9.1.15 Notes from the Aug. 27 BOE meeting

recallshirtHere’s an update from last Thursday’s Jeffco School Board meeting, just in time to be prepared for the Sept. 3 regular meeting this Thursday.

JCEA contract

The board did approve the JCEA contract on a 5-0 vote but the mood was anything but celebratory. Lesley Dahlkemper and Jill Fellman both expressed their disappointment in the contract’s short 10-month duration, with Dahlkemper stating she knew of no other organization that would spend six months and 150 hours to negotiate a contract that would only last for ten. She also pointed to the waste of taxpayer money (spent on a facilitator who would agree to stream and record the negotiations) that could have been funneled back to the classroom.

Fellman also said she thought everyone had better things to do than continually negotiating a contract when the process would need to start over again in five months. Nevertheless, both agreed that it was better to have a contract in place with appropriate protections for class size and more, which is why they voted for it.

Ken Witt, John Newkirk and Julie Williams, predictably, considered the contract a success. Why? Well for one, all three praised the factor that it was shorter. Seriously? Were people complaining about the number of pages? Did reading all the pages hurt their poor little heads? It’s hard to understand where the inherent victory is in shorter when they spend so much time saying student learning needs to be more rigorous.

Williams also cheered the fact that it had less pages (not that you’re surprised) and said the contract was easier to understand for every “layperson.” Huh? Again, the irony that a school board majority who harps on improving student achievement wants their own material dumbed down so they can understand it.

This 5-0 vote is not a victory but a challenge. Our teachers only have a contract through June 30, but if we want our great teachers to stay here in Jeffco, we need to turn things around in this district by November 3.

We need to get the word out about the recall and about the candidates we support for school board: Amanda Stevens and Ali Lassell to fill the seats that Fellman and Dahlkemper are leaving, and Brad Rupert, Susan Harmon and Ron Mitchell to fill the recalled seats.

SPAC and board committees

A proposal to split the current Strategic Planning Advisory Committee (SPAC) into two committees was presented by district staff. SPAC has been a WNW target for some time now, though the proposal presented on Thursday night seems to have support from SPAC members (besides the usual “minority report” character, even).

One member of SPAC wrote to JCSBW and shared that the request to modify the workload of SPAC came from last year’s SPAC members and not from the board. Among the concerns was that they often didn’t have the time they wanted to be able to adequately analyze and discuss the many issues on the agenda.  That member said she was pleased by the way the workload and emphasis would be divided between the two committees. Both will need to be monitored closely to prevent the majority of members from being board appointees.

The idea is this: the committee would be split into the District Accountability Committee (DAC) and would still be chaired and led by parent members. It would focus on the district’s Unified Improvement Plan and the many other accountability measures required by law. The second committee would the Strategic Planning Advisory Planning Committee, which would focus only on strategic planning, leaving the accountability work to the other committee.

The current parent chair and chair-elect, Julie Oxenford-O’Brien and Orin Levy, would chair the new DAC. The new SPAC would need to be organized, but district officials said they want to get the DAC organized first. Under the new reorganization, DAC would be a board committee, and SPAC would be a superintendent committee.

Witt immediately said that he wants to make sure all DAC members are approved by the board. Williams had her usual laundry list of demands about posting the scheduled meetings (which are already posted), streaming and recording all meetings, including a majority and minority report, reporting to the board on a regular basis, etc.

Williams also questioned one change in the bylaws that would allow the DAC to remove members who didn’t attend on a regular basis or who bullied or threatened other members. The co-chairs explained that they didn’t have a problem with dissenting opinions, but that members needed to express dissenting opinions in socially-appropriate ways (known to parents the world around as “use your inside voice, don’t interrupt and be polite”) — something that certain SPAC members have failed to do at recent meetings. Naturally, Witt also questioned the measure and said that expelling members will be subject to board approval.

Newkirk wanted to go for the nuclear option and start from scratch to create an entirely new DAC. Predictably, he had “worked up some language,” and even more predictably, he had not sent it to other board members before the meeting because well, why show your cards, right? (Oh right, transparency.) He proceeded to read his ideas, including the idea that once they choose new members, the new members should write all the DAC bylaws. Elliot pointed out that what Newkirk proposed was essentially what the district was doing, minus the bit about wiping out all the members and starting over.

