a loser in the situation.
RHSteacher--You're right; I did throw that comment in at the very end of my speech because of something I had heard very recently. However, that is an exception to all my other speeches at board meetings. I rarely speak on anything for which I don't have solid FOIA'd information--all facts based on data that District 150 has given me. However, I do draw conclusions from the data. And I will probably find out more about the way tardiness is handled in District 150 in the same manner.
My message is a day late–so is District 150. I forgot to send my usual Friday reminder of the District Watch meeting at Monical’s on Lake and Knoxville at 6 p.m. on Sunday, October 24. District 150 has a brand new website format–but I couldn’t find the board agenda which usually goes up on Friday at 4 p.m. It might be hidden somewhere on the new format–if someone else finds it, please let me know.
Post a Comment