Halloween is over and in a very late posting of the agenda, we have found numerous Halloween ‘tricks’ from WNW+M3 for District students and teachers at large with treats only for a favored few.
We review their mainly “Trick” agenda below.
But first, the Monday Do List!
Monday ‘Do’ List:
- Get all of your friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, strangers on the street to VOTE!
- If someone is not registered to vote, let them know they can (and should) register at a Voting Service Center and vote the same day!
- If you are not sure where to drop off your ballot, or where you nearest Early Voting or Election Day Voting location is, please check out the Google Map we created to help you find where you need to go! Jefferson County Voting Locations
- Review our new “Groups Opposing WNW’s Agenda” page. Pick one group and contact them, asking how you can help.
- After you are done with items 1-5 above, review the Meeting Prep below and make plans to attend this Board meeting.
- Sign up to speak at the meeting!
We will post the link to sign up as soon as it goes live at 10:00 a.m. Monday morning.The links went live at 10:20 a.m. this morning. Here is the link to speak on an Agenda Item (see our list below for Below are some subjects worth speaking out onthat cry out for Public Comment). Here is the link to speak on non-Agenda Items. Sign up quick!
Agenda Items That Need Public Comment:
- Agenda Item 5.13 – New Chief Legal Counsel/ HR Relations: Why does Craig Hess have absolutely NO school district experience? How on earth is he qualified?
- Agenda Item 6.01 – Alexandria School of Innovation Charter School Application: Why would the Board approve of a Charter school whose application is so flawed it did not even use the right District name throughout its application? And will be run by a for-profit company that got tossed out of the other school it created?
- Agenda Item 6.02 – Golden View Classical Charter School Application: How many exemptions are too many? And why do they fear parents so much that they made sure that parents can never take control of the Board?
- Agenda Item 6.04 – Superintendent Goals: How about some genuine goals on the order of the ones found here: 10/15 Post – Why Tomorrow’s BOE Meeting Will Probably Be Interesting…
- Agenda Item 7.01 – Hiring a Canadian company that specializes in Canadian municipal surveys to survey JeffCo on Education Spending? Huh????
- Agenda Item 7.02 – Curriculum Review Committee – Why is the Board ignoring the Denver Post, the Dallas Morning News, even the Caspar Star-Tribune and is going ahead with this censorship/indoctrination review committee?
BOE Thursday Meeting Prep:
When: Thursday November 6, 2014 at 5:30 p.m.
Where: 5th Floor Board Room, Education Center, 1829 Denver West Drive, Bldg. 27, Golden
(If you cannot attend, please watch via live video stream at: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/JeffcoBoardRoom)
Key Agenda Items
Agenda Item 1.02: Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) Discussion
Type: Discussion (estimated duration: 1 hour)
PRESENTING STAFF: Dr. Syna Morgan, chief academic officer, Dr. Carol Eaton, executive director, Instructional Data, Educational Research and Design
PURPOSE: For the Board of Education to receive information regarding the results of the Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) testing on Science and Social Studies.
BACKGROUND: The new Colorado Measures of Academic Success (CMAS) tests in science and social studies show that Jeffco students are exceeding the state averages in both subject areas according to results released by the Colorado Department of Education on October 27, 2014.
The CMAS tests measure student performance in a new way on the more rigorous Colorado Academic Standards and set a baseline for Colorado students.
The new tests measure performance against higher expectations for students and are given online for the first time.
Student performance falls into one of four categories in the CMAS assessment: 1) distinguished command, 2) strong command, 3) moderate command, and 4) limited command instead of the TCAP achievement categories of unsatisfactory, partially proficient, proficient, and advanced.
Attachments: CMAS_The New Baseline.pdf (1,997 KB)
Our Comments: Basically, this is the results of CMAS test. The big change seems to be in the classification terminology, i.e., no more ‘partially proficient’, but instead ‘moderate command’. Slides include comparison against state averages (where JeffCo is better in all circumstances) and against other Metro area Districts. When measured against the rest of the Metro area, JeffCo consistently outperforms DPS, Aurora, Colorado Springs, and Adams 12 schools. Jeffco also matches up very well with Cherry Creek, Littleton, and Boulder, sometimes a bit being higher, sometimes a bit lower. When compared to DougCo, JeffCo ranked higher (adding Distinguished and Strong Commands together) on 8th grade science and 7th grade social studies, tying DougCo on 4th grade social studies, and being lower than DougCo only on 5th grade science by only two percentage points.
From these results, if JeffCo should emulate anyone, it’s Boulder, Cherry Creek, and Littleton, not DougCo.
All that being said, we fully expect the spin from WNW+M3 to make it sound as if JeffCo is just below the lowest performing District in rural Alabama.