Witt also jumped on Newkirk’s plan, arguing that a group of people doing all the same things didn’t sound new to him. McMinimee defended the district proposal. Newkirk responded by proposing that not only should they wipe the slate clean, the new DAC should start its work with only the six members required by law, despite McMinimee’s detailed discussion of how they had looked at comparable districts like Boulder, Cherry Creek and Douglas County, and all of those also had large DAC committees due to their size. Elliot pointed out that the six member requirement was a minimum for small districts who might otherwise have trouble meeting that number. And at this point Dahlkemper jumped in, asking what problem Newkirk was trying to solve.

That problem, of course, has been the elephant in the room during every WNW conversation about SPAC: they clearly want to replace some (or most!) of the current members with friends of theirs. No votes were taken, and the issue will be back on the Sept. 3 meeting, where you can use the public comment time to share your own opinions.

Facilities (the NW Arvada question)

It’s been a year since this board started talking about growing populations in north and central Jeffco, and yet most of those issues remain unaddressed. As you’ll remember from this spring, WNW refused to use Certificates of Participation to address the multiple growth issues in the county, instead choosing to keep $18 million from the classroom in order to build a school somewhere in the NW Arvada area. That led to another problem, which is that the district estimated they could build K-8 schools on two of the sites for $25 million, or a smaller K-6 school on a third site for slightly less.

Thursday’s presentation showed what the district could provide for $18 million, because it is possible (though unwise!) to build smaller schools at those sites under the $18 million budget constraint. The drawback, of course, is that current estimates show 6,000 to 7,000 new students needing seats in the NW Arvada area in the next six years. Building smaller schools on lots that could accommodate larger schools won’t save us in the long run. An argument could be made that those schools could be expanded down the road–but we’ll simply point to the situation at Sierra Elementary, also in NW Arvada–where parents and students have been waiting for just that for seven years, since the 2008 bond measure failed. The district has repeatedly said that Sierra needs to be a priority, but none of the three have discussed it at all.

The conversation in the board meeting was every bit as frustrating and idiotic as they’ve been in the past.

Steve Bell, Jeffco’s Chief Operations Officer, told the board that his goal is to open a new facility in the fall of 2017, and the options he was presenting were based on what they could do with an $18 million budget.

The issue: a project shortfall of 6,784 seats in the next five to six years in the “northwest corridor” (the area north of I-70 and west of Kipling). This area includes the new housing developments in Candelas, Leyden Rock and Whisper Creek (approximately 4,884 seats), as well as a number of smaller projects where “farmettes” in Arvada are now being developed into neighborhoods (1,900 seats).

That number could grow higher because they are beginning to see some neighborhood turnover in the area, as older families move out and younger families replace them. Schools impacted include Fairmount, Mieklejohn, Mitchell, Sierra, Van Arsdale, and Westwood Elementary, along with Drake and Oberon Middle School and Ralston Valley High School.

The three potential sties are Table Rock, located at 58th and Hwy 93, or the Candelas site or Leyden Rock site, both located in their respective subdivisions. The district has recommended Table Rock as the best location to build first, and continued to do so in their presentation.

Here’s what the district can do with $18 million:

  • Table Rock – 625 students in a PK-8 school
  • Candelas – 625 students in a PK-8 school, with room for additional buildings in the future (Bell said they would master plan that site before building)
  • Leyden Rock – 450 students in a K-6 school, plus an additional 6 months of construction time due to the challenging topography of the site

Bell had two goals: how to maximize the number of seats the district could get with $18 million, and how to impact the most schools positively. Based on those goals, he recommended the Table Rock site, or secondarily, the Candelas site.

And this is where the conversation got interesting.

Witt asked if Bell was suggesting that they should never build on the Leyden Rock site. Bell said they would need to build on that site, but under the current budget constraints and with the number of students expected, he wanted to maximize how the money was spent. The cost to build the Table Rock or Candelas schools is about $28,800 per student, but the Leyden Rock school will run about $40,000 per student.

Witt suggested that goals that maximized the use of money and impacted the most schools were not “shared values.” (Got it? Using money effectively to benefit children is not a value Ken Witt shares.) But Witt continued to press for the Leyden Rock site. Why?

Why build a smaller school that will take an additional six months to construct when other sites will provide seats for more students more quickly?

Why focus on Leyden Rock? There doesn’t seem to be any data that would suggest Leyden Rock is growing faster than Candelas, or that Leyden Rock will have a noticeably larger number of students who need a school than any of the other areas.

