|
| |
LPS "Shoot the Messenger" Examples
![[Under Construction]](images/undercon.gif)
"Shoot the messenger" (divert attention to the
bearer of "bad news") examples are identified briefly along with
hyperlink references to ICAN website pages and documents for additional
information.
Reactions to Sam Drury's March 24, 2005 "Citizens' Requests to Speak to the
Board" input with regard to "Citizens for Littleton Public Schools" (C4LPS)
issue committee violations of the Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA) during the
LPS 2004 Mill Levy Override election:
-
Sam's presentation of information:
- His March 11 one-page
letter
[PDF 32KB] to Nancy Doty, Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder.
- His March 23 one-page listing
[PDF 31KB] of examples of the noncompliance.
- Sam criticized the C4LPS issue
committee for
errors in FCPA election reports that were filed.
-
Board member responses:
- In nearly all cases when citizens have the opportunity to speak at a
regular meeting of the Board of Education, the only response is a "thank you"
from President Mary McGlone.
- This situation was different in that all
five members had responses (as shown by sequential verbatim excerpts from
the mostly-audible recording used to prepare the official minutes of the
meeting and reported on the
ICAN April 9 website page [PDF
43KB] on the March 24, 2005 BoE regular meeting).
-
Subsequent responses:
- March 31 Littleton Independent
article [PDF 52KB] ("Citizen calls mill-levy filing
into question"), which quoted a Board
member's criticism (which Sam called a "gross exaggeration") of Sam's input to
the Board during many previous Board meetings.
- Sam's April 12 seven-page handout of some information [PDF
366KB] about Sam's "agenda" and input to the Board.
-
ICAN April 26 website page [PDF
47KB] on the April 12, 2005 BoE regular meeting.
ICAN objects to "shoot the messenger" approaches by LPS officials to attempt
to divert attention from "bad news" such as previously-hidden student academic
achievement problems:
-
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001:
- ICAN believes that NCLB (No Child Left Behind) AYP
(Adequate Yearly Progress), the comprehensive
education reform law passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of Congress in
2001, is an excellent approach to
mandate public disclosure of below-grade-level performance and to force
development of effective corrective-action plans to improve student learning
in core academic subjects. [see
LPS NCLB AYP page]
-
Since the NCLB AYP by definition focuses upon children who have been left
behind, that measurement itself becomes the target to be blamed and discredited.
- Sam Drury has scolded LPS Board
members and superintendent for their behaviors regarding NCLB AYP (emotional,
negative, "can't do" attacks rather than objective, positive, "can do"
attitudes).
- Sam has warned the Board that an attempt to mobilize PTOs (Parent Teacher
Organizations)
against NCLB might be considered "political action" in violation of the
Colorado Fair Campaign Practices Act, jeopardize the federal IRS
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, and/or polarize school communities.
- LPS Board members, Superintendent Stan
Scheer, and many other Colorado “education establishment” officials have
continued a well-orchestrated “shoot-the-messenger” campaign to attack the
NCLB Act.
- Some LPS Board members and other district
officials portray LPS as the victim of the federal government in
general and the NCLB AYP requirements in particular. Other Board members
have seemed supportive of
the disparagement of NCLB.
- ICAN disapproves of inappropriate
responses by LPS officials during public presentations about failure to
meet some AYP requirements during the past two years and therefore being
placed by CDE on "Program Improvement" this year.
- Stan has pointed out that the nine large boxes on a cart
[JPG 415KB] in front of the
Board room for weeks held copies of a four-page
letter [PDF 355KB] that CDE
had prepared to be sent to all parents/guardians of LPS students.
- Stan's frustration with such "massive" AYP efforts was obvious from his
question: "How much value is all this stuff?" He went on to say: "There's nothing wrong with this school district.... It feels
punitive to me."
- He also mentioned that some states (e.g., Texas and California) have
much larger subgroup sizes; if Colorado had larger subgroup sizes (e.g.,
200 rather than the 30 used by Colorado), LPS would have made AYP.
However, ICAN has found out that most states use subgroup sizes between
five and 30 (30 is used by about one-third of the states).
-
ICAN November 13 website page [PDF
37KB] on the November 11, 2004 BoE regular meeting
-
ICAN January 24 website page [PDF
56KB] on the January 13, 2005 BoE regular meeting.
-
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS):
- Some LPS officials have complained
that these tests take "too much test time" (but the truth is that the ITBS complete battery takes less than six hours
total for all six principal subtests). [LPS
ITBS Issues]
- LPS does not publish any building-level ITBS/CogAT data
on the district website for the convenience of community members, who get only
some previous-year data in the LPS Annual Report
almost 12 months after the administration receives the test results. The
district website ITBS/CogAT data have not been updated since the November,
2002 results were disclosed (no trend information).
ICAN objects to administration's failure to make ITBS/CogAT data
promptly and easily accessible to taxpayers.
- At the January 14, 2004 Board of Education work session on the 2004-2005
budget (only five days after the November, 2003 ITBS/CogAT data were made
accessible for ICAN review), the administration proposed that there be a "moratorium" on ITBS/CogAT
testing. ICAN believes that proposal was another "shoot-the-messenger"
reaction to the objective evidence of the increasing percentage of
below-grade-level ITBS/CogAT performance of students who are being left behind.
- The November, 2004 ITBS/CogAT data confirmed that
the district has continued its overall downward trend in student
academic achievement as measured by these standardized tests. The ITBS testing is being discontinued after the November, 2004 tests.
-
Accountability systems:
- LPS Superintendent Stan Scheer has been quoted on the CASE (Colorado
Association of School Executives) Colorado Accountability Project website
page: "Having 3 systems of accountability has done nothing but confuse my
community." ICAN strongly agrees with the more-sensible
perspective of Accreditation, SARs, and NCLB as outlined on the
Colorado Education page.
- Senate Bill 05-214 (K-12 school
accountability) is a prime example of an attempt (supported by LPS and other
"education establishment" officials) to sabotage current accountability
systems. [see LPS "Obfuscate"
Examples page]
- Many LPS parents get the
impression of "so much testing" due to having tests spread out over weeks
rather than a few days.
ICAN believes that little, if any, special "practice" time (some would call
this time "teaching") should be needed for students who already have mastered
the curriculum to be tested. [see LPS ITBS
Issues page]
- LPS administration has admitted that the current total districtwide
large-scale assessment (CSAP, ITBS/CogAT, etc.) time is only 0% to 1.5% of
class time per grade level (which is well within the Board policy of up to 2%
of class time per grade level).
- Public criticism of state legislators by LPS officials since November,
2004 has diminished after the General Assembly control switched from
Republicans to Democrats for both legislative chambers. All House and Senate committee chairs and vice chairs
are Democrats; Democrats also are in the majority on all House and Senate committees.
Last modified:
07/06/2005
|