Halloween Trick Alert!
Agenda Item 5.13: Administrative Appointments
Adm. Employment – 11-14.pdf (13 KB)
Add’l Background – Administrative Appointments.pdf (17 KB)
Our Comments: Here is where WNW+M3 try to slide in their first little surprise. This item is in the Consent Agenda, where non-controversial items are grouped for rapid approval. Buried in the attachment Adm. Employment – 11-14.pdf (13 KB) you find for Administrative Appointment 6.C Chief Legal Counsel, Employee Relations one Craig Hess, effective last week.
For those who were are the January 16th Board Meeting, you probably remember how Witt, Newkirk, and Williams made a huge stink about how Dr. Stevenson put the hiring of a new Chief Legal Counsel on the Consent Agenda, and then proceeded to excoriate Dr. Stevenson for that temerity.
Some how, we do not think they will treat Mr. McMinimee doing the exact same thing the same way!
By the way, a quick Google search of Mr. Hess yielded his LinkedIn Page here. No Facebook page currently found. The one thing we noticed was that he has No Education!
Given WNW’s current hiring pattern, it is apparent that actual experience in the job is not a requirement for being hired.
Halloween Trick Alert!
Agenda Item 6.01: Alexandria School of Innovation Charter School Application
Type: Action (estimated duration: 30 minutes)
Attachments: Charter Application Review Committee for ASI – 9-9-2014 – Final.pdf (228 KB), Department Reviews of Rubric for Alexandria rev.pdf (568 KB)
Our Comments: We stand by our original comments: Approval of this charter application is a disaster waiting to happen.
There are so many things wrong with this application, it is not even funny. We will try to hit some of the most outrageous, but will assuredly miss some:
- The proposal was originally written for DougCo, then hastily converted to JeffCo. This is evident by the repeated references to “DougCo” instead of “JeffCo” in the original application. It was obvious they had not really reviewed the document prior to initial submission.
- Their plan assumes they will have 450 students to start! But only 150 have sent letters of intent, and it is unsure how many of them were for when the school was proposed for DougCo, not JeffCo.
- Their marketing efforts have been primarily in DougCo and Littleton, not JeffCo!
- They have no identified location for the school.
- Their budget counts on ‘soft money’, contrary to state guidelines.
- While the school is non-profit, the Brannbergs own the for-profit management company that would be ‘hired’ to run the school.
- Judy Brannberg would run the school despite having NO formal teaching or school administration experience!
- The Brannbergs have rigged the Board so that the parents CANNOT take control of the school…ever!
The stories that whirl around the Brannbergs are chilling. Charismatic, hyper-sales people, they sell others on the ideas by promising anything and everything. One example was at the public presentation they made to the Board. When asked about Free, Full-day Kindergarten, Judy Brannberg immediately said they would love to offer it. It took another, more informed member of the Alexandria team, to inform the Board that they could not answer that question, and that Judy did not understand everything that Free, Full-Day Kindergarten actually meant. And she is supposed to run the school?
With all that, we expect the application to be approved, 3-2. After all, WNW has shown time and again that they believe that training, experience, and proven competency are not essentials when it comes to educating children.
Halloween Trick Alert!
Agenda Item 6.02: Golden View Classical Academy Charter School Application
Type: Action (estimated duration: 30 minutes)
Attachments: Charter Application Review Committee for GVCA – 9-9-2014 – Final.pdf (215 KB)
Department Reviews of Rubric for Golden View rev.pdf (588 KB)
Our Comments: While we have definite problems with approving this school, competence in putting together the application is not one of them. Compared to Alexandria, this is an extremely well edited document. We do have significant problems with the political/philosophical orientation of this school.
Our first issue is that the structure of the school is such that it will become an extension of Hillsdale College’s Barney Charter School Initiative. Why?
- The teachers are to receive initial and continued training at Hillsdale College.
- The curriculum is prepared by Hillsdale College, and
- All new members of the Board of Directors are to be selected by the existing Board members, not by the parents.
This means that the school will effectively be under the control of Hillsdale College, not the parents of the students who attend. Hillsdale College
Our second issue can be found in section “O” of their application, Waivers they are requesting.
on page 14 of the Department Reviews document.
Some waivers are to be expected. But they should be around district policies on teachers, pay, Administrative training, etc. Golden View has those…and then a lot more!
They want to be exempt from restrictions on what material may or may not be in a school library.
- They want to be exempt from District Policy and State Law that prohibits teachers from selling things to their students without expressed permission of from the JeffCo School Board.
- They want to be exempt from providing Kindergarten.