We have many theories about Witt’s obsession with Leyden Rock, and suspect that there’s $$$ involved somehow. Some have suggested potential real estate investments or ties to campaign donors who have financial interests in Leyden Rock. Some have also suggested that perhaps a new Leyden Rock school would not become a neighborhood school but a charter. Either way, we smell a rat.

The issue will be on this Thursday’s agenda as well, and district staff are recommending they build on the Table Rock site. What are the odds the board agrees? We think the odds are better that Witt or Newkirk pulls something out of their pocket (language they “worked up” or whatever they drew on a napkin) to propose an entirely new plan, while Julie Williams continues to push for a building that can be printed by a 3D printer.

Whatever happens, it won’t be dull.

Other agenda items for this Thursday’s meeting

The regular school board meeting is this Thursday and starts at 5:30 pm in the Education Center board room (5th floor) with a study session about master’s degrees and compensation, as well as “draft policy language for study by Board members regarding codifying equal funding and compensation in Board policy.” Witt is supposedly writing that language, though as of Wednesday morning it had not been posted (or written? Perhaps he’s waiting for the muse?).

Also on the agenda: a presentation about college and career readiness with a focus on ACT, AP and algebra results, a monitoring report on school safety, and a student based budgeting update. If you can’t attend, you can watch the live stream here: http://new.livestream.com/accounts/10429076/events/3542310

We also encourage you to write the board about issues that concern you at board@jeffco.k12.co.us, and to sign up to speak at public comment. Individual board member addresses are also listed on the Jeffco Schools website, though keep in mind that if you only write individual members, they are not required to respond nor do they have to include your message in the official board correspondence that is available for the public to read each month.

You have until 3:30 pm on Thursday to sign up to speak about agenda-related items on Part 1 or to sign up for non-agenda items on Part 2. Remember that you have, at most, 3 minutes for public comment (10 if a group), and that if there are enough speakers, your time will be reduced to 2 minutes or even 1 minute. Be prepared to only have one minute to speak (5 minutes if a group) because that is the most common scenario.

Keep watching and keep fighting, JeffCo!


 

8.27.15 BOE meeting tonight!

school-crossing

Yes, it’s that time again. It would appear the Jeffco School Board has finally finalized the meeting agenda, which has been modified more than once in the past few days. Here’s what you have to look forward to tonight:

 

– 2.01 Resolution: Negotiated Agreement–Jefferson County Education Association (JCEA) (EL-3)

JCEA’s membership ratified the agreement, so now it goes to a school board vote. Based on what we’re seeing further north in the Thompson School District, there’s plenty of good reason to suspect that Witt, Newkirk and Williams (WNW for those new to the school board majority shenanigans this year) had no intention of working out a tentative agreement, much less approving one. With the recall mechanisms in motion, however, perhaps they’re more incentivized than usual?

There’s a lot to not like (i.e., a ridiculously short 10-month contract and the money that will be spent to negotiate another contract next year). And yet there are some protections for class sizes and other important issues in place–which is always important for a group of ideologues who are convinced that 40 or 45 kids in a classroom is actually an ideal situation for kids.

2.02 Review of Board Committees (GP-12, 13)

This appears to be more monkeying around with SPAC, the Strategic Planning Advisory Council, who WNW appear to have been targeting since they took office. SPAC has been functioning as the state-mandated district accountability committee and the district’s lawyer and Superintendent McMinimee have confirmed that it meets the law’s requirements. Nevertheless, WNW want that committee under their thumb and this may be another move in that direction.

2.03 Facilities Planning Preview (EL-8, 11)

This item was listed on Monday morning without attached documents, removed, and since has been replaced on the agenda. (We know!)

This is one of multiple presentations the board has heard since August 2014 about the growing population in north Jeffco. It’s an issue that primarily affects the northwest Arvada area but is also affecting nearly all the Jeffco Schools north of I-70, as Steve Bell pointed out in one of his presentations last spring–and to which north Jeffco parents can testify.

The issue is due to a couple of factors, including the number of new housing developments: Leyden Rock, Candelas, Whisper Creek, and also smaller amounts of construction on what used to be small farms around Arvada, like the area just to the east of Majestic View Park near 72nd and Kipling.

A second factor is that Sierra Elementary in Arvada was due for phase 2 of a remodeling and expansion project, but the bond to move that project forward was on the 2008 bond referendum, which failed. Sierra families have brought this issue to the board repeatedly in past years, but WNW have ignored them. Completing phase 2 would add more seats to the area, but there are no plans to do that.

The third factor is that two schools in the Arvada/Westminster area were closed in 2012 as the district grappled with budget cuts. One of those now houses the Head Start program–and that will continue because Westminster tore down the building that Head Start had been using (also due to budget cuts which meant a lack of money to do the necessary maintenance and repairs to the aging structure). The other was Zerger Elementary, which remains unused. It has been suggested repeatedly as a possible option to deal with the growing number of students, but Bell said the building was stripped when they closed it down.

Reopening Zerger would require replacing not only the usual classroom furniture, but also chalkboards, projectors, and more. The school is also located about six miles away from Candelas, so if the plan was to send children from the area to Zerger, they would have a lengthy bus ride–assuming that parents chose to fork over the $150 for bus service.

Suffice it to say that no one is championing reopening Zerger, temporarily or otherwise, including Williams who continues to suggest that the district use an empty retail building, like a grocery store as a new school. (Fact check: the Leyden Rock and Candelas areas were empty fields before the housing developments were constructed. There are no empty grocery stores nearby, so it’s not exactly a feasible plan.)

What we do know: the board set aside $18 million to build a school, and it’s unlikely that WNW will budget from that number no matter what. We’ll try to post a review of the Certificates of Participation and construction costs issue in the district in the next couple of weeks.

2.04 Montessori Peaks Academy (EL-10, 13)

Last spring, a Jeffco family brought a number of issues regarding Montessori Peaks to the attention of the board. This item revisits the district’s investigation into the matter.

The meeting will be streamed, and the district is telling us this is the link: http://new.livestream.com/accounts/10429076/events/3542310

The meeting starts at 5:30 pm in the board room on the 5th floor of the Education Building (1829 Denver West Drive, Bldg. 27, Golden, CO). If you can’t be there tonight, please join us virtually on the live stream.

Don’t like what you see tonight? Write the board, sign up for public comment at the Sept. 3 meeting, and never forget:

Keep fighting, JeffCo!


 

8.27.15 Salary Increase – The Superintendent’s spin on almost no increase

orwellquote

Everyone can look at data and interpret it how they like, and the communication from the superintendent’s office today about Jeffco teacher salary certainly was one way of looking at the data about salary increases.  Here is another.

Italics denote the communication from McMinimee’s office.  Bold words represent one teacher’s perspective on this issue.

Teacher Compensation Increases in Jeffco Public Schools

Jeffco Public Schools values the efforts and dedication of its teachers and wants to attract, retain, and reward those who help students succeed and make classrooms soar. That’s why over the past two years, compensation for effective and highly-effective teachers has increased.

True, it has increased…but read on.

“Research has demonstrated that more effective teachers can produce bigger gains for our students, year over year,” said Amy Weber, Chief Human Resources Officer. “We want to be a district that hires and retains effective teachers and compensation is a part of that.”

This has been stated repeatedly, but with little actual evidence presented. Not to say it isn’t there, because here is a good study.  More evidence exists, however, for tying student performance to socio-economic conditions.

For the 2015-16 school year, the Board approved $15.6 million in compensation increases from $19.5 million in state funds. Compensation increases this year represent 80 percent of new money from the state. Included in this compensation are increased Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA) costs, which represent an increase of $3.7 million in 2014 and an expected $3.2 million this year. PERA is a state requirement that provides a retirement plan to Jeffco Schools’ employees. Implementation of the Affordable Care Act is mandated and ensures that all eligible Jeffco employees are offered healthcare coverage. Compliance with ACA also uses dollars that would be otherwise available for compensation.

True, but not all of this goes to teachers.  The compensation to just teachers was about $5.3 million directly.  Compliance with ACA means we may pay a penalty because the health care coverage offered by the district exceeds the mandate, so it is the penalty for getting a “Cadillac” plan. This should be negotiated with all the employees in the district.  The main problem with the statement above is that it implies $15.6 million is going to teachers alone, and clearly it is not.

“We made some difficult decisions around budget this year given competing budget priorities,” said Jeffco Superintendent Dan McMinimee. “Jeffco has dedicated the maximum dollar amount to compensation from money from the state without sacrificing resources for students and for building needs for increasing the capacity of the school district.”

Well yes, they decided to fund charter school equalization, which was not requested by many Jeffco residents, while refusing to use Certificates of Participation (COPs), to fund a K-8 school in north Jeffco. It may be all the money they freed up, but that was not their only option.

Due to the level of state funding and budgeting priorities, the performance-based compensation increases for 2015 will be, on average, one percent. Although this is lower than last year’s increase, it is the second year of increases following several years of salary freezes.