- They want to be exempt from when, how, and what is taught about Human Sexuality.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on unlawful discrimination.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on Environmental and Safety programs.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on Data Security.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on Violence in the Work Place.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on Personal Records and Files.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on Health Education.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on Teaching about Drugs, Alcohol, and Tobacco.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on Teaching about Controversial/Sensitive Issue.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on Prevention of Bullying.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on Students Rights and Responsibilities.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on Student Organizations.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on Public Gifts/Donations.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on Public/Parent Concerns and Complaints.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on Public Concerns/Complaints about Instructional Resources.
- They want to be exempt from District policies on Relations with Parent Organizations.
In short, they want all the money from the state, the District, the community, and the parents in the form of tax dollars, but want to be exempt from anything and everything that would hold them accountable to that same state, the District, the community, the parents, and most of all, the students.
In short, the very thing our students objected to, that even the Denver post found going too far, will be handed on a platter to Hillsdale’s Golden View campus.
Agenda Item 6.03: Student Achievement – Third Grade Reading
Type: Discussion (estimated duration: 1 hour)
- With the Board of Education’s continued focus on student achievement, time was requested to discuss third grade reading performance toward meeting the Board of Education goal in Ends 1 Student Achievement to increase students’ third grade reading in TCAP from 80% to 85% by August 2015.
- Dr. Syna Morgan, chief academic officer, and Dr. Carol Eaton, executive director of Instructional Data in Educational Research and Design, will provide information on successful practices that have resulted in high reading achievement. School leaders will join Dr. Morgan and Dr. Eaton for the Board of Education discussion.
Our Comments: It will be interesting to see how the Board handles the most likely answers: Improve early reading abilities by focusing on Kindergarten and getting children ready for school. Also, highly experienced teachers, well supported by instructional coaches. Things they have already taken a stance on as opposing. Or will Dr. Morgan (the third “M”) cobble together something that sounds good but actually has no track-record and is meaningless?
Agenda Item 6.04: Superintendent Goals
Our Comments: Currently no attachments, although they are promised later today. What we expect is a slightly cleaned up version of the travesty of goals McMinimee presented three weeks ago, i.e., a promise to ‘show leadership’ with no actual hard goals, times, or measures. Be prepared for more bad acting from Newkirk.
Halloween Trick Alert!
Agenda Item 7.01: 2015/16 Budget Development Community Engagement Tool
Type: Discussion (estimated duration: 20 min.)
- At the August 23, 2014, Board of Education meeting, staff presented recommendations for the 2015/16 budget development process.
- A component of that process is gathering community input on budgetary priorities. Staff engaged the services of Citizen Budget, an independent third party specializing in engagement and feedback of budgetary priorities, to develop the community engagement tool.
- On September 4, 2014, the Board provided input and approved the budget development process and timeline.
- Staff provided the Board with draft questions for the tool in the October 24, 2014, Weekly Update in preparation for input and revisions at the November 6, 2014, Board of Education meeting.
- Because discussion was moved from the October 16, 2014, Board of Education meeting, an overview of the engagement tool was provided to the Board in the October 17, 2014, Weekly Update.
- The purpose of this discussion is for the Board of Education to provide final direction and approval of the questions for the community engagement tool as part of the 2015/16 budget development process.
Our Comments: When you do not get the answers you want you have three options. The most intellectually and morally correct action is to accept the answers and adjust your perception of the world accordingly. A less moral and ethical response is to ignore the results and do what you want anyway.
We already know that WNW could not find the integrity to do the first, and chose the second last spring. This year, they plan on taking an even nastier and sneaker third option: change who is asking the questions until you get the answers you want.
FYI – Citizen Budget is a Canadian company. Their experience is in Canadian municipal budgets. They have one U.S. customer: Mankato, MN, a small town southwest of Minneapolis.
Why The SCREAM is an appropriate image…
Agenda Item 8.01: Policy Revision: GP-13 Committee Structure
Type: Action – estimated time: 10:25 p.m. (estimated duration: 2 minutes)
- Following Board direction on October 16 and other necessary updates, Board governance process (GP) policy 13, Committee Structure, is brought forward for Board adoption of revisions.
Attachments: GP13 Revisions.pdf (164 KB)
Our Comments: Remember the “Curriculum Review Committee” proposed by Julie Williams? Remember the protests our students made over the Board wanting to be able to exercise censorship and implement political/ideological indoctrination? Remember how almost a hundred students, parents, and community members spoke against it? Remember how Julie Williams said that she did not want to raise “little rebels”, and how Witt called the students “pawns”? Remember Fox News calling them “punks”?
Well, this is the ‘policy change’ that will put everything our students, you, and our community fought against into action. This is the creation of the mechanism that gives Julie Williams everything she wanted.