Yes, but certainly not in line with promises made when 3A passed (the 2012 mill levy override).  And while the average is 1%, is it worth mentioning that the district staff told the board that the Denver Area CPI was 2.8%?  So this represents falling behind inflation, in just one year, by 64%.

In real dollar terms it is a decrease.  In real emotional terms it is a kick in the teeth.

Implemented in the fall of 2014 by the Board, compensation in Jeffco for teachers is now tied to overall performance in the classroom, as measured by an evaluation rubric developed collaboratively with the District, staff, and Jefferson County Education Association, to ensure that all students have an effective teacher in every classroom. In the fall of 2014, “highly effective” teachers received the highest ongoing increase at 4.25 percent and “effective” teachers received a 2.43 percent on going increase last year.

The evaluation rubric was found to be untested for the basis for compensation increases, was found to have no reliability across schools, or even within schools, and a federal mediator recommended it not be used for evaluation, especially in a “hold harmless” year.  The biggest problem with this paragraph is its misdirection.  This happened last year, still did not catch up teachers from the pay freezes and inflation, and is used to get people to forget the prior paragraph.  Teachers will see on average 1%, but the majority will receive less than 1%.

“Jeffco Schools always wants to be able to reward its employees with greater compensation.  Obviously, a one percent raise is not as much as we would like to give, and we recognize that cost of living in Colorado has increased,” said Weber. “To ensure we keep our most effective employees in our classrooms, we are continuing to find ways to increase pay moving forward.”

Then when you bring a compensation plan forward to the board, put some real money behind it.  Regardless of who the board is, if the staff thinks there should be more money for compensation, then ask for it!

After research showed that Jeffco Schools was not as competitive in compensation with surrounding districts, Jeffco Schools also raised starting teacher salaries to $38,000 per year to attract the best teachers for its classrooms. As a result, and to make compensation more fair, compensation for hard-working, veteran teachers also increased to equal levels of new-hire pay, which was something that was not previously done. This means that many Jeffco Schools employees will see raises above the one-percent performance raises.

True, but the pay equalization only came after a hard fought battle in court, which the district lost, and negotiation with the teachers’ association.  Of course, the current communications contractor (Novitas) is not going to bring this up.  We just wanted to make sure our readers know that this came about after pressure, not as a gesture of good will.

The hard work and dedication of Jeffco Schools’ teachers and staff continue to make a huge impact on the lives Jeffco’s students, and Jeffco Public Schools is doing everything it can to reward those who make a difference in the classroom.

Editorial comment: they are doing everything they can to APPEAR that they are doing what they can to retain teachers.  But they are certainly not backing it up with actions.  The board is not required to submit its final budget to the state until next January.  If they really cared about retention, they would open compensation discussions immediately upon being seated after the election.  That would be a way to make a statement about change.

 Keep fighting, JeffCo!


 

7.9.15 In Her Own Words

Recently Jeffco Superintendent Dan McMinimee sent a communication to parents in which he denigrated teachers, saying that “dedicated teachers” were staying, indicating that he thinks teachers who leave are not dedicated.  Let’s hear some factual information instead from an extremely dedicated, highly qualified, and highly effective teacher from of Jefferson County’s excellent high schools.

I am a veteran science teacher with a degree in my field, over 10 years of experience, and a highly effective rating.  I chose to leave Jefferson County because I do not support the direction or the methods of Witt, Williams, and Newkirk.  I left for a district that values and supports its teachers, students, and community members.

The new pay scheme that was introduced by Witt, Williams, and Newkirk does not support the achievement of all students.  It makes it more difficult to teach at high poverty schools and to teach courses offered specifically for struggling students.  It gives teachers no incentive to continue their education.

Teachers need to learn from each other.  The new pay scheme pits teachers against each other to compete for the top scores on their evaluations.  It makes the relationships between teachers and administrators combative when it should be collaborative.

Witt, Williams, and Newkirk chose not to help our neediest students at the point in their schooling when it could make the greatest difference. They chose not to completely fund full day kindergarten to needy kids across the district.  They do not want to invest in our kids.

Due to their interest in a review of the AP US History curriculum, I am worried that Witt, Williams, and Newkirk will try to exercise more control over science curriculum.  I expect that they will try to impose their radical views on the teaching of what they consider to be controversial topics in science:  evolution, climate science, geology, and vaccinations.

Last year, Witt, Williams, and Newkirk showed that they have no intention of working with the teachers to come to agreement over the working conditions in schools.  They rejected the findings of a mediator and instead unilaterally imposed a compensation scheme on the teachers.

I am worried that future changes to the teachers’ contract will cause class sizes to increase.  I am worried that future changes to the teachers’ contract at the high school level will be expected to teach more class sections.  This will leave teachers with less time to work with individual students, develop engaging lessons, and provide feedback to students.

The propaganda machine at the district communications department will do its utmost to spin the facts.  Don’t let them bamboozle you.  Listen to the voices of the people who make up your child’s learning environment.

Note: To minimize retaliation against this teacher we are choosing to allow her to remain anonymous.

Keep fighting, JeffCo!


 

7.6.15 A Response to Skeptics

20100830193250!The_Scream

Some WNW supporters can’t handle the truth.

Last week, 9 News ran a story featuring Jeffco Exodus, a parent-run website and Facebook page chronicling the stories of teachers, administrators and staff leaving Jeffco. In it, one Jeffco resident questioned everything, including the turnover numbers from the Colorado Department of Education. One of our Jeffco teachers responded and shared her response with us and Jeffco Exodus.
We’ve printed her story below, and encourage you to share this with your friends and neighbors. Whether or not Horn truly wants to know the truth is an open question, but there are many Jeffco residents who are truly interested. Let’s make sure the rest of Jeffco keeps hearing the stories of teachers like Susan Coveyduck so they understand what is at stake.
Ms. Horn,
I saw your interview as part of the story broadcast by Nelson Garcia on 9 News the other night. It was about teacher mass exodus from Jefferson County schools. In the interview you posed a question that I thought I would politely answer for you. You also made a statement that I would like to address.
You wanted to know why Jeffco teachers are not happy that they’re getting a raise.  Well, first let me explain to you that I AM happy that the younger teachers in my district and the new hires are going to make significantly higher salaries in September, something that is more competitive with other districts. This is completely thanks to the MOU that my professional association negotiated with the school district.  This is finally some financial relief for about 1000 of the 5000 teachers in the district, about 20%.
The remaining 4000 teachers (80%) will be receiving a 1% increase. Since the average teacher in Jefferson County makes 52,000, after taxes this equates to about $38-$40 per month. Given that the rate of inflation is many times more than that, and that the recession depleted many of our savings, do you think this is sufficient to convince effective, highly effective and mastery level teachers to stay with the district? What if the other districts were offering a greater increase in salary? Denver public schools is offering OVER 5% to its teachers. Boulder County is offering 3% plus the cost of living increase that’s close to 3%. Does this sound like a competitive business model to you? I don’t think it takes an MBA to see that this is a bad design. You claim to be supportive of public education, but it would appear that instead you would promote a model which would destroy our schools. Is that what you want?
You made a statement in which you questioned the quality of the teachers who are choosing to leave. Do you think that Jeffco teachers would leave a paid position, especially if they have children, if they didn’t think that they had a competitive edge at getting a higher paid position?  I would respectfully suggest to you, Ms. Horn, that it will only be the most talented people competing for those highly desired jobs in other districts. The best teachers are leaving Jeffco schools, not the weakest. The weak would cling to their jobs for fear they might not find another.
I am an award-winning, mastery level teacher with 20 years of experience in Jefferson County schools. My current public school has performed in the top 10 schools in the STATE since it opened, 14 years ago. I could get a job anywhere I want. I would leave this year, I am so heartbroken by what is happening to my district, except I can’t afford to. The salary freeze that we agreed to and the subsequent loss of increase in salary due to the board majority has resulted in a loss of $20,000 to my household income. Thankfully, my husband is not also a teacher, or that pain would be double as it is for many Jeffco teachers. Instead, I will save as much as I can for the next two years and leave then. THIS EXODUS, AND THE FUTURE DEPARTURES WILL BE A HUGE LOSS TO THE DISTRICT.
Who will mentor the incoming teachers, teaching them superior methods, methods only learned through years of experience, trial and error?
I just thought you would like some answers to your questions. If you would like to speak more, with greater depth I would be happy to talk to you sometime. Unfortunately, I think many of the people who support this board majority don’t really understand what is happening on the inside. They are doing massive, hemorrhaging damage to a beautiful school district.
Susan Coveyduck, MA
Science Department Chair, Instructional Leader
8th Grade Science and STEM Elective
The Manning Option School, Golden 

Keep fighting, JeffCo!